Autor: João

Top Risks 2016

Ian Bremmer, President Cliff Kupchan, Chairman Published January 4, 2016 We first wrote about the G-Zero five years ago. It’s now fully upon us, and the unwinding of the US-led geopolitical order will accelerate in 2016. There is growing political division in a year with a presidential election in the United States and a foundational political crisis for Europe. Russia, in decline, is led by an increasingly combative—and resurgent—Vladimir Putin. China is becoming far more powerful, but with a foreign policy that reflects primarily economic (though still strategic) national interests. The results are clear. The Middle East is the most vulnerable to a geopolitical leadership vacuum and is heading toward conflagration. There are six failed states across the broader region (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Syria, and Yemen) and more refugees than ever recorded. ISIS has become the most powerful terrorist organization in history. Oil economies are under strain. All of this will get worse in 2016. Europe will feel much of the pain—in economic costs, security vulnerability, and political blowback. The United States, at the twilight of Barack Obama’s administration, will mostly stick to its knitting, since the western hemisphere remains insulated from the lion’s share of geopolitical instability. In Asia, despite having many of the world’s strongest national leaders, helping manage these problems is not a priority. This all means a dramatically more fragmented world in 2016 with...

Ler mais

USA in Syria

Military to Military : US Intelligence Sharing in the Syrian War   Seymour M. Hersh 07/01/2016   Barack Obama’s repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and that there are ‘moderate’ rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him – has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. Their criticism has focused on what they see as the administration’s fixation on Assad’s primary ally, Vladimir Putin. In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China, and hasn’t adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries share Washington’s anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must be stopped. The military’s resistance dates back to the summer of 2013, when a highly classified assessment, put together by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then led by General Martin Dempsey, forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos and, potentially, to Syria’s takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was then happening in Libya. A former senior adviser to the Joint Chiefs told me that the document was an ‘all-source’ appraisal, drawing on information from signals, satellite and human intelligence, and took a dim view of the Obama administration’s insistence...

Ler mais

Russia in Syria

  Week 13 of Russia’s Syria Campaign: Debunking the Lies     Moscow’s goals in intervening in Syria have been strictly limited – and have also largely been accomplished The Saker Mon., Jan. 4, 2016 Ever since the first rumors began to circulate about an impending Russian military intervention in Syria the Internet and the media have been flooded with all sorts of silly rumors, myths and outright lies about what could/would happen. These rumors, myths and outright lies are still being spread today, and not only by pro-US interest groups, but even by supposedly pro-Russian “analysts”. All this nonsense completely obfuscates the reality of the Russian intervention in Syria (but maybe that was the goal all along?) and tries to paint the Russian operation as a failure. After three months of Russian air and missile strikes in Syria, it is a good time to ask the question of whether the Russians have achieved some tangible results or whether, as some are suggesting, this has basically been a big PR operation. The key issue here is what criteria to use to measure “success”. And that, in turns, begs the question of what the Russians had hoped to achieve with their intervention in the first place. It turns out that Putin clearly and officially spelled out what the purpose of the Russian intervention was. On October 11th, he declared the following in...

Ler mais

Unexpected Ally: Russia Might Get New Partner in Syria, But Who Will It Be?

JOHN MACDOUGALL 18:34 03.01.2016(updated 18:51 03.01.2016) Many think that the events of the First and Second World Wars are essentially ancient history and have no influence on the current geopolitical reality; however, according to American political scientist and journalist Phil Butler, certain long-forgotten ‘technicalities’ might unexpectedly become the golden key to resolving the Syrian crisis… “Not many reading this will know there are many nations still at war with Japan and Germany, as well as other Axis powers, technically, that is,” Phil Butler writes in his article for the website New Eastern Outlook. Among those are Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, he says, ironically adding that, as it turns, “refugees from the region are now streaming into enemy territory by the hundreds of thousands”. © REUTERS/ HANNIBAL HANSCHKE Is Germany Bowing to US Pressure by Joining Syria Campaign? As it happens, back in 1945, when the Allied nations of Britain, France, the US, and USSR assumed supreme authority over the German state, there was “scant documentation of the exactitude of Axis powers’ surrenders and dispositions”.“For Germany in particular, it has been argued that the defeat at the hands of Allied nations was in fact a debellation, or obliteration by warring of a sovereign state.” Since then, for more than 70 years already, Germany has been “a vassal of Britain and the United States”. However, just one document could change it all. During the years of the Second World War, the region of the Middle East was embraced with the ideas of T.E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, who...

Ler mais

PMDB

Programa Emergencial   João E. da Silveira Brasília, 08 de agosto de 2015   18 Pontos à Guisa de Introdução 1966: O MDB foi criado sob o regime militar em consonância com princípios da doutrina da segurança nacional, que preconizavam um sistema bipartidário na regulamentação da política, com um partido de situação e outro de oposição. Eram dois os propósitos: evitar o partido único marxista-leninista ou a bagunça multipartidária.[1] 1970: Ulysses Guimarães assume o comando do MDB. O (P)MDB de Ulysses exerce tão bem seu papel oposicionista que sua chegada ao poder em 1985 significou o fim do regime militar. O regime tinha programado sua própria fuga ou, para dizer o mesmo com algum escárnio, seu próprio coveiro. Foi uma saída ou solução institucional, sem guerra, sem sangue, e conservadora. O (P)MDB de Ulysses albergou facções oposicionistas que viriam a constituir-se em novos partidos, quando caiu o sistema bipartidário em 1979. O regime autoritário abandonou o bipartidarismo, mas adotou cláusula de barreira que restringia o número de partidos relevantes (com representação na Câmara) a cerca de cinco. 1985: STF decide que a lei de fidelidade partidária não se aplicava ao Colégio Eleitoral, possibilitando, assim, a eleição da chapa Tancredo-Sarney, do PMDB, para a Presidência da República, derrotando a chapa Maluf-Marcílio, do PDS. Tancredo Neves morre sem tomar posse da Presidência. Sarney assume. Transição perfeitamente conservadora. Ainda em 1985, embalado...

Ler mais