Forum

GW Bush aurait il donc ete aussi un Gorbachev..?

On retrouve en arrière-plan cette idée que si l’ensemble étasunien est devenu encombrant, inefficace, de moins en moins adapté à l’évolution du monde tel qu’il est, il serait bon d’envisager l’hypothèse d’une dislocation, en prenant soin de conserver au sein de l’Amérique wasp le meilleur. De manière similaire, en éclatant l’Union la Russie s’est delestée de l’Asie centrale qui lui coûtait fort cher et à qui elle avait beaucoup apporté. Cette dislocation hypothétique poserait dans le cas étasunien un problème épineux, celui de l’identité collective. Quand la Tchéquie et la Slovaquie se séparent (pour des motifs essentiellement économiques et donc égoistes) ce sont deux ensembles qui ont déjà une véritable identité historique et éventuellement culturelle qui font ce choix. S’agissant des Etats-Unis une telle dislocation ferait voler en éclats le mythe actuel de la nation étasunienne et sans solution identitaire de rechange. Dans tous les cas, et sauf à ce que cela soit vérouillé par le “système”, on ne voit pas aux Etats-Unis, en ce moment, de germes de cette dislocation ayant pris une concrétisation politique.

J’apprécie plutôt bien ce genre de personnages (bandow) qui se glissant comme de malins génies des choses passées ,nous en restituant en temps réel   son énergie’ objective’ du mal…De celle là même qui au delà de certaines limites ,il n’y aurait plus de cause à effet ,il n’y aurait plus que des relations virales d’effet à effet,d’ou le systéme se meut tout entier par inertie ou d’autres chroniqueurs bien assermentés ceux là  par le systéme aux salons d’effets symboliques ,s’exerceraient suivant les circonstances de l’actualité  et de sa vélocité  à de pitoyables pirouettes consensuels et sémantiques d’un éventuel rachat d’un principe moral.A propos d’inertie de systéme de valeur(s),comme vous citiez William Pfaff à juste titre , dans le prolongement des états dés-unis, cela le fait à merveille dans les rêts de l’immoralité contemporaine.Il ne resterait donc que le dégout et la consternation et bien d’autres choses à éviter au demeurant de ce qui est mort ...

http://www.williampfaff.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=369

Si on établit une relation entre ces deux articles :

-  Albion soupçonne Super-Sarko de bien vastes ambitions

- Des USA aux DSA, l’hypothèse finale

l’hypothèse de Lyndon Larouche concernant une conspiration britannique visant à restaurer l’Empire Britannique sous la forme d’une confédération globale gérée en sous-main par les britanniques et quelques comparses fortunés, n’est pas si idiote que cela… D’autant plus que la globalisation qui est le plus formidable instrument de destruction des états qui ait été inventé est une idée européenne et plus spécialement britannique qu’une idée US.

Dans cette hypothèse, les US (le pays) est plus victime que coupable alors que seule une partie de son élite économique, celle justement qui s’est royalement servie dans le trésor US pour couvrir ses pertes lors de la crise des subprimes, paraît avoir partie liée avec ces “conspirateurs britanniques”.

Ajoutons à cela le rôle trouble que joua Blair auprès de Bush avant de reprendre ses billes pour tenter de se faire nommer président de l’U.E. et le tableau commence à furieusement ressembler à la caricature de LaRouche.

Je suggere de regarder l’original sur wsj.com, avec les cartes:  Il a méme repris les couleurs de la carte de Ralph Peters. 
   
As if Things Weren’t Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.
In Moscow, Igor Panarin’s Forecasts Are All the Rage; America ‘Disintegrates’ in 2010
DECEMBER 29, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html?mod=todays_us_page_one#printMode

By ANDREW OSBORN JAN 03. 2009

MOSCOW—For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument—that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S.—very seriously. Now he’s found an eager audience: Russian state media.

In recent weeks, he’s been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. “It’s a record,” says Prof. Panarin. “But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger.”

Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.

But it’s his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin’s views also fit neatly with the Kremlin’s narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.

A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.

“There’s a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur,” he says. “One could rejoice in that process,” he adds, poker-faced. “But if we’re talking reasonably, it’s not the best scenario—for Russia.” Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces—with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

In addition to increasing coverage in state media, which are tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Mr. Panarin’s ideas are now being widely discussed among local experts. He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country’s top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S. The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin’s English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.

Mr. Panarin’s apocalyptic vision “reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today,” says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. “It’s much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union.”

Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin’s predictions. “Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people,” says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin’s theories don’t hold water.

Mr. Panarin’s résumé includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB’s successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia.

The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are “classified.”

In September 1998, he attended a conference in Linz, Austria, devoted to information warfare, the use of data to get an edge over a rival. It was there, in front of 400 fellow delegates, that he first presented his theory about the collapse of the U.S. in 2010.

“When I pushed the button on my computer and the map of the United States disintegrated, hundreds of people cried out in surprise,” he remembers. He says most in the audience were skeptical. “They didn’t believe me.”

At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S.

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

California will form the nucleus of what he calls “The Californian Republic,” and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of “The Texas Republic,” a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an “Atlantic America” that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls “The Central North American Republic.” Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

“It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time.” A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. “It’s not there for no reason,” he says with a sly grin.

Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia’s biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt “a pyramid scheme,” and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington’s role as a global financial regulator.

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama “can work miracles,” he wrote. “But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.”

The article prompted a question about the White House’s reaction to Prof. Panarin’s forecast at a December news conference. “I’ll have to decline to comment,” spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.

For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino’s response was significant. “The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully,” he says.

The professor says he’s convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union—15 years beforehand. “When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him,” says Prof. Panarin.
[Igor Panarin]

Write to Andrew Osborn at

Related News From the Web

  * et aussi:      As If Things Weren’t Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End Of US DEC 29. 2008   huffingtonpost.com

—————- et sur le washingtonpost—————-
Russian’s Prediction Spurs Celebrity, Scorn

By Joel Garreau Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 3, 2009; C01  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202401_pf.html

For seriously predicting that the United States will break into six parts in June or July of 2010, Igor Panarin has suddenly become a Russian state-media celebrity. Hardly a day goes by without another interview or two for the KGB-trained, Kremlin-backed senior analyst. The clamor in Russia for his ideas is growing, he says.

Panarin’s disintegration divination comes complete with a map. In it, Alaska goes to Russia. Hawaii goes to Japan or China. “The California Republic”—the West from Utah and Arizona to the Pacific—goes to China. “The Texas Republic”—the South from New Mexico to Florida—goes to Mexico. “Atlantic America”—the Northeast from Tennessee and South Carolina up to Maine—joins the European Union. And “The Central North-American Republic”—the Plains from Ohio to Montana—goes to Canada.

Few Americans paid any attention to his novel views until this week, when the Wall Street Journal trumpeted them on Page 1. Within hours, the U.S. media began the counterattack.

This is preposterous, Time magazine said in a blog.

“The man knows nothing at all about American regional differences,” wrote Justin Fox, Time’s business and economics columnist. South Carolina is like Massachusetts? Tennessee will join with France? Idaho will find something to love about California? Wyoming will snuggle up to Ottawa? Alabama will happily report to Mexico City? “Yeah, right!” Fox wrote. “Has this man ever been to the United States? Has he never even heard of ‘The Nine Nations of North America’? . . . Igor, do your homework!”

Ahem, yes, that 1981 “Nine Nations” book I myself wrote. Well, I was young. I needed the money.

The regional bloggers who find it useful to view the continent functioning as if it were nine separate economies or distinct cultures that pay little regard to state or national boundaries have been loudly a-chirp about Panarin for a while.

Their complaints are similar to Time’s. They’re not so concerned about some Russkie anticipating American disunion, devolution, revolution, fratricide and overthrow of the government. What the hey, we celebrate those every Fourth of July. Never uncommon in North America is the geopolitical urge to take a walk for a pack of cigarettes. At any given time, there are as many as a dozen secession movements ongoing. The one getting the most press currently is the Second Vermont Republic.

Such unhappy places usually want to secede because they are marginal, cheated, powerless, sparsely populated areas neglected by the big urban centers that control powerful states. The reason their secession movements are thoroughly ignored is that they are marginal, cheated, powerless, sparsely populated areas neglected by the big urban centers that control powerful states.

The regionalists’ problem with Panarin is that he couldn’t be more clueless about where the real fault lines of culture and values are.

Las Vegas beats with the same heart as Portland, Ore.? Detroit is the soul mate of Bozeman, Mont.?

Good Lord, Richmond is the same place as Fairfax?

One possible explanation for how Panarin’s hypothesis is being eagerly lapped up in Russia is that the Kremlin is projecting its own insecurities onto the United States.

“What may be clouding Mr. Panarin’s crystal ball is the mistaken belief that U.S. citizens view themselves in the same way that residents of the old Soviet Union viewed that state,” e-mails Thomas J. Baerwald, an investigator in a project called “Beyond Borders” and past president of the Association of American Geographers.

Just before the breakup of the Soviet Union, four Soviet and five American geographers started “Beyond Borders” to map within the Soviet empire the human values that endure—those that have taken centuries to produce and are not likely to change precipitously. Their approach was based on the idea that all countries have underlying patterns of pasts, futures, loyalties, industries, climates, resources and politics. These functional cultural regions, in turn, frequently are far more significant than the arbitrary boundaries and surveyors’ mistakes that usually make up politically defined borders.

To take one former Soviet example: The European gateway of St. Petersburg, across from Scandinavia, is profoundly different from all those Muslim “-stans” north and east of Iran, from Uzbekistan to Kyrgyzstan, that declared their independence from the Soviet Union the first chance they got.

Those departures still burn some Russians who hate the loss of empire. Perhaps they would like to shed crocodile tears at the idea that history might repeat itself near the U.S.-Mexico border.

When the Soviet Union broke apart, 14 independent countries emerged in addition to Russia. Quite a few of them instantly and desperately turned to Europe for their futures, including Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia and Ukraine—not to mention all those Warsaw Pact places from Poland to the late Czechoslovakia. Might it warm a few cockles in Moscow to think that Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey or New Hampshire could go the same way?

Oh, and be still my Kremlin heart: those shooting wars in the Caucuses, in Chechnya and Georgia? If only those would erupt in the Rockies!

“I really see Panarin’s argument as Russia looking in the mirror and projecting that onto the United States. ‘Here they speak Spanish. Of course this can’t hold together. Of course this will fall apart when the economy tanks,’ ” says Kathleen Braden of Seattle Pacific University, another member of the “Beyond Borders” team.

“The Russian mentality is, ‘There are ethnic borders, and they won’t go away. The only thing that keeps this melting pot together is money.’ There’s also a sense of ‘Our empire broke up; why shouldn’t theirs?’ “

“We constantly were corrected when we tried to use the term ‘Soviets’ as a catch-all phrase for residents of the U.S.S.R.,” Baerwald says. “People firmly told us that they were Russians or Lithuanians or Estonians or Ukrainians or other terms that identified a region or subregion that described their own geographical identity. In contrast, if you ask U.S. residents what term describes who they are, an enormous majority will reply ‘I am an American.’ Even in those places where regional loyalties are especially strong, such as Texas, loyalties to the U.S. are far greater than they are to states or regions.

“I suspect this would be true even had the U.S. not had the powerful reinforcement of national identity that followed in the wake of 9/11. But one can compare the way that U.S. citizens have dealt with the Iraqi war in comparison with the way the nation was torn by an equally unpopular war in Vietnam four decades earlier, and sense that there is a very strong belief among a very large percentage of Americans that while we may have problems and differences, the best way to attain a positive future is to remain solid as a united nation.”

We can hope that Igor Panarin is offered the opportunity for a long road trip in these parts, either before or after his 2010 deadline for the end of the federal empire.

Perhaps he would discover what the acutely perceptive Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville did in the 1830s, as he wrote in “Democracy in America”: that we Americans are an extravagantly creative people in how we generate social forms.

“Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations,” he wrote. “In democratic countries, knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others.”

Indeed, Tocqueville noted, community here was rarely the same thing as formal government.

I have never thought that North America is flying apart, or that it should. But I once talked with someone who did: Archie Green, a University of Texas professor, folklorist and regionalist.

What he liked about the observation that North America was made up of quite real, tangible and long-lived civilizations such as the breadbasket or the Pacific Northwest is that if Washington, D.C., were to slide into the Potomac tomorrow under the weight of its many burdens and crises, the result would be okay. The future would not be chaos; it would be a shift. North America would not suddenly become a strange and alien world. It would be a collection of healthy, powerful constituent parts—for example, Dixie—that we’ve known all our lives.

Green saw this as a resilient response of a tough people reaffirming their self-reliance. It’s not that social contracts are dissolving; it’s that new ones are being born.

Check it out, Igor. In addition to the Mississippi Delta not being Belarus, you might find these real places nothing like your imagination.
———————————————

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/01/willem-buiter-calls-for-less-us.html

loin des conspirations et leurs cohortes de commentateurs exaltés, un économiste (blog ft.com) qui empoigne les fondamentaux et les propulse au-delà du court terme plutôt que de se limiter à décrire l’état lamentable des affaires du moment

merci de tenter d’intégrer ces paramètres dans votre analyse si régulièrement pertinente

et de voir si le rôle de la Chine n’est pas un élément sous-évalué de sa réflexion

cordialement