«Human rights activists have warned of the oppressive lengths Russia is willing to go to silence its critics. They claim that when it comes to quashing dissent, the Kremlin gives security forces “carte blanche.”»
«During a press conference in the Russian capital on Thursday, leading human rights activists from the Moscow Helsinki Group condemned the treatment of Anastasia Shevchenko, the coordinator of nongovernmental organization Open Russia»
«Shevchenko is currently under house arrest in the western city of Rostov for allegedly being a member of an “unwelcome organization.”»
«Activists say the charges against her are fabricated.»
«Activists are making the same demands for the case of the environmental activist Vyacheslav Yegorov, who is under house arrest in the city of Kolomna, outside Moscow»
* * * * * * *
Se delle persone cercassero di organizzare negli Stati Uniti delle manifestazioni a supporto del fatto che l’omosessualità sia una patologia psichiatrica, e che dovrebbe essere contemplata come reato dal codice penale, oppure che l’aborto non solo non sia un diritto, bensì sia un omicidio volontario, bene, quelle persone sarebbero immediatamente arrestate ed i media si scatenerebbero in ogni sorta di scandalizzato improperio.
In Russia Governo e società civile non ne vogliono sapere delle ngo e di quello che sostengono.
Ciò che le ngo denominano ‘diritti civili‘ altro non sono che reati.
Forse che non lo sapevano che ogni stato sia tenuto a reprimere i reati?
Il primo grande capo di accusa che l’Occidente muove a Mr Putin è quello di essere un russo che sta facendo gli interessi del suo paese.
Il secondo capo di accusa è di essere colto ed intelligente.
Se Mr Putin facesse gli interessi degli occidentali e fosse anche un fesso, un babbeo da poter menare per il naso, i liberal socialisti lo osannerebbero.
In dieci anni, lavorando come una formica, Mr Putin si è portato a casa più di 1,500 tonnellate di oro fisico.
«But nobody ever accused Putin of the lack of intelligence»
«Any accusations against this man only emphasize his ability for quick analytical thinking and making clear and balanced political and economic decisions»
«Therefore, Putin’s policy largely has always focused not so much on effect, but on efficiency»
«Very few people understand what Putin is doing at the moment. And almost no one understands what he will do in the future»
«Europe will not be able to survive without energy supply from Russia»
«Russia, having a regular flow of dollars from the sale of oil and gas, in any case, will be able to convert them to gold with current gold prices, depressed by all means by the West. That is, at the price of gold, which had been artificially and meticulously lowered by the Fed and ESF many times, against artificially inflated purchasing power of the dollar through market manipulation»
«China recently announced that it will cease to increase its gold and currency reserves denominated in US dollars»
«Analysis of the current monetary policy of China shows that most likely the dollars coming from trade, or a substantial chunk of them, China will quietly replace and de facto is already replacing with Gold.»
«Emphasis on the phrase “physical gold” is made because in exchange for its physical, not ‘paper’ energy resources, Russia is now withdrawing gold from the West, but only in its physical, not paper form»
«Putin has thereby started the countdown to the end of the world hegemony of petrodollar. Thus, Putin has put the West in a deadlock of the absence of any positive economic prospects»
«USSR rapidly sold gold during the fall of oil prices. Russia rapidly buys gold during the fall in oil prices»
«Leading Western economists are certainly aware of the severity of the predicament and hopelessness of the situation the Western world finds itself in, in Putin’s economic gold trap»
«How long will the West be able to buy oil and gas from Russia in exchange for physical gold?»
Accusations of the West towards Putin are traditionally based on the fact that he worked in the KGB. And therefore he is a cruel and immoral person. Putin is blamed for everything. But nobody ever accused Putin of the lack of intelligence.
Any accusations against this man only emphasize his ability for quick analytical thinking and making clear and balanced political and economic decisions.
Often Western media compares this ability with the ability of a grandmaster, conducting a public chess simul. Recent developments in US economy and the West in general allow us to conclude that in this part of the assessment of Putin’s personality Western media are absolutely right.
Despite numerous success reports in the style of Fox News and CNN, today, Western economy, led by the United States is in Putin’s trap, the way out of which no one in the West can see or find. And the more the West is trying to escape from this trap, the more stuck it becomes.
What is the truly tragic predicament of the West and the United States, in which they find themselves? And why all the Western media and leading Western economists are silent about this, as a well guarded military secret? Let’s try to understand the essence of current economic events, in the context of the economy, setting aside the factors of morality, ethics and geopolitics.
After realizing its failure in Ukraine, the West, led by the US set out to destroy Russian economy by lowering oil prices, and accordingly gas prices as the main budget sources of export revenue in Russia and the main sources of replenishment of Russian gold reserves. It should be noted that the main failure of the West in Ukraine is not military or political. But in the actual refusal of Putin to fund the Western project of Ukraine at the expense of the budget of Russian Federation. What makes this Western project not viable in the near and inevitable future.
Last time under president Reagan, such actions of the West’s lowering of oil prices led to ‘success’ and the collapse of USSR. But history does not repeat itself all the time. This time things are different for the West. Putin’s response to the West resembles both chess and judo, when the strength used by the enemy is used against him, but with minimal costs to the strength and resources of the defender. Putin’s real policies are not public. Therefore, Putin’s policy largely has always focused not so much on effect, but on efficiency.
Very few people understand what Putin is doing at the moment. And almost no one understands what he will do in the future.
No matter how strange it may seem, but right now, Putin is selling Russian oil and gas only for physical gold.
Putin is not shouting about it all over the world. And of course, he still accepts US dollars as an intermediate means of payment. But he immediately exchanges all these dollars obtained from the sale of oil and gas for physical gold!
To understand this, it is enough to look at the dynamics of growth of gold reserves of Russia and to compare this data with foreign exchange earnings of the Russia coming from the sale of oil and gas over the same period.
Moreover, in the third quarter the purchases by Russia of physical gold are at all-time high record levels. In the third quarter of this year, Russia had purchased an incredible amount of gold in the amount of 55 tons. It’s more than all the central banks of all countries of the world combined (according to official data)!
In total, the central banks of all countries of the world have purchased 93 tons of the precious metal in the third quarter of 2014. It was the 15th consecutive quarter of net purchases of gold by Central banks. Of the 93 tonnes of gold purchases by central banks around the world during this period, the staggering volume of purchases – of 55 tons – belongs to Russia.
Not so long ago, British scientists have successfully come to the same conclusion, as was published in the Conclusion of the U.S. Geological survey a few years ago. Namely: Europe will not be able to survive without energy supply from Russia. Translated from English to any other language in the world it means: “The world will not be able to survive if oil and gas from Russia is subtracted from the global balance of energy supply”.
Thus, the Western world, built on the hegemony of the petrodollar, is in a catastrophic situation. In which it cannot survive without oil and gas supplies from Russia. And Russia is now ready to sell its oil and gas to the West only in exchange for physical gold! The twist of Putin’s game is that the mechanism for the sale of Russian energy to the West only for gold now works regardless of whether the West agrees to pay for Russian oil and gas with its artificially cheap gold, or not.
Because Russia, having a regular flow of dollars from the sale of oil and gas, in any case, will be able to convert them to gold with current gold prices, depressed by all means by the West. That is, at the price of gold, which had been artificially and meticulously lowered by the Fed and ESF many times, against artificially inflated purchasing power of the dollar through market manipulation.
Interesting fact: the suppression of gold prices by the special department of US Government – ESF (Exchange Stabilization Fund) – with the aim of stabilizing the dollar has been made into a law in the United States.
In the financial world it is accepted as a given that gold is an antidollar.
– In 1971, US President Richard Nixon closed the ‘gold window’, ending the free exchange of dollars for gold, guaranteed by the US in 1944 at Bretton Woods.
– In 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin has reopened the ‘gold window’, without asking Washington’s permission.
Right now the West spends much of its efforts and resources to suppress the prices of gold and oil. Thereby, on the one hand to distort the existing economic reality in favor of the US dollar and on the other hand, to destroy the Russian economy, refusing to play the role of obedient vassal of the West.
Today assets such as gold and oil look proportionally weakened and excessively undervalued against the US dollar. It is a consequence of the enormous economic effort on the part of the West.
And now Putin sells Russian energy resources in exchange for these US dollars, artificially propped by the efforts of the West. With which he immediately buys gold, artificially devalued against the U.S. dollar by the efforts of the West itself!
There is another interesting element in Putin’s game. It’s Russian uranium. Every sixth light bulb in the USA depends on its supply. Which Russia sells to the US too, for dollars.
Thus, in exchange for Russian oil, gas and uranium, the West pays Russia with dollars, purchasing power of which is artificially inflated against oil and gold by the efforts of the West. But Putin uses these dollars only to withdraw physical gold from the West in exchange, for the price denominated in US dollars, artificially lowered by the same West.
This truly brilliant economic combination by Putin puts the West led by the United States in a position of a snake, aggressively and diligently devouring its own tail.
The idea of this economic golden trap for the West, probably originated not from Putin himself. Most likely it was the idea of Putin’s Advisor for Economic Affairs – doctor Sergey Glazyev. Otherwise why seemingly not involved in business bureaucrat Glazyev, along with many Russian businessmen, was personally included by Washington on the sanction list? The idea of an economist, doctor Glazyev was brilliantly executed by Putin, with full endorsement from his Chinese colleague – Xi Jinping.
Especially interesting in this context looks the November statement of the first Deputy Chairman of Central Bank of Russia Ksenia Yudaeva, which stressed that the Central Bank of Russia can use the gold from its reserves to pay for imports, if needed. It is obvious that in terms of sanctions by the Western world, this statement is addressed to the BRICS countries, and first of all China. For China, Russia’s willingness to pay for goods with Western gold is very convenient. And here’s why:
China recently announced that it will cease to increase its gold and currency reserves denominated in US dollars. Considering the growing trade deficit between the US and China (the current difference is five times in favor of China), then this statement translated from the financial language reads: “China stops selling their goods for dollars”. The world’s media chose not to notice this grandest in the recent monetary history event . The issue is not that China literally refuses to sell its goods for US dollars. China, of course, will continue to accept US dollars as an intermediate means of payment for its goods. But, having taken dollars, China will immediately get rid of them and replace with something else in the structure of its gold and currency reserves. Otherwise the statement made by the monetary authorities of China loses its meaning: “We are stopping the increase of our gold and currency reserves, denominated in US dollars.” That is, China will no longer buy United States Treasury bonds for dollars earned from trade with any countries, as they did this before.
Thus, China will replace all the dollars that it will receive for its goods not only from the US but from all over the world with something else not to increase their gold currency reserves, denominated in US dollars. And here is an interesting question: what will China replace all the trade dollars with? What currency or an asset? Analysis of the current monetary policy of China shows that most likely the dollars coming from trade, or a substantial chunk of them, China will quietly replace and de facto is already replacing with Gold.
In this aspect, the solitaire of Russian-Chinese relations is extremely successful for Moscow and Beijing. Russia buys goods from China directly for gold at its current price. While China buys Russian energy resources for gold at its current price. At this Russian-Chinese festival of life there is a place for everything: Chinese goods, Russian energy resources, and gold – as a means of mutual payment. Only US dollar has no place at this festival of life. And this is not surprising. Because the US dollar is not a Chinese product, nor a Russian energy resource. It is only an intermediate financial instrument of settlement – and an unnecessary intermediary. And it is customary to exclude unnecessary intermediaries from the interaction of two independent business partners.
It should be noted separately that the global market for physical gold is extremely small relative to the world market for physical oil supplies. And especially the world market for physical gold is microscopic compared to the entirety of world markets for physical delivery of oil, gas, uranium and goods.
Emphasis on the phrase “physical gold” is made because in exchange for its physical, not ‘paper’ energy resources, Russia is now withdrawing gold from the West, but only in its physical, not paper form. So does China, by acquiring from the West the artificially devalued physical gold as a payment for physical delivery of real products to the West.
The West’s hopes that Russia and China will accept as payment for their energy resources and goods “shitcoin” or so-called “paper gold” of various kinds also did not materialize. Russia and China are only interested in gold and only physical metal as a final means of payment.
For reference: the turnover of the market of paper gold, only of gold futures, is estimated at $360 billion per month. But physical delivery of gold is only for $280 million a month. Which makes the ratio of trade of paper gold versus physical gold: 1000 to 1.
Using the mechanism of active withdrawal from the market of one artificially lowered by the West financial asset (gold) in exchange for another artificially inflated by the West financial asset (USD), Putin has thereby started the countdown to the end of the world hegemony of petrodollar. Thus, Putin has put the West in a deadlock of the absence of any positive economic prospects. The West can spend as much of its efforts and resources to artificially increase the purchasing power of the dollar, lower oil prices and artificially lower the purchasing power of gold. The problem of the West is that the stocks of physical gold in possession of the West are not unlimited. Therefore, the more the West devalues oil and gold against the US dollar, the faster it loses devaluing Gold from its not infinite reserves. In this brilliantly played by Putin economic combination the physical gold is rapidly flowing to Russia, China, Brazil, Kazakhstan and India, the BRICS countries, from the reserves of the West. At the current rate of reduction of reserves of physical gold, the West simply does not have the time to do anything against Putin’s Russia until the collapse of the entire Western petrodollar world. In chess the situation in which Putin has put the West, led by the US, is called “time trouble”.
The Western world has never faced such economic events and phenomena that are happening right now. USSR rapidly sold gold during the fall of oil prices. Russia rapidly buys gold during the fall in oil prices. Thus, Russia poses a real threat to the American model of petrodollar world domination.
The main principle of world petrodollar model is allowing Western countries led by the United States to live at the expense of the labor and resources of other countries and peoples based on the role of the US currency, dominant in the global monetary system (GMS) . The role of the US dollar in the GMS is that it is the ultimate means of payment. This means that the national currency of the United States in the structure of the GMS is the ultimate asset accumulator, to exchange which to any other asset does not make sense.What the BRICS countries, led by Russia and China, are doing now is actually changing the role and status of the US dollar in the global monetary system. From the ultimate means of payment and asset accumulation, the national currency of the USA, by the joint actions of Moscow and Beijing is turned into only an intermediate means of payment. Intended only to exchange this interim payment for another and the ulimate financial asset – gold. Thus, the US dollar actually loses its role as the ultimate means of payment and asset accumulation, yielding both of those roles to another recognized, denationalized and depoliticized monetary asset – gold.
Traditionally, the West has used two methods to eliminate the threat to the hegemony of petrodollar model in the world and the consequent excessive privileges for the West.
One of these methods – colored revolutions. The second method, which is usually applied by the West, if the first fails – military aggression and bombing.
But in Russia’s case both of these methods are either impossible or unacceptable for the West.
Because, firstly, the population of Russia, unlike people in many other countries, does not wish to exchange their freedom and the future of their children for Western sausage. This is evident from the record ratings of Putin, regularly published by the leading Western rating agencies. Personal friendship of Washington protégé Navalny with Senator McCain played for him and Washington a very negative role. Having learned this fact from the media, 98% of the Russian population now perceive Navalny only as a vassal of Washington and a traitor of Russia’s national interests. Therefore Western professionals, who have not yet lost their mind, cannot dream about any colour revolution in Russia.
As for the second traditional Western way of direct military aggression, Russia is certainly not Yugoslavia, not Iraq or Libya. In any non-nuclear military operation against Russia, on the territory of Russia, the West led by the US is doomed to defeat. And the generals in the Pentagon exercising real leadership of NATO forces are aware of this. Similarly hopeless is a nuclear war against Russia, including the concept of so-called “preventive disarming nuclear strike”. NATO is simply not technically able to strike a blow that would completely disarm the nuclear potential of Russia in all its many manifestations. A massive nuclear retaliatory strike on the enemy or a pool of enemies would be inevitable. And its total capacity will be enough for survivors to envy the dead. That is, an exchange of nuclear strikes with a country like Russia is not a solution to the looming problem of the collapse of a petrodollar world. It is in the best case, a final chord and the last point in the history of its existence. In the worst case – a nuclear winter and the demise of all life on the planet, except for the bacteria mutated from radiation.
The Western economic establishment can see and understand the essence of the situation. Leading Western economists are certainly aware of the severity of the predicament and hopelessness of the situation the Western world finds itself in, in Putin’s economic gold trap. After all, since the Bretton Woods agreements, we all know the Golden rule: “Who has more gold sets the rules.” But everyone in the West is silent about it. Silent because no one knows now how to get out of this situation.
If you explain to the Western public all the details of the looming economic disaster, the public will ask the supporters of a petrodollar world the most terrible questions, which will sound like this:
How long will the West be able to buy oil and gas from Russia in exchange for physical gold? And what will happen to the US petrodollar after the West runs out of physical gold to pay for Russian oil, gas and uranium, as well as to pay for Chinese goods?
No one in the West today can answer these seemingly simple questions.
And this is called “Checkmate”, ladies and gentlemen. The game is over.
The Russian central bank decreased the share of dollars and euros in its international reserves in the year to March 2018, while lifting the share of gold in the reserves, the bank’s data showed on Monday.
The share of U.S. dollars in Russia’s state reserves declined to 43.7 percent as of end-March 2018 from 45.3 percent a year earlier, the central bank.
The share of euros in the reserves declined to 22.2 percent as of end-March 2018 from 25.7 percent a year before, while the share of gold rose to 17.2 percent from 16.4 percent, according to the central bank that usually reports the composition of its reserves with a six-month delay.
Il mercato mondiale delle armi ha fatturato nel 2017 226.6 miliardi di dollari. Gli Stati Uniti sono il primo fornitore mondiale con 129.16 miliardi (57%), mentre la Russia occupa il secondo posto con 37.7 miliardi (9.3%).
Fino a cinque anni or sono la Russia esportava armamenti per valori decisamente molto bassi.
Se è vero che negli ultimi anni la Russia abbia sviluppato sistemi d’arma efficienti e relativamente poco costosi, sarebbe altrettanto vero considerare la mutata strategia militare nel settore della vendita di armamenti.
«Russia’s second-place rank is significant because it proves just how popular its arms have become all across the world since the commencement of its 2015 anti-terrorist intervention in Syria, which showcased the effectiveness of its wares and generated immense global interest in them»
«Furthermore, the recent spree of S-400 sales to China,Turkey, India, and possibly even soon to Saudi Arabia too speaks to the demand that many different countries have for Russia’s defensive assets as well»
«Overall, Russia is being regarded across the world as a reliable military supplier that has no ulterior geopolitical motives in this industry»
«Unlike the US’ weapons sales which usually seek to disrupt the regional balance of power in favor of America’s main partner in the area, Russia’s arms exports don’t discriminate between countries and Moscow is oftentimes seen selling weapons to opposing pairs of countries such as Turkey & Syria, Armenia & Azerbaijan, Iran & Saudi Arabia, India & China, and China & Vietnam»
* * * * * * *
La Russia sembrerebbe avere come obiettivo strategico il mantenimento degli equilibri.
«in advance of Russia’s “military diplomacy” which seeks to retain the balance of power in order to discourage the outbreak of hostilities and encourage a diplomatic solution to regional issues»
«Correspondingly, it makes sense within this paradigm to sell weapons to rival states in order to ensure that neither of them gains an edge over the other as a result of American arms imports and is therefore enticed to aggressively pressure the other to advance the US’ designs in the region»
* * * * * * *
Al momento attuale non è stato dato di vedere un confronto diretto tra le due tipologie di armamento, ovviamente per fortuna del mondo.
In linea generale potremmo però notare alcuni fattori.
Gli armamenti russi si sono dimostrati essere allo stato dell’arte: i sistemi S-300 ed S-400 sono considerati essere quelli maggiormente flessibili ed affidabili sul campo operativo. La Nato ne ha sacro rispetto.
I russi hanno una grande abilità nel progettare sistemi di costruzione semplici, semplici ovviamente per la tipologia di arma. La meccanica dei loro aeroplani lascia estasiati. La conseguente manutenzione ne risulta essere facilitata e meno onerosa.
Altro tratto caratteristico degli armamenti russi è il basso costo di produzione rispetto gli Stati Uniti.
Infine, ampliando un concetto già espresso, la Russia non solleva questione etica o morale alcuna: basta che il cliente paghi e che i nuovi armamenti acquisiti non turbino gli equilibri locoregionali.
* * * * * * *
Il mercato delle armi è davvero complesso: spesso le esigenze della difesa prevalgono sulle attese di guadagno o su quelle di prestigio.
Sul mercato stanno però timidamente affacciandosi anche Cina, India e Pakistan. Per il momento sono armamenti locoregionali, ma soprattutto sono costruiti e resi operativi per costi del tutto stracciati.
Sicuramente gli armamenti americani sono quello che sono, ma alla fine il fattore costo potrebbe diventare determinante.
Facciamo solo un esempio. Un missile anti-nave inintercettabile ha un costo spropositato rispetto a dei missili alquanto vulnerabili, ma di infimo costo: diventa quindi sufficiente lanciarne un decina simultaneamente per ottenere l’affondamento a costi contenuti. È questa una opzione condizionante.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, an internationally acclaimed authority on the global arms trade and popularly known by its acronym as SIPRI, released its latest findings on Monday and revealed that Russia overtook the UK to become the world’s second-largest arms producer. According to their data, Russia sold approximately 9.5% of all global weaponry last year, which SIPRI said amounts to $37.7 billion and an 8.5%increase over 2016’s figures. Still, Russia trails far behind the US, which sold 57% of the world’s weapons last year worth around $226.6 billion, which was a 2% increase from the year prior.
In any case, Russia’s second-place rank is significant because it proves just how popular its arms have become all across the world since the commencement of its 2015 anti-terrorist intervention in Syria, which showcased the effectiveness of its wares and generated immense global interest in them. Furthermore, the recent spree of S-400 sales to China,Turkey, India, and possibly even soon to Saudi Arabia too speaks to the demand that many different countries have for Russia’s defensive assets as well. Overall, Russia is being regarded across the world as a reliable military supplier that has no ulterior geopolitical motives in this industry.
Unlike the US’ weapons sales which usually seek to disrupt the regional balance of power in favor of America’s main partner in the area, Russia’s arms exports don’t discriminate between countries and Moscow is oftentimes seen selling weapons to opposing pairs of countries such as Turkey & Syria, Armenia & Azerbaijan, Iran & Saudi Arabia, India & China, and China & Vietnam. This isn’t solely in pursuit of profit, however, but in advance of Russia’s “military diplomacy” which seeks to retain the balance of power in order to discourage the outbreak of hostilities and encourage a diplomatic solution to regional issues.
Correspondingly, it makes sense within this paradigm to sell weapons to rival states in order to ensure that neither of them gains an edge over the other as a result of American arms imports and is therefore enticed to aggressively pressure the other to advance the US’ designs in the region. By having its comparatively cheaper but highly effective arms compete with the US’ much more expensive and sometimes less effective ones, Russia is able to reduce the chances that America’s plans will succeed while simultaneously positioning itself as a neutral mediator for facilitating talks between rival parties, which is the essence of its “balancing” strategy.
Nell’ultimo quinquennio i russi hanno sviluppato un sistema tecnologico che consente la costruzione di missili ipersonici, ossia capaci di volare a velocità eguali o superiori ai 7,000 km/h anche nella atmosfera. Sarebbero anche in grado di mutar rotta ed eseguire manovre di disimpegno, sempre a quelle velocità.
Inutile dire che tutti i dettagli costruttivi siano un segreto militare particolarmente ben custodito.
“Non vi darò alcun dettaglio sui mezzi che utilizziamo per monitorarli, né vi darò alcun dettaglio sulle specifiche tecniche e sulle capacità di tali missili” ha detto il Generale alla stampa “ma posso dirvi che abbiamo osservato sia la Cina sia la Russia testare le loro capacità ipersoniche”.
* * * * * * *
Mr Putin ha in arsenale un numero elevato di missile allo stato dell’arte, uno per ogni possibile impiego bellico.
I missili ipersonici hanno la caratteristica di essere di ben difficile intercettazione, specialmente perché lasciano tempi minimali al soggetto attaccato. Al momento il modello su cui abbiamo la maggior quantità di informazioni è l’Iskander ed i sistemi da esso derivati.
Il missile Kh-47M2 Kinzhal (Pugnale), è un missile balistico aviolanciato sviluppato in Russia per armare gli intercettori MiG-31BM appositamente modificati per il ruolo aria-superficie.
Il “Kinzhal”, descritto come un missile balistico ipersonico aerolanciato di alta precisione, sarebbe una versione del missile superficie-superficie 9K720 Iskander, progettato sotto la direzione tecnica dell’ing. Valery M. Kashin (KBM Kolomna) e prodotto nello stabilimento Votkinsk.
Ad esso si attribuiscono una gittata massima di 2.000 km e una velocità durante l’avvicinamento finale al bersaglio tra 10.620 e 12.250 km/h (Mach 10), con la possibilità di compiere manovre evasive, ad alto numero di g, durante qualsiasi fase del volo; anche in assenza di indicazioni precise al riguardo, si ritiene che disponga di differenti tipi di testata: convenzionale, termonucleare, termobarica, a submunizioni e perforante/esplosiva per bersagli protetti. Esso è in grado di attaccare obiettivi fissi e colpire bersagli navali di grandi dimensioni, come le portaerei della U.S. Navy, ma anche le unità navali dotate del sistema AEGIS. Gli osservatori occidentali, peraltro, si dichiarano dubbiosi sulla gittata di 2.000 km e la valutano più prudenzialmente in 1.500 km. Nel 2018 è stata costituita una squadriglia con sei MiG-31BM così modificati, ad Akhtubinsk, nel distretto militare meridionale, con l’obiettivo di arrivare a dieci-dodici aerei ad organico completo entro la fine dell’anno. Si ritiene Che il lancio sperimentale finale per l’omologazione del Kh-47M2 si sia svolto il 10 marzo; in precedenza erano stati compiuti più di 250 voli “captive” (per verificare la compatibilità aerodinamica tra missile ed aereo, senza lancio). È possibile che fino a 50 MiG-31 possano essere adattati a questo ruolo, principalmente per l’assegnazione ai distretti militari orientali con vocazione all’impiego antinave.» [Fonte]
Di questi tempi ecco arrivare la notizia di un ulteriore test del sistema Avangard, presente questa volta il Presidente Putin.
«The Avangard (also known as Objekt 4202, Yu-71 and Yu-74) is a hypersonic glider, developed by Russia, that can be carried as a MIRV payload by the UR-100UTTKh, R-36M2 and RS-28 Sarmat heavy ICBMs. It can deliver both nuclear and conventional payloads. The system entered service in March 2018, and was unveiled by Russian President Vladimir Putin as one of the six new Russian strategic weapons.
The Avangard (then called Yu-71 and Yu-74) was reportedly tested during a series of flight tests between February 2015 and June 2016 on board the UR-100UTTKh ICBMs launched from the Dombarovsky ICBM site during which the glider reached a speed of 11,200 kilometres per hour (7,000 mph; 3,100 m/s). Targets at the Kura Missile Test Range were successfully hit.
Another flight test was carried out in October 2016, using an R-36M2 heavy ICBM launched from Dombarovsky, hitting a target at the Kura Missile Test Range. This was reportedly the first fully successful test of the glide vehicle.
On 1 March 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin in his presidential address to the Federal Assembly in Moscow announced, that testing of the weapon is now complete and that the missile has entered serial production.
The Avangard is powered by a scramjet engine that accelerates it up to Mach 20. When approaching a target, the glider is capable of sharp high speed evasive maneuvers in flight making it “absolutely invulnerable for any missile defence system”. According to Russian President Putin, Avangard strikes “like a meteorite, like a fireball”»
* * * * * * *
La velocità dei veicoli ipersonici li rende armi potenzialmente devastanti: la loro elevata manovrabilità significa che i sistemi di difesa tradizionali potrebbero essere completamente inefficaci contro di loro e lasciare alle nazioni attaccate meno tempo per pianificare o eseguire un contrattacco.
– Putin tells cabient that weapon to be deployed in 2019
– U.S. media reported some previous tests ended in failure
President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday he witnessed a final test of a hypersonic glide vehicle, one of a series of new weapons that will be able to overcome existing and future defenses.
“The test was a success,” Putin told government officials after the test, which was conducted in Kamchatka in the Far East and monitored from Moscow by the president and other officials. “Russia has a new kind of strategic weapon.”
He said deployment of the glide vehicle, called Avangard and launched from intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), will begin next year. It can carry conventional or nuclear weapons and maneuver past defenses, according to Russian officials.
The weapon was one of several that Putin touted in his state-of-the-nation speech early this year as Russia’s answer to U.S. missile defenses. He said Avangard “heads for its target like a meteorite.”
(ANSA-AP) – MOSCA, 26 DIC – Il presidente russo Vladimir Putin ha presenziato personalmente al test, coronato da successo, della nuova arma nucleare a “planata ipersonica” Vangarde dalla sala di controllo del ministero della difesa. Lo dice il Cremlino. L’Avangard, lanciato con un missile vettore intercontinentale, è in grado di trasportare una testata atomica e di planare come un aliante a grande altitudine, slittando sugli strati più densi dell’atmosfera a Mach 20 (20 volte la velocità del suono) per poi colpire obiettivi lontani senza essere intercettata dai sistemi antimissile Nato.
Sarebbe sufficiente dare un’occhiata alla carta geografica.
Il Mare di Okhotsk è delimitato a nord dalle rive siberiane orientali, ad est dalla Penisola di Kamchacta che si protende verso sud per quasi mille kilometri, mentre ad ovest l’Isola di Sakhalin è disposta da nord a sud per quasi ottocento kilometri. Lo sbocco verso il mare libero dell’Oceano Pacifico è bloccato dalla catena di Isole Kurili. Chi abbia il controllo militare delle Kurili governa gli accessi al mare di Okhotsk.
Qualche nota aggiuntiva.
L’Isola di Sakhalin è ricchissima di giacimenti minerari: oro, argento, titanio, ferro e carbone. Negli ultimi anni sono stati individuati giacimenti di petrolio e gas naturale, che sembrerebbero essere tra i maggiori del mondo.
Le isole Kurili furono occupate dai russi negli ultimi giorni della seconda guerra mondiale e, finita la guerra, tutti i giapponesi abitanti nell’Isola di Sakhalin, quattrocentomila circa, furono deportati, mossa questa che si dimostrò essere lungimirante.
* * *
Se questi sono gli elementi geopolitici locoregionali, si dovrebbero considerare anche molti altri elementi internazionali. Anche se il Mare di Okhotsk è racchiuso prevalentemente da coste russe, attraverso gli Stretti Kurili potrebbe essere raggiunto da flotte di altre nazioni. È del tutto comprensibile che una simile opzione risulti essere sgradita ai russi.
Ecco quindi che Mr Putin ha deciso di rafforzare in modo significativo la presenza militare russa nelle Kurili.
«Russia said on Monday it had built new barracks for troops on a disputed chain of islands near Japan and would build more facilities for armored vehicles, a move likely to anger Tokyo after it urged Moscow to reduce its military activity there»
«The announcement, from the Ministry of Defence, said Moscow planned to shift troops into four housing complexes on two of the four disputed islands, known as the Southern Kurils in Russia and the Northern Territories in Japan, next week»
«Tokyo says it is concerned by what it regards as an unhelpful Russian military build-up on the islands – which has included warplane, missile defense and other deployments. Moscow, meanwhile, says it is perturbed by Japan’s roll-out of the Aegis Ashore U.S. missile system»
«In the meantime, Moscow is fortifying the islands»
«The Defence Ministry said on Monday it wanted troops and their families to move into the two new housing complexes on one of the four islands, Iturup (Etorofu in Japan), and into two others on the island of Kunashir (Kunashiri in Japan), on Dec. 25»
* * * * * * *
Questa fotografia delle Kurili illustra benissimo la mentalità russa, che accetta e non rinnega il proprio passato.
MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia said on Monday it had built new barracks for troops on a disputed chain of islands near Japan and would build more facilities for armored vehicles, a move likely to anger Tokyo after it urged Moscow to reduce its military activity there.
The announcement, from the Ministry of Defence, said Moscow planned to shift troops into four housing complexes on two of the four disputed islands, known as the Southern Kurils in Russia and the Northern Territories in Japan, next week.
The news came after the Kremlin said Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe might visit Russia on Jan. 21 as the two countries step up a push to defuse the territorial dispute to allow them to sign a World War Two peace treaty, something the disagreement over the Pacific islands has long prevented.
There was no immediate reaction from Japan. Tokyo said in July it had asked Russia to reduce its military activity on the islands, a plea Moscow dismissed as unhelpful megaphone diplomacy at the time.
Soviet forces seized the four islands at the end of World War Two and Moscow and Tokyo both claim sovereignty over them. Diplomats on both sides have spoken of the possibility of reviving a Soviet-era draft agreement that envisaged returning two of the four islands as part of a peace deal.
President Vladimir Putin and Abe have held numerous face-to-face meetings to try to make progress.
But tensions have remained high. Tokyo says it is concerned by what it regards as an unhelpful Russian military build-up on the islands – which has included warplane, missile defense and other deployments. Moscow, meanwhile, says it is perturbed by Japan’s roll-out of the Aegis Ashore U.S. missile system.
Russian politicians say they fear Japan might agree to deploy U.S. missile facilities on the islands if it ever got any of them back and that Moscow could only countenance a deal if it received a cast-iron guarantee that ruled out such a scenario.
In the meantime, Moscow is fortifying the islands.
The Defence Ministry said on Monday it wanted troops and their families to move into the two new housing complexes on one of the four islands, Iturup (Etorofu in Japan), and into two others on the island of Kunashir (Kunashiri in Japan), on Dec. 25.
It said troops were moved into two such similar facilities last year with three more barracks planned for 2019.
“Also on both islands we have modern and heated storage facilities for weapons and armored vehicles,” the ministry said in a statement, adding that more such facilities were planned.
I russi hanno un segreto che nessuno è mai riuscito a violare.
Come siano riusciti a concepire, progettare, costruire e rendere operativi un così grande numero di sistemi missilistici allo stato dell’arte ed il tutto in così poco tempo. Le sigle sono note, o dovrebbero, però cercheremo di sintetizzare.
Novator 9M729 – SSC8
«Ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM), Road-mobile, Length 6 – 8 m, Diameter 53.3 cm, Single warhead 450 kg, range 500 – 5,500 km. …. Russia reportedly began covert development of the SSC-8 in the mid-2000s, and started flight testing in 2008. It was first test fired in July 2014. It was again reportedly test fired on September 2, 2015, although U.S. officials said it did not fly beyond the 500 km INF range limit. …. In February 2017, U.S. officials reported that Russia had deployed two SSC-8 missile battalions …. Each battalion includes four launchers, and each launcher is supplied with an estimated six missiles.» [Fonte]
È un missile balistico tattico di corta gittata, 415 km, lungo 7.28 m, diametro 91.4 cm, monostadio a propellente solido, capace di viaggiare oltre i 7,000 km/h. Ciascun missile costa 4.75 milioni di dollari.
Costituisce una famiglia di missili da crociera tipicamente anti – nave, capaci di viaggiare a 10 – 20 metri sopra il pelo dell’acqua, con raggio di azione dai 50 km fino ai 2,500 km. Sua caratteristica è quella di muoversi a velocità subsonica in fase di avvicinamento ed ipersonica in fase di attacco. Ha una precisione inferiore ai tre metri ed è in grado di attuare manovre di disimpegno anche alla massima velocità.
Può essere lanciato da sommergibili e navi, ma anche da aerei quali il Tu-142s. Si riporta che, date le piccole dimensioni, sia installato in container su navi apparentemente da carico.
S-400 ed S-500.
Gli S-400 sono una famiglia di missili anti – aerei con raggi di azioni variabili dai 40 km ai 400 km. Sono lanciabili da rampe mobili e sono ritenuti essere allo stato dell’arte. Cosa notevole, un battaglione di S400 (8 lanciatori, 112 missili, radar mobili, centrale di tiro e supporto logistico) costa solo 400 milioni di dollari. Si riporta che sia anche in grado di intercettare missili balistici.
S-500 è una famiglia di missili anti – missili balistici. Dovrebbe avere un raggio operativo attorno ai 600 km. Anche se la data di consegna dovrebbe essere stata stabilita nel 2020, si presume che un certo numero sia già operativo.
* * * * * * *
Se i missili S-400 ed S-500 sono chiaramente difensivi, la vocazione difensiva / offensiva del Kalibr sarebbe molto discutibile. Al contrario, Iskander ed Ssc8 sono chiaramente missili offensivi.
Nessuno si scandalizzerebbe se le loro portate fossero ben maggiori di quanto ufficialmente riportato.
* * *
L’invelenirsi della crisi politica dell’ultimo quinquennio ha esitato in un mutato atteggiamento e schieramento militare.
«Lithuania’s Linas Linkevicius tells DW that Russia has been violating the terms of the INF nuclear arms treaty. He says action is necessary to force all parties to comply with the agreement. ….
Russia has deployed Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad Region. These missiles can also be set up to carry nuclear warheads.»
La bega è semplicissima.
Gli americani accusano i russi di aver messo a punto missili di portata ben superiore al limite dei cinquecento kilometri previsti dai trattati, ed i russi altrettanto.
Di certo vi sarebbero solo alcuni elementi.
– Sia gli Stati Uniti sia la Russia avrebbero missili atomici di raggio corto, ma ben superiore a quello stabilito nei trattati.
– Il vero pericolo di questi sistemi d’arma consiste nel fatto che, volando a velocità ipersoniche, sono non intercettabili oppure intercettabili in maniera del tutto parziale. Non solo, almeno nel teatro europeo, i tempi di individuazione e risposta sarebbero ridotti al rango di meno di cinque minuti primi. In poche parole, un attacco di sorpresa andrebbe immediatamente a segno.
NATO and the United States have increased their pressure on Russia over its alleged violation of the INF treaty. What is known about the Russian missile at the center of the allegations?
In October, US President Donald Trump threatened to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which bans all land-based missiles with a range of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (310 miles to 3,400 miles). After the NATO foreign minister summit in Brussels on Tuesday, the military alliance came out on Washington’s side and also accused Russia of breaching the INF treaty. The US has given Russia a 60-day ultimatum to comply with the treaty. Otherwise, the US will abandon the INF agreement for good.
The dispute centers around the Novator 9M729 missile system, which carries the NATO designation SSC-8. The US has recently shared its intelligence on the weapons system with NATO. Several media reports have also shed light on the Russian weapon.
How it all began
In late July 2014, The New York Times first broke the news that Washington had a suspicion Russia might be violating the INF treaty. It said that the then president, Barack Obama, had sent a letter to his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, on the matter. The paper claims Russia began testing the new missile system as early as 2008. The New York Times also reported the Obama administration had hoped to reach a compromise with the Russians by not publicly accusing them of violating the INF agreement. On Tuesday, the US State Department said five confidential talks between arms experts had been held since 2014 over the missile system. Yet it claims Russia had denied, concealed and spread lies about the new missile.
The Trump administration then went public with the name of Russia’s new missile system that allegedly violates the INF treaty. On November 29, National Security Council official Christopher Ford announced at Washington’s Wilson Center that Russian missile manufacturer Novator had created the new 9M729 weapons system. Novator, which belongs to Russian state-owned arms company Almas-Antei, has in the past developed Russia’s sea-launched Kalibr cruise missile, and a state-of-the-art nuclear-powered intercontinental missile.
How the 9M729 missile system was developed
There are barely any technical details available about the 9M729 missile system and its development. US Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats was the first to provide technical specifications of the weapons system in late November, saying that Russia began developing the missile in the mid-2000s.
Novator had reportedly been tasked with creating a weapons system “with great similarity” to missile systems under development at the time, such as the tactical road-mobile Iskander missiles, which can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads. The ballistic Iskander missile and guided Kalibr rocket could have served as the basic model for the new weapons system.
Coats said Russia had run an elaborate missile trial program until 2015. The INF treaty does allow for certain mid- and long-range missile systems to be tested on land, provided they are designed for use in the navy or air force. Coats claims Russia used this INF clause to hide the real purpose of the 9M729 missile system.
“If Coats’ account is accurate, then it is evident Russia tried to conceal its attempt to test a land-based missile for a range prohibited under the INF agreement,” said Russian journalist and military expert Alexander Golz. He believes the US claims are plausible.
9M729: A direct threat to Europe?
US authorities have not named the 9M729’s official range but they are convinced the rocket violates INF provisions. Steven Pifer, a disarmament expert at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, shares this view. “I would doubt the Russians would violate the treaty just to develop a missile that slightly exceeds 500 kilometers in range,” Pifer told DW. “I once gauged its range at 2,000 kilometers but that was just an estimate.”
Washington believes the new missile system could be ready for deployment. In February 2017, The New York Times reported on Russian units equipped with new missile systems operating at Russia’s Kapustin Yar rocket launch and development site near Volgograd, and at another unnamed location. National Intelligence Director Coats confirmed that several units had been detected, warning that they pose a “direct threat” to most of Europe and parts of Asia. US observers have said that these rockets are very similar to existing weapons systems: they are compact, mobile and difficult to trace.
How Russia is responding
In December 2017, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, for the first time admitted the existence of the 9M729 missile system. But she said no weapons systems violating INF provisions had been developed or tested. Responding to NATO’s recent accusations and the 60-day US ultimatum, Zakharova insisted Russia is fulfilling all contractual obligations.
Giorni fa tre navi ukraine si sono avvicinate alle acque territoriali russe al largo di Kerc: i russi le hanno cannoneggiate e quindi catturate.
È scoppiato il finimondo.
Mr Macron e Frau Merkel avrebbero voluto invadere immediatamente la Russia, poi hanno dovuto desistere non disponendo di esercito. Si sono limitati a parole grevi, minacciando l’ulteriore inasprimento delle sanzioni, salvo restando che la Russia continui a far arrivare in Europa il gas naturale.
Il commento migliore è stato quello del presidente Trump.
«President Trump said Wednesday that he “didn’t like” Russia’s capture of three Ukraine naval vessels and called on European leaders to “get involved” — but stopped short of leveling any criticism at Vladimir Putin for ratcheting up tensions in the region»
«We’re going to see, we’re going to find out what happened. I didn’t like the incident and we’re getting a report on what’s going on»
«”Angela, let’s get involved Angela!” he added, referring to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, exaggerating the pronunciation of her first name»
«The president said that France should also get involved, but didn’t elaborate on what actions the two countries»
«There was a question — was a warning given? Did they [the Ukranian vessels] let them know they’re coming through? Because they have a system I guess. It’s been working»
* * * * * * *
«Ci sarebbe una domanda da porsi. È stato dato un avvertimento? L’Ukraina aveva fatto sapere ai russi che stanno arrivando? Perché hanno un sistema, credo. »
Questo è il vero quesito da porsi.
L’Ukraina aveva o meno avvisato i russi che delle sue navi da guerra, in realtà tre vecchie carrette, si sarebbero avvicinate a Kerc?
I soliti malpensanti potrebbero anche malignare che tutto ciò che è successo sia stato fatto a posta al solo fine di impedire oppure rendere più difficile il summit in programma tra Mr Trump e Mr Putin.
President Trump said Wednesday that he “didn’t like” Russia’s capture of three Ukraine naval vessels and called on European leaders to “get involved” — but stopped short of leveling any criticism at Vladimir Putin for ratcheting up tensions in the region.
“We’re going to see, we’re going to find out what happened. I didn’t like the incident and we’re getting a report on what’s going on,” Trump told The Post during a 36-minute Oval Office interview.
”Angela, let’s get involved Angela!” he added, referring to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, exaggerating the pronunciation of her first name.
The president said that France should also get involved, but didn’t elaborate on what actions the two countries — which have both criticized Russia, as has UN Ambassador Nikki Haley — should take.
“It shouldn’t happen, it shouldn’t happen,” Trump said.
But at the same time he noted: “There was a question — was a warning given? Did they [the Ukranian vessels] let them know they’re coming through? Because they have a system I guess. It’s been working.”
Meanwhile, the Kremlin said Wednesday it still expects a meeting between Putin and Trump to go ahead as planned despite a suggestion from the president that it could be canceled.
Trump said Tuesday that he may cancel the sit-down with Putin at the G-20 meeting in Argentina following Russia’s seizure of the three Ukrainian ships last weekend.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that the meeting was on and that Russia has not received “any other information from our US counterparts.”
Putin’s foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov, noted that the meeting, which is set for Saturday, has been prepared through official channels and Moscow expects Washington to notify it of any changes in the same way.
“This meeting is necessary for both sides,” Ushakov said. “It’s important in view of the developing situation in the world.”
The long-simmering conflict between Russia and Ukraine burst into the open on Sunday, when Russian border guards fired on three Ukrainian vessels and seized the ships and the crew.
Trump said he would be receiving a “full report” from his national security team on Russia’s recent actions in eastern Ukraine and the Black Sea, and would decide afterward.
Il grande Gilbert Chesterton lo aveva detto quasi un secolo fa:
«…terminerà. Non potrà non terminare, perchè si basa su una bugia.
Proseguirà fino al suo apice. Seguirà l’inevitabile declino.
Allora inizierà una nuova grande marcia. La marcia della ricostruzione intellettuale. La marcia del ritorno alla realtà. Tutto ciò che è reale sarà affermato.
Tutto ciò che non è reale sarà negato.
Ridiventerà ragionevole affermare le pietre della strada; ridiventerà un dogma fideista negarle.
Sarà di nuovo una forma dissennata di misticismo dire che siamo tutti immersi in un sogno; sarà di nuovo razionale asserire che siamo tutti svegli.
Noi saremo lì.
Attizzeremo i nostri fuochi per testimoniare che due più due fa quattro.
Sguaineremo le nostre spade per dimostrare che le foglie sono verdi in estate.»
* * * * * * *
La devoluzione delle ideologie liberal e socialista ha come diretta conseguenza che nuove persone e differenti modi di vedere stanno loro subentrando al governo delle nazioni occidentali. Privi del potere statale, e delle sovvenzioni che da esso discendono, anche gli intellettuali liberal si stanno avviando al declino. Tutto richiede il suo tempo, vi sono ancora moltissimi focolai di resistenza e centri di potere, specie poi a livello parastatale, ma il trend è segnato.
Poi, con la scomparsa politica di Frau Merkel, in Europa e nella Unione Europea sparisce un grandioso bastione a sostegno di quelle ideologie, che oramai possono contare soltanto sul protoplasmatico Mr Macron, di cui verosimilmente avrebbero fatto volentieri a meno.
Sta estinguendosi la più robusta ed accanita schiera di negatori professionali e cronici dell’evidenza dei fatti. Al suo posto sta subentrando lentamente ma implacabilmente una nuova generazione orgogliosa e fiera del proprio retaggio religioso, storico, culturale e sociale. Ossia proprio di ciò che liberal socialisti avversavano odiandolo di odio mortale.
«Immortale odium et numquam sanabile vulnus.»
Questa frase di Giovenale, Satire 15, 34, fu incisa sulla medaglia massonica commemoratrice dei torbidi legati alla traslazione della salma di San Pio IX.
Ma, ce lo si ricordi sempre bene, si è prima depravati nella mente e nel cuore, e solo dopo nell’agire, anche in quello sessuale. Ben dipinge Virgilio il sentimento di quanti si facciano caricatura di femmina:
«Notumque furens quid femina possit» (Aen, 5, 6).
Uno dei pilastri portanti delle ideologie liberal e socialista è l’odio verso la religione cristiana, odio che arriva al punto di negarne la stessa esistenza. Conseguentemente, esse negano quell’evidenza dei fatti delle radici cristiane dell’Europa, come se fosse facile nascondere le cattedrali gotiche oppure l’arte pittorica tardo medievale.
Mr Putin, di cui tutto può essere detto tranne che sia poco intelligente, ben ha razionalizzato questa situazione.
«Vladimir Putin says the adoption of Christianity more than 1,000 years ago in territory that later became Russia marked the starting point for forming the Russian nation itself»
«Putin’s comments came Saturday in a ceremony marking the 1,030th anniversary of the adoption by Christianity by Prince Vladimir, the leader of Kievan Rus, a loose federation of Slavic tribes that preceded the Russian state»
«Christianity was “the starting point for the formation and development of Russian statehood, the true spiritual birth of our ancestors, the determination of their identity. Identity, the flowering of national culture and education.”»
Vladimir Putin says the adoption of Christianity more than 1,000 years ago in territory that later became Russia marked the starting point for forming the Russian nation itself.
Putin’s comments came Saturday in a ceremony marking the 1,030th anniversary of the adoption by Christianity by Prince Vladimir, the leader of Kievan Rus, a loose federation of Slavic tribes that preceded the Russian state.
Speaking to thousands of clergy and believers at a huge statue of the prince outside the Kremlin, Putin said adopting Christianity was “the starting point for the formation and development of Russian statehood, the true spiritual birth of our ancestors, the determination of their identity. Identity, the flowering of national culture and education.”
The comments underline the strong ties between Putin’s government and the Russian Orthodox Church.
Il presidente della Russia indica la «cristianizzazione» come matrice identitaria del Paese, della sua forza e del suo protagonismo storico. Critiche e allarmi dai circoli che in passato sostenevano con slancio le «battaglie culturali» per riaffermare le radici dell’Occidente
Domenica scorsa, nelle chiese della Russia, dell’Ucraina e di altri Paesi un tempo compresi nell’impero russo, tanti cristiani hanno celebrato la festa per i 1130 anni dal battesimo del principe Vladimir il Grande nelle acque del fiume Dnepr, rinnovando anch’essi le proprie promesse battesimali. Anche il presidente russo Vladimir Putin ha approfittato dell’anniversario di quell’evento storico – celebrato come l’inizio della conversione al cristianesimo degli slavi orientali – per ripetere con forza che proprio l a “cristianizzazione” del Gran Principe dell’antica Rus’ di Kiev e dei suoi sudditi rappresenta anche l’atto fondativo della «statualità russa», e la radice perenne che nutre l’identità del popolo russo e la sua missione storica nel mondo.
Putin – che dell’antico monarca battezzato a Cherson nel 988 porta anche il nome – ha riaffermato il legame a suo giudizio viscerale tra cristianesimo e identità russa intervenendo alla cerimonia svoltasi domenica a Mosca, alla presenza del patriarca Kirill, presso il monumento dedicato al principe Vladimir. Il discorso presidenziale, calibrato in ogni parola, ha riproposto ai massimi livelli la «cristianizzazione» come matrice identitaria della Russia, della sua forza e del suo protagonismo storico.
Seguendo i passi del “Principe guerriero”
La conversione al cristianesimo – ha insistito Putin nel suo intervento – è stato «il punto di partenza per l’istituzione e lo sviluppo della compagine statale russa», la vera «nascita spirituale» che ha determinato l’identità e l’autocoscienza «dei nostri antenati», e ha anche irrigato «la prosperità della cultura e dell’educazione nazionale», favorendo «legami multiformi con altri Paesi». Anche il protagonismo storico del popolo russo, secondo Putin, non ha la sua genesi in vittorie militari o pulsioni egemoniche, ma in quell’evento con «portata civile» e «potere spirituale trasformante» che ha «predeterminato la secolare strada della Russia e ha avuto effetto sul suo intero sviluppo globale». Lodando la saggezza e la lungimiranza degli avi che “scelsero” il cristianesimo di tradizione bizantina, Putin si è anche soffermato sulla figura del principe Vladimir, il «guerriero» che «affrontò crudeli scontri e prove», e sotto la cui guida «furono costruite chiese, monasteri, città, scuole e biblioteche», animato dall’intuizione che il cristianesimo avrebbe fornito supporto morale e le basi per «consolidare l’unità e l’identità dei popoli che abitavano l’antica Rus’».
L’onda “cristianista” in versione russa
Le suggestioni contenute nel discorso di Putin dedicato al principe Vladimir non sono nuove. Parole e concetti analoghi erano stati espressi da “zar” Putin già cinque anni fa, quando aveva potuto celebrare i 1025 anni dalla conversione della Rus’ di Kiev proprio nella capitale dell’Ucraina, allora retta dal presidente “amico” Viktor Yanukovich. Da allora, con la crisi ucraina e l’intervento militare diretto in Siria, a cambiare sono stati la rilevanza geopolitica della Russia e i rapporti con molti Paesi della Nato. Negli interventi della leadership russa e anche degli esponenti più in vista del Patriarcato di Mosca – il patriarca Kirill e il metropolita Hilarion – si accentuano i toni di misticismo patriottico, quelli che esaltano l’Ortodossia russa come “anima” e scrigno dell’orgoglio identitario nazionale.
In ambienti occidentali aumentano allarmi e critiche verso l’utilizzo del cristianesimo come fattore coagulante della propria identità etnica, culturale e di civiltà. Eppure, mutatis mutandis, accenti e linee di pensiero degli attuali apparati russi mostrano evidenti assonanze con quelli utilizzati per decenni anche in Occidente da settori politici e anche ecclesiastici – dall’“Action Francaise” fino alle lobby neo-con di matrice nordatlantica – avvezzi a valorizzare e ridurre il dinamismo cristiano a principio religioso di identificazione culturale.
Durante la guerra di Corea, nel suo messaggio natalizio del 1951, il presidente USA Harry Truman identificava l’auspicato trionfo sul fronte coreano con la vittoria iniziata nel mondo con la nascita di Gesù: «Noi – diceva Truman rivolto soprattutto ai soldati del suo Paese – saremo forti solo se conserveremo la fede, la fede che può muovere le montagne e che, come dice San Paolo, è sostanza di cose sperate e evidenza di cose non vedute. La vittoria che raggiungeremo ci è stata promessa tanto tempo fa, nelle parole del coro degli angeli che cantavano sopra Betlemme: “Gloria a Dio nell’alto dei cieli, e sulla terra pace e buona volontà agli uomini”».
Certe parole d’ordine ora in auge nella leadership putiniana rappresentano la versione russa di tendenze presenti anche in altri mondi. Pulsioni identitarie sempre esposte al rischio di contraffare le parole cristiane in chiave ideologica o di ridurle a fattori di produzione e ispirazione culturale.
Tra i critici del nuovo identitarismo misticheggiante pan russo figurano in prima linea anche settori ecclesiali e culturali che pure, negli ultimi decenni, erano militanti entusiasti delle battaglie culturali per riaffermare la rilevanza del cristianesimo come radice culturale fondativa della civiltà occidentale. Segno che forse le pulsioni identitarie di marca russa risultano indigeste a molti soprattutto per ragioni di banale allineamento con gli assi delle proprie militanze. E sudditanze “geopolitiche”.
«Saudi daily production increased to 11.2 million barrels»
«”Let’s go lower,” Trump tweeted to the Saudis last week»
«Saudi Arabia is pumping more crude than at any time since its first barrel was extracted 80 years ago, responding to pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to keep driving oil prices lower»
«Brent crude, the global benchmark, already tumbled as much as 33 percent since early October, Trump a week ago tweeted: “Thank you to Saudi Arabia, but let’s go lower!”»
«Prices have slumped as the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Russia increase supply close to a record, at a time when traders are fretting about slowing growth in demand in emerging markets, particularly in Asia.»
«Trump has repeatedly used Twitter to ask Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members to boost production»
«More recently Trump has compared lower oil prices to a tax cut and a tool to keep inflation low, giving the U.S. Federal Reserve the opportunity to stop raising interest rates»
* * * * * * * *
«U.S., Saudi Arabia and Russia increase supply close to a record»
Difficile dire che non sia intervenuto un accordo tra questi tre grandi produttori.
* * * * * * * *
Ma ci sono anche altri elementi al contorno. Uno spicca per la sua attualità.
«German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday called the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul a “monstrosity” and vowed to halt all German arms exports to Riyadh until the case is cleared up. »
La differenza è semplice. Mr Trump sta governando il mondo, mentre Frau Merkel sta apprestandosi a far fagotto e tornare a casa a fare la calza.
– Saudi daily production increased to 11.2 million barrels
– “Let’s go lower,” Trump tweeted to the Saudis last week
Saudi Arabia is pumping more crude than at any time since its first barrel was extracted 80 years ago, responding to pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to keep driving oil prices lower.
Saudi daily output reached 11.2 million barrels a day, from 10.8-10.9 million barrels earlier this month, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified because the data is private. While Brent crude, the global benchmark, already tumbled as much as 33 percent since early October, Trump a week ago tweeted: “Thank you to Saudi Arabia, but let’s go lower!”
The surge in Saudi supply comes two weeks before the kingdom and its allies in the OPEC+ group meet in Vienna to set policy for 2019. Negotiations have already started and will likely intensify later this week at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, where the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Russia and their oil ministers are scheduled to meet. The two nations are the world’s biggest crude exporters.
“In the past, G20 summits have provided the opportunity to negotiate informally the broad contours of the production agreements that OPEC+ members have later ratified,” Amrita Sen, chief oil analyst at Energy Aspects Ltd. in London, said in a note to clients.
Drill Baby Drill
Saudi oil production hits an all-time high above 11 million barrels a day
Brent fell last week to a one-year low of $58.41 a barrel, down from a four-year high of $86.74 in early October. Prices have slumped as the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Russia increase supply close to a record, at a time when traders are fretting about slowing growth in demand in emerging markets, particularly in Asia.
Trump has repeatedly used Twitter to ask Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members to boost production. In January, Saudi production was below 10 million barrels. More recently Trump has compared lower oil prices to a tax cut and a tool to keep inflation low, giving the U.S. Federal Reserve the opportunity to stop raising interest rates.
Saudi output has also been rising as the kingdom seeks to ensure enough supply as Iranian exports slump following the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions. Buyers of Saudi crude ordered more barrels in early October to guard against a sudden plunge, although in the end the U.S. administration granted more waivers than anyone was expecting.
It’s unclear whether Riyadh plans to keep boosting output and a Saudi oil official declined to comment. The surge this month also means that the kingdom is effectively setting a high baseline for any future cut in output. Saudi Arabia has already said it supports a drop in output and has pledged to reduce oil exports by 500,000 barrels a day in December, compared with November.
Key decision makers will be at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires later this week, in a meeting that may well decide the direction of oil prices in 2019. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who have been working together to manage the oil market for the past two years, both plan to be in the Argentinian capital.
“Both have a common interest in seeing a production cut to mitigate the potential future surplus created by the mismatch between the rise in OPEC+ output and the volume of waivers issued for Iranian oil,” Jeffrey Currie, the head of commodities research at Goldman Sachs Inc., told clients in a note.
Resisting Trump’s desire for lower oil prices would require the Saudi crown prince to go against the White House, just after the president publicly backed him following the killing of Saudi national and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.
Khalid Al-Falih and Alexander Novak, the Saudi and Russian energy ministers, are also scheduled to travel to Buenos Aires, according to people familiar with their plans. Their presence reinforces the impression that Saudi Arabia and Russia will try to reach a deal before the OPEC meeting a few days later.
“We believe OPEC+ countries will come to an agreement despite recent tweets from the U.S. arguing for lower oil prices,” Currie wrote.