Che cosè la nuova “Iniziativa dei Tre Mari” ? What is the new “Three Seas Initiative” all about ?

Dall’alleanza del 1991,  dei 3 Stati ex-comunisti (Ungheria, Cecoslovacchia ed Ungheria, poi divenuti 4 dopo la separazione consensuale di Rep. Ceca e Slovacchia), conosciuta col nome di  “Gruppo Visegrád” (che significa “castello in alto” ma non il Vyšehrad praghese bensí uno in Ungheria, conriferimento ad uno storico incontro nel 1335) si è arrivati nel 2016 ad una più ampia alleanza di 12 Stati che vanno dal Baltico al Mar Nero, coincidente quasi alla cintura di assedio NATO piazzata al confine della Federazione Russa grazie all’ingenuità di Gorbaciov , credulone e succube della tracotanza statunitense.

Qui un primo tentativo di comprendere la portata di questa iniziativa (scrivo in inglese dovendo discutere la cosa con interessati al medesimo problema ma di altre lingue e soprattutto perché unisco i link ai testi di riferimento in lingua originale).

(Per la comprensione il “butler” poliglotta “Google  Translator” è sufficiente)

What is the “Three seas Initiative” all about ?

For official explanation at first glance here  the basic information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Seas_Initiative

Simply said, this is the additional measure to definitively cut away from Russian influence and economical trade all former States who were in the Soviet influence area, to inhibit all present and future cooperation of these States with the Russian Federation in the desperate aim of isolating it. This move became necessary because of the limited or almost insignificant effect of the anti Russian sanctions, which for instance did more arm to the German industry than to the Russian.

The fact that in spite of the strong pressure of the German industry lobbies Mrs. Merkel did not oppose the   Anti-Russian sanctions has not only an explanation in her servile attitude toward her boss on the other side of the Atlantic, but is probably due to her fear, that by loosing the support of the USA she could loose the elections next Autumn. She does not believe in Russian influence in the elections but rightly fears the one of the USA.

Mr. Trump was very frank about the reason for USA support to the economic meaning of the  “Three seas Initiative”:

”Let me be very clear about one crucial point:  The United States will never use energy to coerce your nations, and we cannot allow others to do so.  You don’t want to have a monopoly or a monopolistic situation.  The United States is firmly committed to open, fair, and competitive markets for global energy trade.  America will be a faithful and dependable partner in the export and sale of our high-quality and low-cost energy resources and technologies.”

Probably the President himself did not realize the open contradiction of his speech, then   what are the anti-Russian sanctions if not an attempt to evict with force a competitor from the market and establish a monopoly in the sector of energy delivery ? 

Remarks by President Trump at the Three Seas Initiative Summit | July 6, 2017, Royal Castle, Warsaw, Poland

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/06/remarks-president-trump-three-seas-initiative-summit-july-6-2017

Compare this Warsaw speech with following Facebook news, published last year, explaining the support of Obama for the “Three Seas Initiative”: in spite of all opposite declarations, when it goes about strategic-economic decisions,  Trump is simply walking in the same footprints of the former president.

https://visegradpost.com/en/2016/08/28/the-three-seas-initiative-central-and-eastern-europe-takes-charge-of-its-own-destiny/

Much more openly the croation aPresident Duda explained the aim of the “Tree seas Initiative”:

“US President Donald J. Trump has provided “valuable” support to the Three Seas Initiative, but he can go further by encouraging US businesses to participate in the plan that seeks to improve trade, infrastructure, and energy links among the twelve nations between the Baltic, Black, and Adriatic Seas, Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović said at the Atlantic Council’s Global Forum in Warsaw on July 7.”

  In: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/private-sector-support-sought-for-three-seas-initiative

Facit:

Should anybody still think that the confrontation between USA and Russian Federation were caused by the facts of  Ukraine will find in following news a better instruction:

http://www.euronews.com/2017/07/10/ukraine-pushes-ahead-with-nato-membership-moves

 In fact, the enlargement of EU to the Ukraine was nothing else that a necessary premise to the NATO membership. Of course  the USA plan was to get the Crimea harbours and evict from there the Russian Navy.  If  realized, this would have deprived the Russian  Federation of the last vital defence in the South. After the loss of Odessa it would have been the end of the Russian Naval defence capabilities on the Black See,  and probably the generals of the Red Army would have removed Mr. Putin from power and invade the whole Ukraine if he had not saved at least Crimea, which was and remain Russian territory in spite of all lies and ignorant historical deformations spread by the Western media chorus, supine servants and hired scribes obedient to the orders of US militarism.

What next move ?  Present fascist and descendant of former Nazi-collaborators are widespread in almost all State of the “Three See Initiative” (with the only exception of  the mostly atheist Czech Republic,  while the mostly Catholic Slovakia, ruled by a priest (Tiso) after German occupation 1939, was keen and prone to serve the Nazi.

These and other conservative, anticommunist and authoritarian  groups will be the useful idiots  which the USA militarism and the NATO will push to start a conflict in Europe against the Russian Federation. This explains also the USA request of larger expenses for increasing the aggressive force of NATO: for a conventional defence there would be no objective need of more weapons to  resist any “Russian aggression” which  is the scarecrow  continuously shaken by sick minds and interested military manufacturers, and as for a nuclear aggression, nor  2 % neither  100 %  of  GDP would be enough !   

All the past history (and I mean also of the last centuries) clearly shows and proofs, that Russia had always be interest to make save its border from aggressions, but never aimed to enlarge the border to other European countries, and even the criminal agreement between Hitler and Stalin to occupy and share with each other Poland was primarily motivated  by the intention to  put some separation area between traditional Russian territory and Germany.

Indeed Russia had to endure three large aggressions, Napoleon, WW1 and  WW2”. This last one  caused 25-30 Millions Russian victims, and marks a turning point: The defence of their border and interests became the priority of all Russian politicians, is steady rooted in the population, and was only ignored for a short time: first by the naive and gullible Gorbacev, then by a notorious drunkard Jeltsin: the worse what could happen to any nations but both came to the power with huge and open meddling of foreign powers in the Russian elections.

Then the Russian people understood the truly intentions of the Western powers and choose Putin: maybe not the best but the only option. Irony of the history: Putin was described by the western Media, confident of the short memory and ignorance of facts among the public,  as bad guy because of his position of  director of the KGB (1998-99), which was exactly the same case as George Bush senior, who had been director of the CIA (1976-77).  

If things go on like now, Europe will be like the moon sleeper who walks toward the cliff without realizing it.  Europe will become, like Irak and Syria and earlier Corea and Vietnam, a free battlefield for a proxi-war, a war that in his stupidity has prepared for foreign interests to his own ruin and … financed with his own money.