Not all we do we do it freely, even if we believe to act so.
(Anonymous, heard in the underground)
The Big Nose club has, as you know, the tradition that new members make
a short speech somehow related to the nose of course. The Spanish expression “de
narices” meaning that something goes
very well to the occasion has been used several times to introduce some topics.
César, the new member knows that we don’t usually accept political related
speeches but before he started to talk about puppets and noses (what he had
prepared) some of the members of the club insisted in having his opinion on the
actual facts happening in Ukraine as they know he is an international
journalist that has visited the country
a few times. Other members insisted on hearing what he prepared on puppets. We
let him go and talk about what he wanted but didn't expect such clear political
opinion. His opinion of course, but I must agree, interesting to hear and not
bad to have broken the rule of no political speeches in the meetings.
He started: -I was supposed to talk about puppets… and Ukraine is a good
example. You ask me my opinion and it is a complex situation to comment, especially
from such a large distance and lack of knowledge on the real situation. Let me
first start saying that everybody in Ukraine now believe that they act freely.
And this is not true. There are many reasons and interests that just play with
the people and their feelings. All is done artificially. But to explain why and
how I see it is a long story that starts when I was young and doing science research
in oceanography. Anyhow let me center the points:
.- Should be Ukraine be within the EU?
.- Who is interested in avoiding it and why?
.- What are the movements behind?
.- How does politics move governments and let people believe they have
free will.
… and let me start with the last one that brings me to my time as
science researcher.
On that time I was young, smoked already pipe (and I must admit quite a
lot), spoke 5 languages and was performing research on oceanography with very
new ways to do it, mixing satellites, planes, ships, math and physics together.
Nice cocktail that gave as result that we could predict and tell fishermen when
and where to find some types of fishes.
One day I got a call in the Research Institute where I worked and I
learned that I had been nominated Spanish representative at the Ocean Committee
in NATO. Nice, yes, but VERY strange as Spain was on that time not member of
NATO, so I asked why. Answer was “come… and you will learn it”. I went, of
course! Nice, absolutely interesting the meeting with all the important people
in oceanography in Europe + US. There I learned that even if Spain was not YET
member of NATO, it was already agreed that the Spanish government would do it.
“We just want to gain some time” was the answer. Important for me was that on
that time we had big discussions in Spain to be or not members of NATO…. And
here I learned that it was not something we would discuss, it was already
agreed politically and a closed matter. “We
just want to gain some time” and we stupidly thinking in we were deciding
by ourselves.
Second point of the meeting. Imagine me with a lot of ideas in my mind
in the center of the real power of science….. I talked, a lot…. On my side a
young nice man was asking what I would do and how I would do it if I would have
the media and what I needed to do it. I told him. One or two months later I received a call
from the US XXXX and they asked me if it was true that I said …… in a meeting
at NATO. They reproduced all my conversation. I was asked if I maintained it
and if I agreed to share with them the results of my findings if they would give
me the instruments I needed. Of course I agreed! Like in the movie: Next day X
at the place Y at hour Z a man, tall will ask you… you take the instruments and
sign the agreement. I went, I got all I needed and asked…. The young nice man
sitting on my left in the NATO meeting was from CIA, science branch…. So they
know what is going on. Politics are in the places we do not expect and
agreements are taken without the people knowing it.
Spain into NATO agreed by other countries & governments; Crimea
taken by Russia without too much noise from the rest of the world. Do you think
is causality or was it already agreed? We can discuss whom it serves and why,
but…. We are moved as puppets and believe we act freely. What better to move
people that to tell them they will earn more? Is easy to convince people that
are poorer:
Crimean’s will receive wages, pensions and social benefits in accordance
with Russian legislation. Today, the average salary in Russia is 25,000 rubles,
Ukraine - 11 thousand rubles, Russian pensioners receive 9917 rubles, Ukrainian
- about 5674 translated into rubles. Thus, the inhabitants of the peninsula
will increase revenues nearly doubled. Who will resist if on top since 1992
life went worse?
Now let’s see what part of reality is behind it. US and Russia have
competed since years to be THE big player in the world. We all know how poor is
now the situation of the US that the CCCP was not a good idea as it was done
and that it was evident in 1989 when the Wall was destroyed in Berlin. 1992 Ukraine
becomes independent after the referendum of December 91 if I remember well.
Everybody is happy till reality comes and shows the truth. No money, no
European standard of life. “Oh! Before
92 we were better, being part of Russia we will again be better…” So people
were mislead. Now, why?
All superpowers in the world know they need an army. If you want to
defend or to attack you need people and not only this, you need to be able to
move people fast, by air, earth and sea. We may destroy a country but we can’t
be sure till we send our troops there.
To have influence we need an army that moves. Russia depends from Europe
and fears Europe. Europe imports 34% of Gas from Russia and the Mediterranean Sea
is vital for all ship movements in the area. Russia does not have a natural coast
that goes to the Mediterranean, hence the importance of Odessa were the
agreement existed that it was the Soviet Army who would benefit of a special
status in Odessa till 2016 (I believe). Odessa is the easy way to go to the
Mediterranean and this makes from Odessa a strategic place not to be lost. If
on top there is more …. better.
What means Crimea to Russia or to Ukraine? Let’s see:
GDP of Crimea is approximately 10% of the Ukrainian GDP and 1 % of
Russia. If you look at the benefits that the Russian economy will get from the
annexation of the Crimea, you find first need the tourism business and the
expansion of health resort infrastructure. Russian investors have already
announced their intention to invest in the development of tourist resorts of
the peninsula. For example, now, a businessman plans to invest 12 billion
rubles in the project to build a resort.
Don’t forget also the energy resources of the peninsula (in particular
gas of the Black and Azov Sea), industrial enterprises of Crimea (heavy, light,
food, chemical industry), as well as agricultural lands of the republic
(including wine farms). And of course is important to remember that the transfer
of Crimea to Russia would help the country to save about $100 million a year they
pay as lease for the military base of the Black Sea Fleet.
In summary, what are the pros and cons?
Well the pros are clear, Russia gets the strategically important naval base at Sevastopol for its fleet ,
remember 100 million $/year, which is not bad; but there are more things as the
large recreational area with the possibility of international travel, Russia
gets 3000 hectares of vineyards and the largest wineries (Inkerman Winery ,
Koktebel, Massandra , the New World) and very important Russia receives also
the large chemical plants in the northern Crimea, having the biggest market share
in the world in the production of components for fertilizers and chemicals for
the oil industry.
And the cons exist but are they really that important? It is true that
Crimea needs serious irrecoverable financial injections into the economy, which
is two-thirds subsidized region but there is future behind it; is only a
problem of liquidity not of viability. One practical problem is transport as it
is necessary to go to Crimea through two Russian- Ukrainian borders, or across
the Kerch Strait , where there is no bridge (and it will take 4 years to have
it built); the ferry to the Crimea is also a possibility but there is always a
huge queue with people waiting 18 hours
or more. An other big problem is water as they will need to urgently address
the issue of fresh water (now it is taken from the Dnieper) and finally the electricity
to Crimea which produces only 30 % of its total electricity consumption.
You see who is interested and why. Basically is a political-strategic
situation to maintain power. Moreover now that Syria is in a bad moment and
can’t help Russia if there is a revolution. Russia has also good agreements
with Syria to have the fleet of the Army there, and this is what is behind of
all the movement. The rest, East Ukraine, is a plus for Russia. With Crimea
being 10% of the richness of Ukraine, Russia has a poor country where it is
possible to sell and have cheap labor with the similar language more or less
and well prepared. Is a large territory to prevent an attack, gives free way to
the Mediterranean…. What can Russia want more?
Before we enter in looking who could be interested in avoiding it or
not, let me consider if Ukraine should be politically pro-Europe or pro-Russia.
What is clear is that Ukraine has no weight as to be able to be alone in the
world. They need some friendly countries that may give stability, money, help…
Historically, till the 92 they were members of the CCCP and in fact an
important player within it. Was growing fast, 7.5% GDP growth yearly but the
crisis of the 88 and the one of the 2008 brought the country to a bad
economical situation. The country was mostly Slavic even if it is true that
part of it was in the “European” part and taken by the Austro-Hungarian Empire
in recent historical times. But, has Europe an interest in having Ukraine as a
member? Geographically seems not to be any reason. Is far, Romania is already
at the limit, and historically there are no real common things, language is
different, religion is different, commerce is not an important matter, economy
is poor. It is a market of 45 million people. This is the only reason to bring
Ukraine to Europe. But the cost is by far too high, specially now with all the
economical and political problems Europe is facing. From the point of view of
Europe… no need, no interest YET to have Ukraine as a member state.
From the point of view if Ukraine… is a dream. The same dream that East
Germans had to become part of Germany. To live better, have more money, with
work for all and be “Europeans”. Germany is still paying the union of the
former DDR. Ukrainians dream that it would be perfect without knowing that it
is not true, that the crisis will be longer and harder; restructure industries provokes unemployment. So a part
of the country which is disappointed by the economical situation looks to Europe
and Europe smiles but doesn't do anything really. An other part of the people
remember the former CCCP and that unemployment was 0, so better to return, and
finally a part believes that the country should try to do something, but really
has only one option, decide if the orientation must be pro Russia or pro
Europe. Too small to be a bridge between cultures. There is no real reason why
Ukraine should be part of the EC. This is the point but politically helps to
give hope telling that in the future all will be better. Ukraine belongs to the
East of Europe to a group of countries that will find their position together,
but it is too early and they are not aware.
The last point is if there is somebody that would be interested in
avoiding that Russia takes Crimea and destroys Ukraine with it. The answer is
no. Only in theory. Russia made a movement that was to mark positions. If
expected or not by the US I don’t know, but Europe is too weak to do something,
and at the end doesn't care. It is not yet the time for other countries, we
have to solve our internal problems. The US doesn't care, as long as Russia
lets them in peace with Israel, which is the entrance door of the US in Middle
East and the Mediterranean. China is busy taking positions in Africa and will
be glad to help if they can with it against the US. So, nobody cares. I fear
that is goes further than this, that the real interest is to weaken the area
and have two or three strong economies together in Europe (Germany, France, UK
and maybe Italy) together with Benelux and Austria and create a strong Europe.
The rest… weak countries, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, …. all with low
income, cheap labor and a huge market for them. Ukraine would be just one more
and a good door for all Slavic counties. I hope to be wrong, but I fear I’m
not.
The meeting continued after the speech, it was one of the longest we
ever had. But his position was clear and many agreed to it.
