{"id":69444,"date":"2007-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-25T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/11\/25\/les-russes-pas-contents-des-americains-question-bmde-ou-les-etranges-aventures-dun-document-officiel-us\/"},"modified":"2007-11-25T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-11-25T00:00:00","slug":"les-russes-pas-contents-des-americains-question-bmde-ou-les-etranges-aventures-dun-document-officiel-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/11\/25\/les-russes-pas-contents-des-americains-question-bmde-ou-les-etranges-aventures-dun-document-officiel-us\/","title":{"rendered":"Les Russes pas contents des Am\u00e9ricains, question BMDE, \u2014 ou les \u00e9tranges aventures d&rsquo;un document officiel US"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>Les Russes ont re\u00e7u le document officiel des propositions US promises lors du sommet de Moscou des <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dedefensa.org\/article.php?art_id=4527\" class=\"gen\">12-13 octobre<\/a> derniers, sur les anti-missiles US en Europe (syst\u00e8me BMDE). L&rsquo;affaire avait \u00e9t\u00e9 proclam\u00e9e, du c\u00f4t\u00e9 US, comme un triomphe, malgr\u00e9 quelques <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dedefensa.org\/article.php?art_id=4551\" class=\"gen\">incertitudes<\/a> et contradictions notables et <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dedefensa.org\/article.php?art_id=4551\" class=\"gen\">significatives<\/a>. Il semble que le document d\u00e9finitif n&rsquo;ait que de lointains rapports avec cette r\u00e9alit\u00e9 proclam\u00e9e, voire avec l&rsquo;origine m\u00eame de ce m\u00eame document, ce qui confirmerait qu&rsquo;il existe du c\u00f4t\u00e9 US une bataille interne s\u00e9rieuse et une absence d&rsquo;autorit\u00e9 dans cette affaire. Ce que nous dit l&rsquo;agence Novosti le <a href=\"http:\/\/en.rian.ru\/russia\/20071123\/89356224.html\" class=\"gen\">24 novembre<\/a>, \u00e0 propos de la r\u00e9action russe:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab<em>The United States has gone back on previous initiatives concerning its missile shield in Europe in a written proposal earlier received by Russia, a source in Russia&rsquo;s Foreign Ministry said Friday.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>Russia&rsquo;s foreign and defense ministers held talks on October 12 with their U.S. counterparts in Moscow, at which the U.S. side made &lsquo;counter proposals&rsquo; in a bid to allay Russia&rsquo;s concerns over Washington&rsquo;s missile shield plans in Europe, including inviting Russian experts to inspect mooted missile defense sites.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>This time<\/em> [in written proposals], <em>there is no mention of a joint assessment of threats, the presence of Russian experts at U.S. missile defense sites in Europe. The document does not confirm U.S. willingness not to activate the<\/em> [missile] <em>shield if there is no real threat, the source said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>The United States plans to deploy interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic. Moscow views the plans as a threat to its national security.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb<em>Everything is so vague that it is hard to discern previous initiatives in the document, the source said.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tL&rsquo;histoire de cette proposition US  aux Russes, d\u00e9j\u00e0 chaotique comme  on l&rsquo;a vu, continue \u00e0 l&rsquo;\u00eatre plus que jamais. La proposition US a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9labor\u00e9e au State department et comprenait initialement des  propositions extr\u00eamement avanc\u00e9es, notamment celles dont les Russes disent aujourd&rsquo;hui constater l&rsquo;absence. Une source europ\u00e9enne, qui avait consult\u00e9 ce document initial \u00e0 Washington, nous avait expliqu\u00e9 il y a une semaine, alors que le document d\u00e9finitif \u00e9tait encore en cours de r\u00e9daction (de refonte!): \u00ab<em>Il donne toute satisfaction aux Russes. Poutine sera bien ennuy\u00e9 parce qu&rsquo;il devra convenir qu&rsquo;il est satisfait, alors qu&rsquo;il est en pleine campagne \u00e9lectorale et qu&rsquo;il a besoin d&rsquo;un bon argument de surench\u00e8re nationaliste.<\/em>\u00bb On doit alors conclure, au vu du r\u00e9sultat, que cette proposition venue du State department est pass\u00e9e entre temps au tamis impitoyable des autres centres de pouvoir (Pentagone principalement) et a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9grad\u00e9e de fa\u00e7on substantielle. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tSi cette proposition est confirm\u00e9e dans les conditions qu&rsquo;\u00e9noncent les Russes, c&rsquo;est que la bureaucratie US reste retranch\u00e9es dans ses exigences inalt\u00e9rables et que la crise des BMDE est loin d&rsquo;\u00eatre proche de son terme. Elle pourrait prendre alors des dimensions nouvelles avec le cas polonais, dont on a vu <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dedefensa.org\/article.php?art_id=4659\" class=\"gen\">hier<\/a> les modifications fondamentales en cours. L&rsquo;\u00e9volution g\u00e9n\u00e9rale va acc\u00e9l\u00e9rer la possibilit\u00e9 et renforcer les effets de ce changement fondamental dans cette crise des BMDE, qui est le passage de la Pologne du statut de soutien inconditionnel de Washington dans cette affaire \u00e0 celui d&rsquo;interlocuteur privil\u00e9gi\u00e9 fondamental de la Russie, interlocuteur polonais mais aussi au nom de l&rsquo;UE <em>de facto<\/em> en tant que pays europ\u00e9en,. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\tMis en ligne le 25 novembre 2007 \u00e0 06H51<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Les Russes ont re\u00e7u le document officiel des propositions US promises lors du sommet de Moscou des 12-13 octobre derniers, sur les anti-missiles US en Europe (syst\u00e8me BMDE). L&rsquo;affaire avait \u00e9t\u00e9 proclam\u00e9e, du c\u00f4t\u00e9 US, comme un triomphe, malgr\u00e9 quelques incertitudes et contradictions notables et significatives. Il semble que le document d\u00e9finitif n&rsquo;ait que de&hellip;&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[4314,3228,2827,2730],"class_list":["post-69444","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-bmde","tag-crise","tag-pologne","tag-russie"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69444","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69444"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69444\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69444"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69444"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69444"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}