Prisioneiros políticos de Putin - Joy Neumeyer (The New York Review of Books)

Prisioneiros políticos de Putin

Joy Neumeyer (The New York Review of Books) 

Russian human rights organizations estimate that there may be as many as 10,000 political prisoners scattered across the country’s penal colonies. Last summer, Joy Neumeyer wrote to fourteen of these imprisoned dissidents, unsure whether anyone would even receive her messages. To her surprise, some of them wrote back, enclosing heartfelt, roving reflections on their childhoods, their political awakenings, their last moments of freedom, and how they feel about their antiwar activities now. In our March 13 issue, Neumeyer writes about this “hidden archipelago of opposition that has endured and adapted” since Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. In that time, the Kremlin has tightened speech restrictions to such a degree that anyone can be imprisoned for “discrediting” or “intentionally spreading false information” about the military—statutes broadly construed to include any criticism of the army’s actions in Ukraine. Some of those imprisoned have been convicted on the strength of pseudonymous social media posts.

Neumeyer, who received a Ph.D. in history from the University of California, Berkeley, is a journalist and historian of Russia and Eastern Europe and has been reporting from the region on and off for the last fifteen years. Her writing has appeared in the New Left Review, The New York Times, and The Nation. Her book A Survivor’s Education: Women, Violence, and the Stories We Don’t Tell, an investigative memoir about domestic abuse, came out last year.

Last week I wrote to Neumeyer to ask about working with vulnerable sources, interviewing via correspondence, and the challenges of covering Eastern Europe in this time of upheaval.

Revisitando a frustrada Comunidade Europeia de Defesa, de 1952

Seria este o momento de retomar a iniciativa sabotada pela Assembleia Francesa em 1954?

Comunidade Europeia de Defesa  (1952)

(segundo fontes compiladas via Google search e Wikipedia)

The "Accord Européen de Défense" of 1952 refers to the Treaty establishing the European Defence Community (EDC), which was signed on May 27, 1952 by six European countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands; this treaty aimed to create a unified European military force, essentially a "European Army", but it was never ratified by the French parliament and ultimately failed to come into effect. 

Key points about the EDC: 

• Objective:

  To integrate European military forces under a single command, acting as a unified pillar within NATO. 
• Failure due to French opposition:

  The French National Assembly refused to ratify the treaty, effectively halting the project. 
• Significance:

  Considered a crucial early attempt at European integration, although it ultimately failed. 

  
  

  The Treaty establishing the European Defence Community, also known as the Treaty of Paris,^[1] is an unratified treaty signed on 27 May 1952 by the six 'inner' countries of European integration: Belgium, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, France, Italy, and West Germany. The treaty would have created a European Defence Community (EDC), with a unified defence force acting as an autonomous European pillar within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The ratification process was completed in the Benelux countries and West Germany, but stranded after the treaty was rejected in the French National Assembly. Instead, the London and Paris Conferences provided for West Germany's accession to NATO and the Western European Union (WEU), the latter of which was a transformed version of the pre-existing Western Union. 

  The treaty was initiated by the Pleven plan, proposed in 1950 by then French Prime Minister René Pleven in response to the American call for the rearmament of West Germany. The formation of a pan-European defence architecture, as an alternative to West Germany's proposed accession to NATO, was meant to harness the German military potential in case of conflict with the Soviet bloc. Just as the Schuman Planwas designed to end the risk of Germany having the economic power on its own to make war again, the Pleven Plan and EDC were meant to prevent the military possibility of Germany's making war again.

  The European Defence Community would have entailed a pan-European military, divided into national components, and had a common budget, common arms, centralized military procurement, and institutions.

  The main contributions to the proposed 43-division force:^[3]

  • France: 14 divisions, 750 planes
  • West Germany: 12 divisions*
  • Italy: 12 divisions, 450 planes
  • Benelux: 5 divisions, 600 planes

  *West Germany would have had an air force, but a clause in the EDC treaty would have forbidden it to build war-planes, atomic weapons, guided missiles and battleships.

  In this military, the French, Italian, Belgian, Dutch, and Luxembourgish components would report to their national governments, whereas the West German component would report to the EDC. This was due to the fear of a return of German militarism, so it was desired that the West German government would not have control over its military. However, in the event of its rejection, it was agreed to let the West German government control its own military in any case (something which the treaty would not have provided).

  A European Political Community (EPC) was proposed in 1952 as a combination of the existing European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the proposed European Defence Community (EDC). A draft EPC treaty, as drawn up by the ECSC assembly (now the European Parliament), would have seen a directly elected assembly ("the Peoples’ Chamber"), a senate appointed by national parliaments and a supranational executive accountable to the parliament.

  The European Political Community project failed in 1954 when it became clear that the European Defence Community would not be ratified by the French national assembly, which feared that the project entailed an unacceptable loss of national sovereignty. As a result, the European Political Community idea had to be abandoned.^[4][5]

  Following the collapse of the EPC, European leaders met in the Messina Conference in 1955 and established the Spaak Committee which would pave the way for the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC).

  History:

  During the late 1940s, the divisions created by the Cold War were becoming evident. The United States looked with suspicion at the growing power of the USSR and European states felt vulnerable, fearing a possible Soviet occupation. In this climate of mistrust and suspicion, the United States considered the rearmament of West Germany as a possible solution to enhance the security of Europe and of the whole Western bloc.^[6]

  In August 1950, Winston Churchillproposed the creation of a common European army, including German soldiers, in front of the Council of Europe:

  “We should make a gesture of practical and constructive guidance by declaring ourselves in favour of the immediate creation of a European Army under a unified command, and in which we should all bear a worthy and honourable part.”

  — Winston Churchill, speech at the Council of Europe 1950^[7]

  The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe subsequently adopted the resolution put forward by the United Kingdom and officially endorsed the idea:

  “The Assembly, in order to express its devotion to the maintenance of peace and its resolve to sustain the action of the Security Council of the United Nations in defence of peaceful peoples against aggression, calls for the immediate creation of a unified European Army subject to proper European democratic control and acting in full co-operation with the United States and Canada.”

  — Resolution of the Council of Europe 1950^[7]

  In September 1950, Dean Acheson, under a cable submitted by High Commissioner John J. McCloy, proposed a new plan to the European states; the American plan, called package, sought to enhance NATO's defense structure, creating 12 West German divisions. However, after the destruction that Germany had caused during World War II, European countries, in particular France, were not ready to see the reconstruction of the German military.^[8] Finding themselves in the midst of the two superpowers, they looked at this situation as a possibility to enhance the process of integrating Europe, trying to obviate the loss of military influence caused by the new bipolar order and thus supported a common army.^[9]

  On 24 October 1950, France's Prime Minister René Pleven proposed a new plan, which took his name although it was drafted mainly by Jean Monnet, that aimed to create a supranational European army. With this project, France tried to satisfy America's demands, avoiding, at the same time, the creation of German divisions, and thus the rearmament of Germany.^[10][11]

  “Confident as it is that Europe’s destiny lies in peace and convinced that all the peoples of Europe need a sense of collective security, the French Government proposes […] the creation, for the purposes of common defence, of a European army tied to the political institutions of a united Europe.”

  — René Pleven, speech at the French Parliament 1950^[12]

  The EDC was to include West Germany, France, Italy, and the Benelux countries. The United States would be excluded. It was a competitor to NATO (in which the US played the dominant role), with France playing the dominant role. Just as the Schuman Plan was designed to end the risk of Germany having the economic power to make war again, the Pleven Plan and EDC were meant to prevent the same possibility. Britain approved of the plan in principle, but agreed to join only if the supranational element was decreased.^[13]

  According to the Pleven Plan, the European Army was supposed to be composed of military units from the member states, and directed by a council of the member states’ ministers. Although with some doubts and hesitation, the United States and the six members of the ECSC approved the Pleven Plan in principle.

  The initial approval of the Pleven Plan led the way to the Paris Conference, launched in February 1951, where it was negotiated the structure of the supranational army.

  France feared the loss of national sovereignty in security and defense, and thus a truly supranational European Army could not be tolerated by Paris.^[14]However, because of the strong American interest in a West German army, a draft agreement for a modified Pleven Plan, renamed the European Defense Community (EDC), was ready in May 1952, with French support.

  Among compromises and differences, on 27 May 1952 the six foreign ministers signed the Treaty of Paris establishing the European Defence Community (EDC).

  All signatories except France and Italy ratified the treaty. The Italian parliament aborted its ratification process due to France's failed ratification.

  The EDC went for ratification in the French National Assembly on 30 August 1954, and failed by a vote of 319 against 264.

  By the time of the vote, concerns about a future conflict faded with the death of Joseph Stalin and the end of the Korean War. Concomitant to these fears were a severe disjuncture between the original Pleven Plan of 1950 and the one defeated in 1954. Divergences included military integration at the division rather than battalion level and a change in the command structure putting NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe(SACEUR) in charge of EDC operational capabilities. The reasons that led to the failed ratification of the Treaty were twofold, concerning major changes in the international scene, as well as domestic problems of the French Fourth Republic.^[24] There were Gaullistfears that the EDC threatened France's national sovereignty, constitutional concerns about the indivisibility of the French Republic, and fears about West Germany's remilitarization. French Communists opposed a plan tying France to the capitalist United Statesand setting it in opposition to the Communist bloc. Other legislators worried about the absence of the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister, Pierre Mendès-France, tried to placate the treaty's detractors by attempting to ratify additional protocols with the other signatory states. These included the sole integration of covering forces, or in other words, those deployed within West Germany, as well as the implementation of greater national autonomy in regard to budgetary and other administrative questions. Despite the central role for France, the EDC plan collapsed when it failed to obtain ratification in the French Parliament.

  The treaty never went into effect. Instead, after the failed ratification in the French National Assembly, West Germany was admitted into NATO^[25]and the EEC member states tried to create foreign policy cooperation in the De Gaulle-sponsored Fouchet Plan(1959–1962). European foreign policy was finally established during the third attempt with European Political Cooperation (EPC) (1970). This became the predecessor of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

  Today the European Union and NATO, and formerly also the Western European Union, all carry out some of the functions which was envisaged for the EDC, although none approach the degree of supranational military control that the EDC would have provided for.

  Since the end of World War II, sovereignEuropean countries have entered into treaties and thereby co-operated and harmonised policies (or pooled sovereignty) in an increasing number of areas, in the European integration project or the construction of Europe(French: la construction européenne). The following timeline outlines the legal inception of the European Union (EU)—the principal framework for this unification. The EU inherited many of its present responsibilities from the European Communities (EC), which were founded in the 1950s in the spirit of the Schuman Declaration.

  
  

Entrevista de Zelensky ao canal FoxNews, depois do entrevero na Casa Branca com Trump e Vance

 PRA: Assisti à integra da entrevista na Fox News (veiculada nas redes) e posso dizer que fiquei chocado com a postura agressiva do âncora da TV trumpista, insistindo duas ou três vezes com o presidente Zelensky sobre o fato dele ter sido “disrespectible” com Trump, o que também não foi o caso, pois Zelensky estava apenas se defendendo das alegações, elas sim, mentirosas e desrespeitosas de Trump e Vance contra ele e seu país, cruelmente massacrado pelo Hitler do século XXI. Grato a Fernando Daudt pela transcrição da matéria em inglês e seu resumo em português, em sua página Alhos e Bugalhos.

=============

“QUE EXEMPLO DE ESTADISTA!

Zelensky foi entrevistado a respeito do bate-boca no Salão Oval. Sua resposta (na íntegra, após o resumo) foi de rara elegância.

Um resumo da coisa: 

O presidente ucraniano Volodymyr Zelenskyy respondeu com graça e classe às críticas de Donald Trump sobre um encontro no Salão Oval, recusando-se a pedir desculpas como exigido por apoiadores de Trump. 

Zelenskyy agradeceu aos americanos pelo apoio e destacou a importância da parceria estratégica entre os dois países. Ele enfatizou a necessidade de um diálogo honesto e direto e expressou esperança de que Trump ajude a acabar com a guerra na Ucrânia. 

Zelenskyy também mencionou que algumas discussões devem ocorrer fora da mídia para melhor compreensão das posições da Ucrânia e dos ucranianos.

Agora, por extenso:

BREAKING: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy breaks his silence on Donald Trump's disastrous Oval Office outburst with stunning grace and class — but refuses to apologize to Trump as demanded by MAGA.

And the best part? He did it on Fox News. 

This is what a real world leader sounds like...

"President Trump said after your meeting that you disrespected him and the vice president and all of America in the Oval Office," said Fox News' Bret Baier when Zelenskyy appeared on his show. "Do you think you did? And do you think you owe an apology to President Trump?"

"Thank you so much. First of all, thank you for the invitation, for this dialogue and good evening to all of your country, to all Americans," said Zelenskyy. "I'm very thankful to Americans for all your support. You did a lot. I'm thankful to President Trump and to Congress's bipartisan support and I was always very thankful from all of our people."

"You helped us a lot from the very beginning, here in three years of full scale invasion. You helped us to survive and anyway we are strategic partners," he continued.

"And even in such tough dialogue — and I think we have to be very honest and we have to be very direct to understand each other because it's for us very necessary," said Zelenskyy.

"To President Trump — and with all respect that he wants to finish this war — but nobody wants to finish more than we because we in Ukraine we are in this war, we are in this battle for freedom, for our lives," he went on.

"So I'm just telling that I think we have to be on the same side and I hope that the president on our side together with us and that is very important to stop Putin," continued Zelenskyy. "And I heard from President Trump a lot of times that he will stop the war and I hope he will. And we need to pressure him with Europe, with all the partners."

"And I think this dialogue had to be a little bit earlier to understand where we are," he continued. "Like you know, I don't remember exactly, but like President Reagan said that peace is not just the absence of war."

"Yes, we are speaking about just, lasting peace, about freedom, about justice, about human rights and that's why I said that 'I think so' to ceasefire," he went on. "And you know Putin, he's broken twenty-five times ceasefire during all these years, ten years."

"So I'm not hearing from you Mr. President a thought that you owe the president an apology," said Baier, clearly trying to pander to Trump who was almost certainly watching at home.

"No I respect the president and I respect the American people and if — I don't know, I think that we have to be very open and very honest and I'm not sure that we did something bad," replied Zelenskyy. 

"I think maybe somethings we have to discuss out of media, with all respect to democracy and free media but there are things where we have to understand the position of Ukraine and Ukrainians," he added. "And I think that is the most important thing."

"We are partners. We are very close partners. We have to be fair. We have to be very free," said Zelenskyy, sounding far more like an American president than Donald Trump did today.

This is an astonishing display of statesmanship. Rather than give into ego or pettiness, Zelenskyy is rising above Donald Trump's childish bullying to serve his people.

Zelenskyy isn't interested in following Trump down into the gutter. He's interested in securing a lasting peace for his innocent embattled country, a task made all the more difficult by Trump's kowtowing to Vladimir Putin.

Zelenskyy is also correct that these conversations should take place behind closed doors instead of being exploited to create a media circus. Trump and Vance ambushed him in the Oval Office in front of reporters because they knew that it would make headlines and entertain their base. 

They are not serious leaders. Zelenskyy is.”

A fonte é provavelmente a imprensa ucraniana, não reportada. PRA

Mandato de Dilma no banco do Brics tem metas atrasadas, relatos de assédio moral e alta rotatividade - Patricia Campos Mello (FSP)

 PRA: Considero credíveis as afirmações desta matéria, conhecendo, por experiência própria o caráter da incompetente ex-presidente, pois tenho registro de sua primeira passagem por Washington (quando eu ali era ministro conselheiro sob a chefia de Rubens Barbosa, em 2003), quando da primeira visita de trabalho de Lula, e a personagem era a prepotente ministra das Minas e Energia. Sabemos também de seus chiliques com os subordinados, sendo que os diplomatas eram tratados com desprezo e aos gritos por ela. Por outro lado, sua extraordinária renovação de mandato no NDB se deve à pressão de Putin e pronta aquiescência de Lula, contra a opinião de chineses e indianos, que sempre administraram de fato o banco dos Brics, segundo admissão do próprio ex-presidente Marcos Troyjo, nomeado na vez do Brasil durante o mandato de Bolsonaro.

BRICS

Mandato de Dilma no banco do Brics tem metas atrasadas, relatos de assédio moral e alta rotatividade

Assessoria diz que objetivos são de cinco anos e não há registros de queixas de funcionários; documentos obtidos pela Folha mostram críticas.

Patricia Campos Mello

Folha de S. Paulo, 2/03/2025

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/amp/mercado/2025/02/mandato-de-dilma-no-banco-dos-brics-tem-metas-atrasadas-relatos-de-assedio-moral-e-alta-rotatividade.shtml

Prestes a iniciar um segundo mandato à frente do Novo Banco de Desenvolvimento (NDB), o banco do Brics, a ex-presidente Dilma Rousseff deixou um rastro de metas atrasadas, relatos de assédio moral, demissões e críticas por má gestão na instituição desde que assumiu, em abril de 2023.

Documentos obtidos pela Folha mostram que o NDB está atrasado no cumprimento da grande maioria de suas metas e tem rotatividade de funcionários (15,5%) três vezes maior do que a média em bancos multilaterais de desenvolvimento (5%), segundo relatório de avaliação independente do banco. Desde que Dilma assumiu, ao menos 46% dos funcionários brasileiros (14) deixaram o banco. Avaliações internas apontam que "limitações em delegar autoridade" contribuem para "atrasos na tomada de decisões e baixa eficiência na implementação".

A situação no banco foi descrita como disfuncional e de paralisia por funcionários ouvidos pela Folha.

As críticas foram corroboradas no voto de Prasanna Salian, diretor da Índia, em reunião do conselho de diretores sobre a Revisão de Médio Prazo da estratégia geral do banco no ano passado. "O banco está atrasado no cumprimento da maioria de suas metas estratégicas para o período de cinco anos (2022-2026)", diz Salian, diretor do departamento de assuntos econômicos do Ministério das Finanças da Índia, no documento obtido pela Folha.

Segundo Salian, apenas 20% da meta de concessão de crédito do banco foi atingida, e o NDB está muito aquém dos objetivos de operações não soberanas (10,7%, diante da meta de 30%). Apenas um projeto (4%) foi cofinanciado (meta era 20%).

"A administração deve fazer esforços imediatos para melhorar a execução do banco e reduzir o atraso [no cumprimento das metas] nos próximos anos", disse Salian em voto escrito. "De forma geral, há uma necessidade urgente de priorizar atividades, usar recursos limitados de forma criteriosa, ter planejamento efetivo esforços rigorosos para execução e coordenação eficiente."

Procurada, a assessoria do NDB disse que não comentaria sobre o voto. "Os votos dos membros do NDB não são informação pública e não devem ser divulgados", disse a assessoria.

A Folha conversou com seis funcionários e ex-funcionários do banco e do governo brasileiro que trabalham diretamente com Dilma. Por medo de represálias, eles pediram para não ser identificados. Todos afirmaram que o banco está paralisado e que o nível de assédio moral é muito alto.

Segundo vários relatos, Dilma frequentemente grita com os funcionários, em broncas que podem ser ouvidas em outros andares da instituição. Ela chamaria os funcionários de "burro" e "burra", "ignorante", além de dizer "você não presta para nada", "você não serve para porra nenhuma" e "você nunca mais vai arrumar outro emprego", "você escreve com os pés".

Ela teria dito a um funcionário chinês que ele precisava "lavar atrás das orelhas".

Outro relato frequente é que ela se nega a dar folgas, principalmente aos funcionários que trabalham diretamente com a presidente, e que os trabalhadores são forçados a jornadas que vão das 6h às 21h todos os dias da semana. Dois funcionários relataram ter procurado assistência psicológica.

O relatório anual do banco de 2023 não foi publicado até hoje, nem o de 2024. Os outros relatórios, relativos a 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 e 2022 estão disponíveis no site do banco.

Já o relatório do Escritório de Avaliação Independente do NDB, assinado pelo diretor-geral Ashwani K. Muthoo, em 20 de maio de 2024, apresenta um retrato sombrio.

"O volume de empréstimos do banco ficou aquém do que foi previsto na estratégia geral para 2017-2021 e desacelerou ainda mais em 2022 e 2023", diz o documento. "Há espaço para melhorar a cultura organizacional, os processos de gestão e de pessoas para aumentar a eficiência do banco para poder cumprir seu mandato."

Além dos problemas de gestão, os relatórios internos apontam que a situação política, com a presença da Rússia no banco, aumentou o custo de captação e reduziu a competitividade.

Diz também que a "alta rotatividade" afeta a capacidade de o banco de funcionar.

Os relatórios também apontam paralisia na expansão do banco. Sob Marcos Troyjo, juntaram-se à instituição Egito, Emirados Árabes Unidos e Bangladesh. Na gestão Dilma, nenhum novo membro.

"Em suma, o NDB ainda não conseguiu se estabelecer completamente como um banco de desenvolvimento com foco em impacto como determinado em sua carta de fundação".

Outro relatório do escritório independente, também obtido pela Folha, afirma que "a ausência de um processo de tomada de decisão ágil e consistente também compromete a capacidade de resposta e a eficiência geral do banco. Sem mudanças substanciais em seus processos e procedimentos, o banco continuará enfrentando sérios obstáculos para cumprir seu mandato".

Procurado, o chefe de gabinete de Dilma, Marco Túlio Mendonça, que é assessor direto da presidente, não respondeu a mensagem de WhatsApp com perguntas e não atendeu a uma ligação.

Procurada, a assessoria de imprensa do NDB afirmou que as metas são para cinco anos, não para um ano. "Não é apropriado concluir que o NDB não atingiu as metas, pois o ciclo estratégico ainda está em andamento", disse a assessoria. Os relatórios do escritório de avaliação independente do banco e o voto de diretor do conselho apontam que o cumprimento das metas está muito atrasado.

A assessoria afirma também que a primeira metade do ciclo estratégico de 2022-2026, de 1º de janeiro de 2022 a 30 de junho de 2024, foi dividida igualmente entre a administração de Troyjo e Dilma. "Quando a presidente Dilma chegou, em março de 2023, o banco enfrentava uma grave crise de liquidez. Ele havia passado 15 meses sem realizar uma emissão em dólares."

O banco informou que, quando Dilma assumiu, os desembolsos de financiamentos foram "temporariamente suspensos por causa de preocupações com liquidez". Mas afirma que, na gestão da brasileira, o banco como um todo teve "crescimento significativo" e que o balanço no final de 2024 mostra "forte recuperação e expansão".

A assessoria afirmou que o único ano em que a rotatividade foi alta, de 15%, foi 2023. Segundo o banco, em 2024, essa porcentagem se normalizou em 5%. Como os relatórios anuais do banco dos anos 2023 e 2024 não foram publicados, não é possível checar. A reportagem da Folha pediu documentos oficiais com números de saídas de funcionários, mas não recebeu.

No caso dos funcionários brasileiros, a assessoria afirmou que, em 2022/2023, a taxa de rotatividade foi de 43%. Mas, segundo o banco, em 2024, esse número caiu para 16%.

"O NDB não viu qualquer queda na produtividade ou eficiência em relação às taxas de rotatividade."

Em relação aos relatos de assédio moral, a assessoria do banco respondeu: "O NDB não vai comentar as alegações em relação a assédio moral, pois não há casos de assédio moral no departamento de conformidade e investigações do banco relacionados à presidente".

A assessoria afirmou também que o horário de funcionamento do banco é das 9h às 17h15, nenhum funcionário do banco é obrigado a começar a trabalhar às 6h e todos os funcionários do banco têm folgas normais e regulamentadas. A reportagem mantém que funcionários do banco e do governo brasileiro que trabalhavam diretamente com a presidente relataram a carga horária excessiva e falta de folgas, e muitos pediram demissão.

Em relação ao fato de nenhum país ter entrado como novo membro no banco durante a gestão Dilma, a assessoria disse que "o NDB amplia sua adesão sob a aprovação de seu Conselho de Governadores e Conselho de Diretores".

Trump: um agente do KGB há quase quatro décadas? - Zahra Khalig (The Mirror)

 A matéria é verdadeira, mas a alegação pode ser falsa, daí o ponto de interrogação do meu título. Mas eu a considero inteiramente plausível, conhecendo-se o tipo de trabalho produzido pelo KGB e as inacreditáveis posturas pró-Putin (um ex-agente do KGB, naquele mesmo ano, 1987, estacionado em Dresden) e pró-Rússia assumidas agora, num momento crucial da guerra de agressão da Rússia contra a Ucrânia. Diplomatas brasileiros também foram recrutados pelo KGB, como registrado eM revelações feitas no momento da implosão da antiga União Soviética (vou transcrever novamente o que postei aqui, anos atrás). PRA

Ex-UK spy chief's verdict on bombshell claims Trump recruited by Russia's KGB in 1987

The shocking claim first surfaced in a Facebook post by ex-KGB officer Alnur Mussayev, who said Donald Trump was groomed 37 years ago as a 'potential Soviet asset' - operating under the pseudonym 'Krasnov'.

Zahra Khalig

The Mirror, Feb 25, 2025

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ex-uk-spy-chiefs-verdict-34748254

A former UK spy chief has weighed in on the bizarre claims made by an ex-KGB spy that Donald Trump was recruited as a Russian asset over 40 years ago, operating under the codename "Krasnov".

The shocking claim first surfaced in a Facebook post by ex-KGB officer Alnur Mussayev, who said the US president was groomed 37 years ago as a "potential Soviet asset". Mussayev, 71, was working in the 6th Directorate of the KGB at the time, which focused on counter-intelligence support within the economy, and claims recruiting capitalists was a key objective.

His Facebook post read: "In 1987, I worked in the 6th Department of the KGB of the USSR in Moscow. The most important area of work of the 6th Department was the acquisition of spies and sources of information from among businessmen of capitalist countries. It was in that year that our Department recruited the 40-year-old businessman from the USA, Donald Trump, nicknamed Krasnov."

It followed a viral twitter thread of "evidence" by Twitter user @anthony7andrews to back the allegation. He wrote: "Now that it’s been revealed that Trump has been a Russian asset for 40 years named Krasnov by the FSB, I will write a simple thread of various pieces of information that solidifies the truth of everything I’ve written. Please read and share."

But former spy chief Sir David Omand says he does not give the allegations any credence. Responding to Andrew Marr on LBC, who asked if there is any weight to the claims, he said: "No no. I say that largely because if there had been a real smoking gun then I think it would have surfaced in the years since that story first came out - and there are enough pro-Ukrainian people around in Russia, that it would have surfaced.

"So I don't give it credence, it's a bit conspiratorial and actually you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist - it is all in plain sight these days."

Intelligence reports dating back to the 1980s suggest the KGB was actively working to recruit high-profile Western figures as informants or spies. It has been claimed that Trump's KGB file remains open and is under the management of a close confidant of Vladimir Putin - but there is yet to be any concrete evidence to back these allegations.

The World according to Trump (se algo faz sentido) - Paulo Roberto de Almeida

 The World according to Trump (se algo faz sentido)

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Tentando entender coisas aparentemente contraditórias.
Então é verdade que a potência ainda hegemônica está impondo tarifas extorsivas (o próprio Trump disse o "dinheiro vai pingar") contra seus antigos aliados, hoje tratados como inimigos: México, Canadá, União Europeia ("ela foi criada para nos ferrar", disse ele), e um "inimigo" que ele gostaria de tratar como um amigo, a China (ainda "comunista", segundo Trump)?
O único país e líder autocrático (como ele) dos quais ele se considera realmente um amigo verdadeiro são a Rússia e o próprio Putin, que ele trata com todas as delicadezas permitidas a um clarividente estadista.
Não sei exatamente o que vai resultar de toda essa confusão criada por Trump, mas a sua "Art of the Deal" me parece bem mais uma grande perturbação mental do que uma estratégia política e geopolítica claramente definida.
Os grandes ganhadores dos distúbrios trumpianos (por enquanto) são: Netanyahu (Israel), Putin (Rússia), Xi Jinping (China) e o próprio Irã (que está quieto, no momento, tentando passar despercebido). Até o baixinho da Coreia do Norte aceitaria um novo encontro com seu amigo-inimigo.
Nenhum analista experiente das relações internacionais, jornalista veterano, político de longo percurso tem a capacidade de entender e de explicar Trump, para ele mesmo e para o mundo. Trump excede a capacidade analítica de qualquer observador da cena internacional e americana. Um ponto fora da curva, como se diz. Não sou eu que vou tentar.
Provavelmente, nem o próprio Trump sabe bem o que quer.
Um personagem psicótico, com certeza, requerendo exame psiquiátrico.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Brasília, 2/03/2025