O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida;

Meu Twitter: https://twitter.com/PauloAlmeida53

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paulobooks

Mostrando postagens com marcador Newsweek. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Newsweek. Mostrar todas as postagens

terça-feira, 9 de maio de 2023

Guerra na Ucrânia – depois de Bakhmut (uma visão cética) - Michael G. Foeller, David H. Rundell (Newsweek)

 Guerra na Ucrânia – depois de Bakhmut


Bakhmut / Artemovs
MICHAEL G. FOELLER  &  DAVID H. RUNDELL*

A batalha sangrenta deixou a Ucrânia ferida e a Rússia em ascensão

Não há nada de patriótico quando um americano ergue uma bandeira ucraniana. Também não há traição quando um americano questiona o apoio ilimitado a uma nação estrangeira numa guerra estrangeira. Reconhecer que a Ucrânia não derrotará a Rússia sem uma intervenção americana muito maior não é algo pró-russo, mas pró-realidade.

Entre 2014 e 2022, houve uma violenta insurreição separatista no leste da Ucrânia. Para evitar a intervenção russa, o governo de Kiev construiu uma linha de cidades fortemente fortificadas e rotas de abastecimento ao longo de sua fronteira oriental. Bakhmut era uma importante plataforma de transporte nessa rede.

Há cinco meses, quando escrevemos que Bakhmut em algum momento cairia nas mãos dos russos, alguns leitores destas páginas zombaram de nós. Não sabíamos que a Ucrânia estava ganhando a guerra? Pois bem, os ucranianos defenderam-se de forma notável naquela que se tornou a batalha mais sangrenta do século XXI, mas a maior parte de Bakhmut, incluindo as linhas ferroviárias vitais, caiu. Demorou mais tempo do que esperávamos, mas esta derrota tornou ainda menos provável que a Ucrânia consiga restabelecer suas fronteiras de 2014 sem a intervenção direta das tropas da OTAN.

Quantas vezes ouvimos dizer que as tropas russas, mal treinadas, mal conduzidas e mal equipadas, muitas delas de mercenários e ex-presidiários, sofreram perdas espantosas e foram obrigadas a recuar do território que inicialmente capturaram? Tudo isto pode ser verdade. Isso não altera o fato de que agora a Rússia está preparada para tirar o máximo proveito da queda de Bakhmut quando chegar o tempo seco do verão.

Há sete meses, a Rússia mobilizou 300.000 reservistas e aproveitou esse meio tempo para treiná-los. Acelerou a produção de armamento e acumulou quantidades significativas de equipamento e munições. Centenas de milhares de tropas russas estão agora posicionadas no leste da Ucrânia, onde começaram a avançar em numerosos locais ao longo de uma frente de 724 quilômetros.

A Ucrânia, por outro lado, concentrou muitas de suas tropas mais bem equipadas e treinadas em Bakhmut, onde foram bombardeadas durante meses pela artilharia, mísseis e drones russos. Na batalha de Bakhmut, a Ucrânia perdeu milhares de tropas experientes que não podem ser substituídas por recrutas com algumas semanas de treino acelerado.

As armas ocidentais tornaram possível a defesa de Bakhmut. Repetidamente, o apoio da OTAN à Ucrânia elevou-se de mísseis Javelin e Stinger de curto alcance para baterias de mísseis HIMARS e Patriot de médio alcance, e para armas pesadas como tanques Abrams e veículos de combate Bradley. À medida que a maré da batalha se voltava contra os insuficientes e mal armados ucranianos, os defensores de Kiev no Ocidente não pararam para refletir sobre a forma como poderiam pôr fim a esta tragédia. Em vez disso, pediram a entrega de caças e mísseis de longo alcance.

Estas entregas de armas alimentaram a ira pública generalizada na Rússia e a convicção de que agora estão em guerra com a OTAN. A entrega de tanques alemães Leopard II resultou em manchetes em Moscou tais como “Os tanques alemães estão novamente em solo russo”, e até em editoriais afirmando que “O Quarto Reich declarou guerra à Rússia”. Não é preciso ser profeta para ver para onde essa escalada persistente está levando ou por que ela tem que parar.

Em última análise, não somos generais, mas entendemos de economia. Sempre nos pareceu extremamente improvável que uma nação com um PIB de 200 bilhões de dólares em 2021 e uma população de 44 milhões de habitantes pudesse derrotar uma nação com um PIB de 1,8 trilhão de dólares e uma população de 145 milhões de habitantes. E isto seria particularmente verdadeiro se somente a nação maior, ou seja, a Rússia, possuísse uma força aérea considerável, indústrias de defesa significativas e armas nucleares.

De acordo com as estatísticas do Banco Mundial, a Ucrânia tinha uma população de 44 milhões de pessoas quando a guerra começou, mas atualmente apenas metade desse número ainda se encontra em suas casas. Onze milhões de ucranianos fugiram para a Europa ou estão deslocados internamente. Vários milhões de ucranianos fugiram para a Rússia e outros milhões vivem agora em áreas sob controle russo.

No ano passado, a economia ucraniana registou uma contração de 30%, enquanto o PIB russo caiu apenas 3%. O rublo é hoje tão forte em relação ao dólar como era quando a guerra começou. O FMI prevê que, em 2023, o crescimento do PIB da Rússia ultrapassará os da Grã-Bretanha e da Alemanha. É evidente que as sanções ocidentais não destruíram a economia russa.

Enquanto a Rússia continua sendo largamente autossuficiente em alimentos, energia e equipamento militar, grande parte da infraestrutura da Ucrânia está em ruínas. Embora a Ucrânia tenha se tornado fortemente dependente da OTAN em armamento, tanto as reservas da própria OTAN como as antigas reservas de munições soviéticas da Ucrânia, de projéteis de artilharia e mísseis de defesa aérea, estão esgotando-se rapidamente. Nesta guerra de desgaste, o tempo não está do lado de Kiev.

Moscou encara qualquer presença da OTAN na Crimeia da mesma forma que Washington encararia os mísseis russos em Cuba ou uma base naval chinesa na Nova Escócia. Nunca foi realista esperar que a Rússia entregaria a Crimeia sem sofrer uma derrota militar decisiva. Agora, porém, os termos de paz que Kiev pode esperar tornaram-se ainda menos favoráveis do que eram há sete meses.

Do ponto de vista de Moscou, os referendos realizados em setembro de 2022 transformaram as províncias de Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia e Kherson em regiões da Federação Russa e, consequentemente, Moscou procurará agora obter o controle total delas. Em seis meses, a Rússia poderá muito bem ditar condições de paz ainda mais duras.

Os requisitos clássicos para uma guerra justa incluem uma possibilidade razoável de vitória. Enquanto uma geração de homens ucranianos está morrendo, a triste realidade é que a Ucrânia tem tantas chances de ganhar uma guerra contra a Rússia como o México teria de vencer uma guerra contra os Estados Unidos. Prolongar o conflito não vai alterar essa equação. Mais mortes de ucranianos e destruição da infraestrutura só traumatizarão ainda mais aquela sociedade. A menos que estejamos preparados para arriscar uma escalada significativa, que poderia muito bem envolver forças da OTAN lutando contra os russos, a melhor forma de assegurar a sobrevivência de um Estado ucraniano viável e independente é negociar um acordo agora.

*Michael Gfoeller é embaixador, membro do Conselho de Relações Exteriores. Serviu por 15 anos na União Soviética, na Rússia e na Europa Oriental.

*David H. Rundell é ex-chefe de missão da Embaixada Americana na Arábia Saudita. autor de Vision or Mirage, Saudi Arabia at the Crossroads (I. B. Tauris).

Tradução: Fernando Lima das Neves.

Publicado originalmente no portal da revista Neesweek.


terça-feira, 4 de janeiro de 2022

Há uma guerra civil no horizonte dos EUA? - David H. Freedman (Newsweek)

 Newsweek, Nova York – 29.12.2021

Millions of Angry, Armed Americans Stand Ready to Seize Power If Trump Loses in 2024

David H. Freedman

 

Mike Wompus" Nieznany is a 73-year-old Vietnam veteran who walks with a cane from the combat wounds he received during his service. That disability doesn't keep Nieznany from making a living selling custom motorcycle luggage racks from his home in Gainesville, Georgia. Neither will it slow him down when it's time to visit Washington, D.C.—heavily armed and ready to do his part in overthrowing the U.S. government.

Millions of fellow would-be insurrectionists will be there, too, Nieznany says, "a ticking time-bomb" targeting the Capitol. "There are lots of fully armed people wondering what's happening to this country," he says."Are we going to let Biden keep destroying it? Or do we need to get rid of him? We're only going to take so much before we fight back." The 2024 election, he adds, may well be the trigger.

Nieznany is no loner. His political comments on the social-media site Quora received 44,000 views in the first two weeks of November and more than 4 million overall. He is one of many rank-and-file Republicans who own guns and in recent months have talked openly of the need to take down—by force if necessary—a federal government they see as illegitimate, overreaching and corrosive to American freedom.

The phenomenon goes well beyond the growth of militias, which have been a feature of American life at least since the Ku Klux Klan rose to power after the Civil War.Groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, which took part in the January 6thriot at the Capitol and may have played organizational roles, have grown in membership. Law enforcement has long tracked and often infiltrated these groups. What Nieznany represents is something else entirely: a much larger and more diffuse movement of more-or-less ordinary people, stoked by misinformation, knitted together by social media and well-armed. In 2020, 17 million Americans bought 40 million guns and in 2021 were on track to add another 20 million. If historical trends hold, the buyers will be overwhelmingly white, Republican and southern or rural.

America's massive and mostly Republican gun-rights movement dovetails with a growing belief among many Republicans that the federal government is an illegitimate tyranny that must be overthrown by any means necessary. That combustible formula raises the threat of armed, large-scale attacks around the 2024 presidential election—attacks that could make the January 6insurrection look like a toothless stunt by comparison. "The idea that people would take up arms against an American election has gone from completely farfetched to something we have to start planning for and preparing for," says University of California, Los Angeles law professor Adam Winkler, an expert on gun policy and constitutional law.

Both Democrats and Republicans are rapidly losing faith in the integrity of U.S. elections. Democrats worry that voter suppression and election interference from Republican state officials will deny millions of Americans their say at the polling booths. A PBS NewsHour/ NPR/ Marist poll in early November reported that 55 percent of Democrats saw voter suppression as the biggest threat to U.S. electionsRepublicans claim, contrary to the evidence, that Democrats have already manipulated vote counts through fraud to steal a presidential election. An October CNN poll found that more than three-quarters of Republicans falsely believe Joe Biden's 2020 election win was fraudulent.

According to the Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court are supposed to settle those sorts of dueling claims. Given the growing intensity and polarization of political life, would either side accept a decision that handed a contested 2024 election result to the other?

Such a decision would more likely bring tens of millions of protesters and counter-protesters into the streets, especially around the U.S. Capitol and possibly many state capitols, plunging the country into chaos. Although many Democrats might be inclined to demonstrate, a larger percentage of Republican protesters would almost certainly be carrying guns. If the Supreme Court ruling, expected in mid-2022, on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen establishes an unrestricted right to carry a gun anywhere in the country, bringing firearms to the Capitol in Washington, D.C. could be perfectly legal. Says Winkler: "The Supreme Court may be close to issuing the ruling that leads to the overthrow of the U.S. government."

If armed violence erupts the 2024 elections, quelling it could fall to the U.S. military, which may be reluctant to take arms against U.S. citizens. In that case, the fate of the nation might well be decided by a simple fact: a big subset of one of the two parties has for years been systemically arming itself for this very reason.

"I hope it's just too crazy to happen here," says Erica De Bruin, an assistant professor of government at Hamilton College, who studies coups around the world. "But it's now in the realm of the plausible."

Enemy at the Gates

Many Republicans are increasingly coming to see themselves less as citizens represented by the federal government, and more as tyrannized victims of that government. More than three-quarters of Republicans reported "low trust" in the federal government in a Grinnell College national poll in October; only a minority of Democrats agreed. From this point of view, peaceful elections will not save the day. More than two out of three Republicans think democracy is under attack, according to the Grinnell poll, which echoes the results of a CNN poll in September. Half as many Democrats say the same.

Mainstream news publications are filled with howls of protest over political outrages by Republican leaders, who are reflecting the beliefs of the party mainstream. But the small newspapers in the rural, red-state areas that are the core of the Republican party's rank and file are giving voice to a simpler picture: Politics are dead; it's time to fight. "Wake up America!" reads a September opinion piece excoriating Democrats in The Gaston Gazette, based in Gastonia, N.C. "The enemy is at our gates, God willing it is not too late to turn back the rushing tide of this dark regime." The piece goes on to quote Thomas Paine's exhortation to colonists to take up arms against the British. "We are in a civil war," a letter published in September in The New Mexico Sun likewise warns Republicans, "between the traditional Americans and those who want to impose socialism in this country and thus obtain complete government control of its citizens."

Evidence that a significant portion of Republicans are increasingly likely to resort to violence against the government and political opponents is growing. More than 100 violent threats, many of them death threats, were leveled at poll workers and election officials in battleground states in 2020, according to an investigation by Reuters published in September—all those threat-makers whom Reuters could contact identified as Trump supporters. In October 2020, 13 men were charged with plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat; all of them were aligned with the political right. Nearly a third of Republicans agree that "true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country," according to a September poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, a non-partisan group. That's three times as many as the number of Democrats who felt the same way.

Guns are becoming an essential part of the equation. "Americans are increasingly wielding guns in public spaces, roused by persons they politically oppose or public decisions with which they disagree," concludes an August article in the Northwestern University Law Review. Guns were plentiful when hundreds of anti-COVID-precaution protestors gathered at the Michigan State Capitol in May 2020. Some of the armed protesters tried to enter the Capitol chamber.

Those who carry arms to a political protest may in theory have peaceful intentions, but there's plenty of reason to think otherwise. An October study from Everytown for Gun Safety and the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) looked at 560 protests involving armed participants over an 18-month period through mid-2021, and found that a sixth of them turned violent, and some involved fatalities.

One indication of how far Republicans may be willing to go in violently opposing the government is their sanguine reaction to the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Republicans by and large see no problem with a mob of hundreds swarming and forcing their way into the seat of American government. Half of Republicans said that the mob was "defending freedom," according to a CBS/YouGov poll taken just after the insurrection. Today two-thirds of Republicans have come to deny that it was an attack at all, according to an October survey by Quinnipiac University. "There's been little accountability for that insurrection," says UCLA's Winkler. "The right-wing rhetoric has only grown worse since then."

Most Republican leaders are circumspect when it comes to supporting violence against the government, but not all. Former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, a controversial character who remains popular among many Republicans, reportedly told an enthusiastic gathering of Trump supporters in October that if and when a "serious" insurrection springs up, "there's very little you're going to be able to do about it."

 

Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, another prominent Republican popular with the rank and file, opined that the January 6insurrectionists were simply doing what the Declaration of Independence tells true patriots to do, in that they were trying to "overthrow tyrants." The real threat to democracy, she added, are Black Lives Matter protesters and Democratic "Marxist-communist" agents. Greene and Representative Madison Cawthorn, a Republican from North Carolina, have referred to some of the insurrectionists as "political prisoners."

Trump himself, of course, has nurtured a constant undercurrent of violence among his supporters from the beginning of his first presidential campaign. In 2016 he publicly stated he could shoot someone in the street without losing any of his political support, and he went on to encourage attendees at his rallies to assault protesters and journalists. When demonstrators at a rally in Miami were being dragged away, Trump warned that next time "I'll be a little more violent." At a 2016 rally in Las Vegas, he openly complained to the crowd that security wasn't being rough enough on a protester they were removing. "I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you," he said.

 

Para acessar a íntegra:

https://www.newsweek.com/2021/12/31/millions-angry-armed-americans-stand-ready-seize-power-if-trump-loses-2024-1660953.html

quinta-feira, 29 de julho de 2010

A quarta (ou quinta) guerra mundial: a guerra cibernetica

Cyberwar Is Hell
by Andrew Nagorski
Newsweek, 29/07/2010

While we obsessed over Russian spies, top diplomats were working to stop a greater espionage problem: the threat of cyberwarfare.

We’ve been focused on the wrong spies. When 11 Russian sleeper agents were discovered living in the United States—and then sent home in exchange for their counterparts—it was hard to resist the sexy espionage tale with echoes of the Cold War. But while we’ve fixated on Anna Chapman and her cohorts, top diplomats were working on a wonkier but more important advance in spycraft. This month, experts from 15 countries agreed to begin serious negotiations on establishing international norms on cybersecurity. This story is far more significant in the long run because, without basic agreements about cyberspace, cyberattacks, and even cyberwars could become a daily danger.

Sure, spy stories are irresistible—particularly when a sexy redhead like Chapman is involved and there are plenty of racy photos to titillate readers. It’s also true that the press may have been too quick to write off the Russian sleeper agents as a bunch of bunglers who accomplished nothing. We don’t know what support roles they may have had for more serious operations; human intelligence can still trump electronic spying in many situations, and spying will always be with us.

But, increasingly, international relations will be shaped by new challenges that require new tactics—and new assumptions about where we can and should cooperate, even with former enemies. Look at the United Nations group of experts that overcame at least some of their mutual suspicions to take a first step toward international cooperation on cybersecurity last week. After years of talks that went nowhere, they—United States, Russia, China, India, and several others—agreed to begin discussing ways to exchange information about national cyberstrategies, strengthen protection of computer systems around the world, including in less-developed countries, and even set some ground rules on cyberwarfare. Other nations in attendance may not be G7 economies, but online they are powerhouses: Israel, Brazil, South Korea, and Estonia.

The History of Computer Hacking
The idea that Russian and Estonian experts, in particular, could join forces to issue cybersecurity recommendations would have sounded absurd until recently. Just three years ago, Estonia was the target of a massive cyberattack, which now is held up as Exhibit A when it comes to cyberwarfare. The Estonians, and much of the rest of the world, were convinced that this was an attack orchestrated by the Kremlin in retaliation for Tallinn’s decision to remove a World War II memorial honoring Red Army troops. Moscow and local Russians were furious about this “desecration,” and there were violent clashes in the streets. Although the Russian authorities denied any involvement, the concerted cyberattacks on Estonia’s government and private-sector Web sites, designed to cripple the country’s digital infrastructure, certainly looked like angry and organized retaliation.

What’s changed? Those hard feelings haven’t disappeared, but there’s a growing realization that no country can protect itself from cyberattacks on its own. One key problem is attribution—the inability to definitely pinpoint the source of an assault. Terrorists, criminals, and political groups can now launch sophisticated salvos using “botnets”—armies of computers around the world that they have commandeered without the knowledge of the people who own those machines. That makes it hard to prove—and easy to deny—any state’s role in a specific cyberattack. And it makes everyone and everything, including critical infrastructure such as transportation and electricity grids, vulnerable.

That’s why not just Estonia but also the United States is increasingly interested in finding a way to work with Russia and the other key players. It won’t be easy. For more than a decade, Russia has pushed for a broad international cybersecurity treaty to establish norms on these issues. As in the case of China, Washington and many human-rights organizations have opposed anything that looked like an excuse to limit political freedoms on the Internet—and to track dissidents. The latest compromise language suggests that the Obama administration wants to find a formula to address common security concerns while skirting such disagreements. Some experts argue that countries, like individuals, could join protected Internet networks, where all communications are sourced. That would go a long way toward instituting a system of deterrence, since cyberaggressors inside these networks would be instantly identifiable. There could still be a larger, more Wild West-style Internet, but anyone operating there would be doing so at their own risk.

It’s hard enough for each country to come up with its own coherent national cyberstrategy. President Obama has called this a high priority, but The Washington Post’s “Top Secret America” series last week vividly demonstrated how unwieldy the U.S. national-security apparatus has become, especially since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. According to the report, some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies are involved in counterterrorism and other national-security programs; an estimated 854,000 people hold “Top Secret” security clearances. That whole world is dependent, of course, on the most modern, complex computer communications. Yet top intelligence officials openly admit that they haven’t been able to produce a coherent set of policies, including a way to organize responses to cyberwarfare. “Frankly, it hasn’t been brought together in a unified approach,” CIA Director Leon Panetta declared in the Washington Post series.

Take that problem and add the complexity of coordinating cybersecurity measures on the international level and you begin to see the magnitude of the problem. But in the virtual world where national boundaries are often meaningless, international cooperation on cybersecurity isn’t a choice; it’s a necessity. We’re especially vulnerable to this kind of attack: imagine 24 hours when your computers at work and at home would be out of service, when you can’t get money from your ATM, when electricity stops flowing, when planes stop flying—you get the picture. Everything depends on computers these days, and everything can be targeted.

Our near-total digital dependence underpins the governmental, financial, economic, energy and every other structure. If we can’t build the kind of safety measures that are so desperately needed into this virtual world that is no longer separable from our physical world, we are all in trouble. In that case, even spicy tales of female spies won’t be enough to distract us from the consequences.

Nagorski is vice president and director of public policy at the EastWest Institute and the author of The Greatest Battle: Stalin, Hitler, and the Desperate Struggle for Moscow That Changed the Course of World War II. He wrote this article for NEWSWEEK’s Polish edition, NEWSWEEK Polska.