Les sp\u00e9culations continuent \u00e0 aller \u00e0 leur rythme concernant le d\u00e9part de Chuck Hagel de son poste de secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense. Sputnik.News<\/em> donne (le 29 novembre 2014<\/a>) des extraits d’une \u00e9mission sur son r\u00e9seau Radio-Sputnik, d’un d\u00e9bat entre trois experts russes. (Il s’agit de Andrei Fiodorov, ancien adjoint du ministre des affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res russe et directeur du Centre de la Recherche Politique de Moscou, Oleg Koulakov, qui fut expert d\u00e9tach\u00e9 au Coll\u00e8ge de d\u00e9fense de l’OTAN \u00e0 Rome en 2005-2006, et Alexander Konovalov, pr\u00e9sident de l’Institut russe d’\u00c9valuation Strat\u00e9gique.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tUne intervention de Fiodorov est particuli\u00e8rement int\u00e9ressante. D\u00e9taillant les faiblesses ou les tendances politiques de Chuck Hagel, il affirme que Hagel a jou\u00e9 un r\u00f4le fondamental dans la d\u00e9t\u00e9rioration des rapports des USA avec la Russie, notamment entre les deux minist\u00e8res de la d\u00e9fense correspondants, et il affieme que ce fut personnellement de sa faute, parce qu’il consid\u00e9rait la Russie comme une ennemie, et non comme une amie. Selon Fiodorov, Hagel a cr\u00e9\u00e9 les conditions pour une nouvelle confrontation entre la Russie et les USA, ce qui constitue une affirmation tr\u00e8s \u00e9tonnante par rapport \u00e0 ce qu’on avait et a coutume d’affirmer \u00e0 propos de Hagel.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMais le point le plus int\u00e9ressant concerne l’Afghanistan. Fiodorov affirme que les talibans prendront ais\u00e9ment le pouvoir \u00e0 Kaboul au printemps prochain, et que les troupes US qui restent stationn\u00e9es dans le pays deviendront pratiquement les otages des talibans. Cela sera sera le plus grand \u00e9chec militaire US, avec la possibilit\u00e9 de milliers de soldats US quasiment prisonniers en Afghanistan. Fiodorov semble affirmer que Hagel savait cela et qu’il aurait sans doute pr\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9 ne pas pr\u00e9sider, \u00e0 la t\u00eate du Pentagone, \u00e0 une telle catastrophe potentielle. (Ce dernier point pose par ailleurs la question des circonstances du d\u00e9part de Hagel, impliquant que Hagel l’aurait pour le moins en partie sollicit\u00e9, ce que semblait d’ailleurs sugg\u00e9rer les affirmations initiales de John McCain [voir le 25 novembre 20124<\/a>.])<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tRadio-Sputnik<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abFor you, was this a surprise decision and why do you think he took it?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAndrei Fiodorov<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abIt was not a big surprise, but it was partly a surprise. From the very first days in the office Chuck was a black sheep in the family, not only by his Republican Party membership, but by the conception. He was thinking not about ending the wars, he was thinking about a new strategy for the US. And a lot of people are forgetting that during the last two years under Chuck there were new arms introduced, there was the development of the antimissile shield etc. So, he never stopped the preparation for the war in fact.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe problem is that he had too much burden on his shoulders Afghanistan, Syria and the biggest failure for him was, of course, the IS. The IS appeared as a new force which should not have appeared, because the idea of the whole operation in Iraq and Syria was to clean up this area from the Islamic extremists. And it is Chuck who is responsible for this failure.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAnd he is understanding quite well the issue of Afghanistan. In my personal point of view next spring the Taliban will come back to power, because the internal situation there is totally dramatic. And Chuck Hagel, I think, understands quite well that part of the US troops which will remain in Afghanistan will simply be the hostages of the Taliban. It will be biggest military failure of the US with possibly thousands of the US soldiers locked in Afghanistan.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbConcerning the Russian-American relations, under Chuck the contacts between our Ministry of Defense and the US Ministry of Defense failed. There were no consultations, there was no exchange of opinions. It was his personal fault, because he was considering Russia not as a friend, but as an enemy. Last year he wrote a memo to Obama citing that Russia’s military growth is a new danger we are not capable to challenge at this time. All the European plans for the antiballistic missile shield for Europe were developed under him and next spring it will be enforced. So, in fact, Chuck created the ground for a new confrontation between Russia and the US.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 29 novembre 2014 \u00e0 12H53<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Hagel et la prise en otage de l’US Army en Afghanistan Les sp\u00e9culations continuent \u00e0 aller \u00e0 leur rythme concernant le d\u00e9part de Chuck Hagel de son poste de secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense. Sputnik.News donne (le 29 novembre 2014) des extraits d’une \u00e9mission sur son r\u00e9seau Radio-Sputnik, d’un d\u00e9bat entre trois experts russes. (Il s’agit… <\/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":[21],"tags":[3236,16195,4841,2730],"class_list":["post-75630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-breves-de-crise","tag-afghanistan","tag-fiodorov","tag-hagel","tag-russie"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75630","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=75630"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75630\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}