Вардарска Долина

видиш ова не сум го думал никако, дали и како Турција би стопирала ваква иницијатива!?, можеби ќе извади румелиски тапии и бара компезација освен отштета!, но најубо ет да рече чукш некако а ние во тоа и' да помогнеме доколку сме свесни дека не е прашање дали туку кога (колку брзо) ваков канал би повлекол еколошка катастрофа кајнас!, хм а зар не се случувале слични на Дунав, но Дунав ет Дунав ем нам и од малку ќе ни куца магарето!, арно ама Вардар мирно тече ко и секогаш се' додека не се најде саглам инвеститор, а сетне оди запри го!

патем интересно анимиран скеч!, да не знае некој на што е склепан, можеби темплејт за afx е во прашање?, замисли кајнас вака елаборираат анимирано кајнас институции идеи концепти проекти!?, здравје ако Кина ни бидне стратешки партнер може и пооткачени муабети да видиме!



Edited by Max - 26-Mar-2024 at 04:04

и не баш заради Кина туку попрво Русија и јужнио тек, диво насеље ко поука се случи токму на трасата за гасоводот!, а дека за тоа се прашуваат македонските албанци тоа тнка работа!, практично како македонци тогаш веќе заедно ги отпочнавме тие проекти и никој официјално не срипа никаде нит по весници а уште помалку в парламент!, јасно кој не би сакал напредок!?, но сакале или не секогаш ќе си најдат еа-детерминистите кој да одработи макар увезле кинези за им удираат зауки на својте тукашни пиони кои некако пројавиле слободоумност!, просто ет тие го дојсоа на власт тие и си го тргнаа!, каузалност рулз во овој свет!, да беше тор попаметен немаше да стега чалам туку ќе најдеше начин какотаквиот гасовод да бидне јавно-приватно партнерство каде и америте ќе имаа свој дел соправона одлучувачки глас!, вака бугарите си искористија на наивлукот на зајковци и на чаламо на груевци!, нам стапо поглава и заташкувањето како тоа специјална единица може толку да испонастрада!

но Vire ова ет суперофтопик муабет кој можеше бате да го прајш на фејкбук со оглед дека како непазиш дали некого ќе навредиш од Билд правиш навистина кенефлук!, ајт партиски си таманел се' по ред, ама сега и етнички, бреј што е следно вреѓање родово!?, ето јас ги закачив кгбт популација и то дрско но само бидејќи ризикот сите да ги проголта скотскио расед е прилично реална варијабила сред нивната волја да во традиционално општество етаблираат разврат на ниво на тапшин тапшин танана та чинам и повеќе от оправдана ет мојта резигнација [1] дури не ни мора да одлепат скроз дрско туку да сторат кгбт место за аџилак пр. ако утре на мала врата и на ФредиМ му кренат споменик во несуденио парк на скулптури кај МСУ та капак и да му пукнат така сеир и на АлексоМ (за кој сметам таму ќе бидне ем достоинствен ем екстра туристички момент) т.е. наместо на арно скроз терсене наопаку да излезе муабето за оживуење на Јустинијана ...

да имаше бр малу акал то геополитиката да ја искоментираше ќе разберев, та да ти кажев евала бива дури и страв од ајкули да истовариш како варијабила, та опуштено некој развеселил нишката, ама ова саде само гној да ти е во пазуви, бреј те прашав еднаш еве уште еднаш а бате ти да не си на платен список за дефекација или онанирање та да одрваќаш Народ од еАлатка ко што ет еФорум, нали им клецкаат колена вака но артикулирано да почне да се отвора систем на кое и да ет ниво, ко демек еве таму исто вака ќе биде па дај не си губете време, јеп оштроумен агитпроп спин нема што!, но О удбашана порано или подоцна сами ќе си барате отварање пошто то ваште удбалитичари тежок медиокритет им ет у пазуви!, и навистина можам да замислам на кој и дает невладин а не пак институционален еФорум ако нема саглам модерација дефакто таквиот моментум за системско отварање ќе се претвори во калакурница!, та ето ова ет сигурно добар моментна тоа и да потсетам т.е. пазете то нашите пазачи на фора да не ви саботираат волјата за Слобода дали преку терсене или пак распашој вожња т.е. гледајте избалансирано на то невладините и партиските еФоруми да модерирате за да не ви реметат вијуги тилтајќи ве на ефтини агитпроп фори!, бреј треба изгледа на Филозофски и една Катедра за Пропаганда та да сконта Народ на какви се не фори манипулираат јавност и масираат јавно мнение!

коментаров смешно интересен, но до некаде логичен во однос последната поента!, веројатно забуната тука ет со проектот за Хидро Електрани на Вардар рецнат исто ко Вардарска Долина ... во секој случај ако успее КсиЏП би бил почитуван лик кај нас!

I live in Macedonia, and this project about connecting Danube-Morava-Vardar was actually mentioned by Tito in the time of Yugoslavia but it was abandoned due to the relocation of people living in the Vardar Valley and the fertile soil that surrounds the river. However looking at it today, if China does this I suggest we build a statue of Xi Jinping! [1]

она што ет интересно во моментов за нас ет волјата на Кина да се ослободува од резервите во долари 3.6k милијарди до пред некое време, а што конечно и некаде ет спомнато како варијанта т.е. дека белт&роад меѓу другото е практичен начин како да се осигура ликвидноста на јуанот долгорочно со амортизирање на ризичниот за нив долар ...

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dusko-Dimitrijevic/publication/323642697_CHINESE_INVESTMENTS_IN_SERBIA_AND_THE_NEW_SILK_ROAD/links/5aa184ca0f7e9badd9a44147/CHINESE-INVESTMENTS-IN-SERBIA-AND-THE-NEW-SILK-ROAD.pdf стр. 318 [2][2]

плус во исто време вака осигурува непрекинат проток кон светскиот пазар, но исто така индиректно потенцијален утрешен сигурен рефјул локации за светска кинеска воена флота бар како би си осигурала карго транспортот макар и светска депресија здрмала ... но едно ет теорија а сосем друго може да ет потребата, можеби токму добар начин како утре кинези лесно да мигрираат на запад во дадени склет околности ... претпоставки милион прашање е дали ние од такво нешто биимале фајде особено имајќи ги предвид еколошките ризици!, а ксмет и да сакаме поозбилно да се приклучиме на B&R иницијативата, евроатланските детерминисти на тоа ќе речат сигурно чукш дорчо!, та кога гоимат сторено тоа и за брза пруга по К10 што пак за вакво нешто!?

http://www.build.mk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1103&PID=272883#272883

недвојбено ова упатува на пренапумпани од нас очекувања, но и премалку волја за до крај да се истурка една ваква работа!, освен ако геополитички не се случат некакви тектонски промени та еа-детерминистите да може само да џавкаат и никако поинаку интервенираат!, до тогаш онли Ин Аур Дримс ќе се стркала изгледа муабетов, кусур ќе бидне уште грците официјално да спуштат рампа во Пиреја и ето га куршлус фор гуд [2][2] но да видиме кинеската не е исто што и нашава дипломатија!, практично то грчкио чалам ем може класичен рекет ко што немал број пати тамошните елите им го прале на еропеите та и америте а еве сега дошол ден да биднат уценувани и кинезите!, сигурно ризикот и есапот го искалкулирале прецизно!?, интересно [3] додека ние размислуваме ситнопаланечки некој дума долгорочно и геополитички!

еколошки можеби ако баржите се на плин та да немаме гајрет, геостратешки ако во каналов инвестира Кина ние пак ќе бидеме таргетирани како најслаба алка од страна на америте ко во случајот со Турски Ток и терористичкиот упад во Диво Насеље Куманово, реално ризиците и предностите во костец проблемот околу доволно Вода за Прешевското Езеро упатува на тоа колку и да е атрактивен муабет каналов прашање е кој и како на крај ќе профитира од сето тоа, ние или некој сосем трет, а нам да ни остане само утеха (налет ризиците) деја имаме пловен Вардар!

туку она со плазма-дрилинг технологијата може да се искористи и само за поголема цевка со која би се влечело директно Вода од Дунав и евентуално истата да е тро еластична ко карбонска за да трпи земјотреси ... исто може да се влече и од артериски бунари но тоа би било греота Питка Вода да оди вака зијан, поинаку не гледам како би се наполнило и Прешевско Езеро и Вардар в лето со доволно Вода, иако може да импровизираат со браните во однос Вардар и некој потесен сегмен само за баржи, но што мислат како поинаку да излезат на крај со фамозното езеро како конекција меѓу Морава и Вардар ...

2016
https://slideplayer.com/slide/13157755/
A New Green Corridor in the EU: The Thessaloniki – Danube River Link
Professor Alkis John Corres

~

2018
https://jsdtl.sciview.net/index.php/jsdtl/article/view/73
Journal of Sustainable Development of Transport and Logistics
Modelling the environmental concerns of constructing the
Danube-Morava-Vardar-Thessaloniki Canal using General Morphological Analysis
Nasir Hussain*, Dejana Jovanović Popović**, Miroljub Milinčić***
* Strategy Foresight Ltd, c/o: Bulman A Husain & Co, 258 Merton Road, London SW18 5JL, United Kingdom hussain@strategyforesight.org
** Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade, 50 Gospodara Vučića St., 11000 Belgrade, Serbia dejana@fb.bg.ac.rs
*** Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade,3/III Studentski trg, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia mikan@gef.bg.ac.rs

~

2050



Edited by Zelenikovo - 01-Aug-2020 at 23:50

Каде би биле каналот Вардар-Пчиња и пристаништето во Скопје? Има некоја подетална студија и план за проектов?

Би пружил интересна можност за развој на источно Скопје, ама влијанието врз животната средина сепак е преголемо за проектов да вреди. Ако стварно чини и до17 милијарди долари (вклучени ли се и сите преместувања на пруги, автопати, села...?), поарно е брза железница Будимпешта-Пиреја. И патничкиот сообраќај би имал огромна полза од неа, не само товарниот.

Мада примамливо личи водно поврзување на Солун со Ротердам и пристаниште во Скопје.

the potential building of the Morava-Vardar Canal was first mentioned in 1907 when the American government established in New Jersey the American engineering commission for the observation of the Morava-Vardar waterway. After the outbreak of the war in 1919, this project had been put aside to be put back in 1961 as one of the options for spatial planning of the economic development of Serbia. In the late 20th and early 21 century, this plan was proposed as one of the basis of the spatial planning and a very significant segment of the national programme of Serbia. [1]

In 1904 started real initiative for building the navigable route in order to connect the Danube with the Aegean Sea. An American firm of New Jersey (USA) in 1908 employed prof.Nikola Stamenkovic who made a preliminary design of a navigable route Morava - Vardar (Axios). The idea raised by the Governments of Greece and former Yugoslavia and in 1961, preliminary project plans were elaborated. Mission of the United Nations experts visited former Yugoslavia in 1973 to investigate the background of the project and to assess its validity. The experts concluded it was likely that a waterway could be economically justified. In period from 1973 till 2006, engineers from Serbia prepared complete preliminary design for future waterway. ... The Danube-Aegean waterway, 650 kilometers length, has to overcome approximately 812 meters of fall, or a fall of only 1.25 meters per kilometers of length. If we compare the Danube-Aegean project fall, with the fall on some European canals (Vienna - Budweis Canal, Danube - Moldau Canal, Bohemian - Moravian Canal, etc.) it is obvious that the Danube - Aegean waterway is technically far easier to construct than the above referred to canals. • Minimal canal with on navigation depth is 28 m • At curves the radius of canal axis not less then 800 m • dimension of canal locks (minimum length 190 m, minimum with 12 m and minimum water depth 3.5 m) Project established five different part of waterway: First part from Danube to Stalac, approximately 150 km with total altitude difference of 58 m. On this part according project design are 7 steps with locks. on this part from Danube to Stalac Morava can be made navigable by means of canalization. Technical solution of water way Danube - Morava - Vardar (Axios) was based on dimensions for standard Danube vessel: boat (length 80 m, width 9.5, draft 2.5 m and 1350 tonnage) and barges (length 70 m, width 9.5, draft 2.5 m and 1250 tonnage). Second part from Stalac to watershed (Presevo), approximately 196 km with total altitude difference of 266 m. On this part according project design are 30 steps with locks on this part 107 km could be construct as canalization of river South Morava and 89 km can be obtained by construction of a navigable canal. Third part is from watershed (Presevo) with vessel lift (multiple locks "flight" type) to horizontal canal between Danube drainage basin and Vardar (Axios) drainage basin. Length of this part is approximately 30 km with total altitude difference of 36 m. Forth part is from horizontal canal between Danube drainage basin and Vardar (Axios) drainage basin to the border between former republic Macedonian and Grice. Length of this part is part is approximately 202 km with total altitude difference of 386 m. On this part according project design are 22 steps. There are 4 multiple locks ("flight" type 36 m each) and 18 ordinary hydrostatic locks Fifth part is from border between former republic Macedonian and Grice to Aegean Sea, approximately 73 km with total altitude difference of 44 m. On this part there are 3 steps. At the end of last part is canal 16 km length as connection of river Vardar - Axios and port Thessalonica. Basic dimensions of navigable canal ware: • Water depth in the middle on canal cross section is 4 m • Water depth at lower end on canal cross section is 3.75 m • Canal with on water level is 43 m • Minimal canal with on navigation depth is 28 m • At curves the radius of canal axis not less then 800 m • dimension of canal locks (minimum length 190 m, minimum with 12 m and minimum water depth 3.5 m) [1]

The geopolitical and geo-strategic importance of the Morava-Vardar axis as a pillar and Heartland of the Balkans is con-firmed by the plan to build a navigable canal linking the two valleys which will allow navigationfrom the Danube (and hence the Rhine, the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean) to the AegeanSea (and therefore in the Mediterranean Sea through the Suez Canal in the Indian Ocean)(Mileski & Sharevski 2014: 50). The recent initiatives of the Serbian government which had apositive reception from Macedonia, and the expressed interest and willingness of Chinesecompanies show again recasting of the old idea to build a navigable canal Danube - Morava -Vardar - Thessaloniki (Mileski & Del Re: 2013, 54). The primary plan envisions linking the rivervalleys of Morava and Vardar in this channel which will go through the valleys of the riversPchinja and South Morava (Mileski & Del Re, 2013: 54). The connection of these river valleysthat are open to opposite directions of different sea basins would have to be accomplishedthrough Macedonia, more precisely in this area at the east end and the edge of the Skopjevalley in the vicinity of Miladinovci, which is also the westem edge of the Pchinja Valley, andthe most appropriate relief physically and geographically. Any opportunities to promote thisidea and construction of navigable canals, will mean that the point of geostrategic center ofgravity for Macedonia near the Miladinovci village will gain even greater importance in terms ofmaritime traffic, which will undoubtedly have an extremely huge and positive impact on theeconomy. In addition to the plans for transport connections we should mention the recent ideaof the government of China to build a high-speed railway in the Balkans that connects Thessa-loniki and Budapest, which will pass through Macedonia along the railway corridor 10, and thusthrough this area of geostrategic center of gravity in the eastern part of the Skopje Valley nearthe airport and village Miladinovci. [1]

Edited by Zelenikovo - 21-Jul-2020 at 01:23

Originally posted by user8642 Поверојатно звучат идеи како мост преку Гибралтар, мост до Сицилија, тунел под Берингов проток, автопат преку Дариен-ов прекин во Јужна Америка и кои се не навидум "недостижни" стари идеи за инфраструктурни проекти, него ли што изгледа достижна Вардарска Долина. Нема ништо од ова уште барем пола век.

и’ да нема ништо, но нишкава од вакви паушално-сеирџиско-фејкбуковски коментари, а не идејата за Пловен Вардар, која и да не види бел ден истата веќе тера концептно со физибилитки, и наместо за сега да земеш истите такви абери да ги рециклираш, си зел пополнуваш простор со ’’полнопразност’’, која Вистинита Или Не, никако неможам да ги разберам ваквите спамирања налик Ау Уа Браво Неможе Може Че Видиш и сл. а без притоа да се направи бар мала анализа или да се даде некаков онтопик аргумент зошто нешто е вакво или онакво илити ќе биде ...

еве и сликовита фејкбуковска поента за постов кога би здрмал во истиот потпросечно > на ЕТФ изгледа ги лоботомираат студенТи виа високофреквентни градива, ќе да истилтале та немаат волја ако не акал да думаат логично-конструктивно!? и ево каде со ваков памет, Но ова е проблем на Модерација која треба во ваков спам случај да се држи строго до Правилнико, инаку никогаш и нема ни да се стркала здрава дебатна атмосфера на форумов кога и да бидне истиот повторно ошштествено атрактивен! замисли си U.... нишкава да имаше ко овие два поста едно стотина, што мислиш тоа нема ли да личи бетер од фејкбук!?

https://transnational.live/2020/03/25/looking-to-the-future-cooperation-of-central-and-eastern-europe-and-china/

https://www.transportjournal.com/en/home/news/artikeldetail/good-things-come-to-those-who-wait.html

[1] https://www.academia.edu/4962623/The_Vardar_-_Morava_-_Danube_Link

https://www.marketscreener.com/CHINA-GEZHOUBA-GROUP-CO--6497483/company/

Why are strangers pushing The issue of the Prespa Agreement and Axios Axis - Vardaris - Morava - Danube Berlin wants at all costs to extend its economic and political sovereignty to the zone: Serbia (future EU member), Skopje "Macedonia" (also a possible future EU member) and Greek Macedonia, blackmailed by the inciting Macedonian "Macedonianism" tanea.gr - Mazis T. Ioannis 29 September 2018 | 13:00 In my earlier articles of February 2018 I mentioned that a number of geopolitical Indicators (in the Pillars of Defence/Security and Economy) during the geopolitical analysis of power redistribution in the ad hoc Complex containing the Subsystems: (i) of the Central Western Balkans (Skopia, Kosovo and Metochia, Bosnia and Albania) (ii) in The Thrace-Aegean Dipole and (iii) in the Dipole Dodecanese-Cyprus with a Geopolitical Factor the Kurdish Issue, lead us to the conclusion that Turkey, which is finished in northwestern Syria (Afrin) is launching its power projection efforts in all the above-mentioned subsystems, blackmailing NATO and Washington, at the risk of hot explosions in the South-East. Firstly, the active Supersystem on this Geopolitical Factor includes the competing International Power Poles, both in Washington and the EU (Paris-Berlin) and Moscow. But among the Western Power Poles there is also internal competition: In the Subsystem of the Central Western Balkans there is clear competition between the US-Berlin and Paris-Berlin. The US wants NATO integration on the Balkan perimeter in cooperation with Macron's France, which is currently being formalised by the French military/naval presence in Larnaca, in order to control Russian influence over the Mediterranean. The United States is indifferent to the type of resolution of the 'nomenclature' of Skopje. They simply support an unexpected acceptance on the part of Greece that solves the geostrategic problem for american power projection, and at the same time register shares in resolving the purposeful issue, in order to completely overturn the German "monopoly". On the contrary, Germany insists on undermining the Purposeous "Self-Righteous Macedonianism" and the alleged undermining, to The Detriment of Greece, of supposedly "altruism" serving – discreetly – the Berlin-Moscow-Angyra axis. Does anyone doubt that if Skopje were to be named, e.g. 'Vassilis', the US and NATO would have no problem joining 'Basil' in July? No, of course not. The benefit of the Anglo-Saxon sea forces, however, competes intra-Western with the emerging german land power and Moscow's brilliant energy partner, Germany! And Germany aims to create, and eagerly, the creation of a (independent of Anglo-Saxon restrictions and controls) of a German energy asset. The axis axios - Vardaris - Morava - Danube with whose geopolitical presentation we will deal with below. Moreover, Berlin's energy control intentions on the EU's overall energy security issue have become glaringly apparent from the creation and operation of the Russia-Germany Nord Stream I and II pipeline system, which have an annual transport capacity of 55 billion m3 (1.9 trillion ft3), which is projected to double in 2019 to 110 billion m3 (3.9 trillion ft3). They are currently transferring 22 billion m3 due to the restrictions imposed by the EU on Gazprom. Berlin wants at all costs to extend its economic and political sovereignty to the zone: Serbia (a future EU member), "Macedonia" (also a possible future EU member) and Greek Macedonia, blackmailed by the inciting Macedonian "Macedonianism". If this is achieved, Germany as the ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL LEADERS of the EU (something that is increasingly in question at this political European juncture), in cooperation with the other international land force the Russian Federation (something that is unimaginably disturbing washington), wishes to proceed with the implementation of a Russian-Iranian-German energy corridor of type South Stream through Greece (EU), Skopje (EU then), Serbia (EU then) and Croatia (EU) and/or via Morava-Dunabe. And, of course, the recent Moscow-Angora cooperation relations will help. Moreover, the German technical and economic control of a future freight link between the spot hydrocarbon market of the port of Rotterdam and the Aegean Sea, through German control over the abovementioned and planned Value-Morava-Danube link, is still a very important stake for a emerging Euro-sovereign Germany. So of course Berlin hopes to have achieved its dream of coming to the Aegean since the Austro-Hungarian period. When the so-called 'altruistic' tendencies of Berlin's 'Northern Macedonia' tooling, Berlin with a great deal of study and 'humanitarian-rightinterest' emerge in the future, it will be involved in the 'resolution' of tensions with a view, in principle, to the neutralisation of the Axios-Morava zone and then its full control. He would like to see the "guarantor force" of the "human rights and civil liberties of the 'national minorities' of the region, first of course, the (th, Lord...) " Macedonian ethnic minority" which also speaks the "Macedonian language" and has a "Macedonian culture" and which will be located up to the precious port of Thessaloniki on Greek territory. How does all this come about? but by Article 7 of the unfortunate and long-standing Agreement of the Prespas, we surrender as a Greek State and greek nation to an Albanian-Roman-Slau-Greek multi-ethnic mosaic the right to bronze a pseudo-national social formation, which, having the "Macedonian nationality" according to Mr Zaev, (and not "citizenship" as only the "competent actors" in Greece perceive(7, §4), but in conjunction with the "Macedonian language" (7, §4) it fully supports the surreal version of "nation creation" with a reasonable..."Macedonian culture", "Macedonian history", "Macedonian culture and heritage"! I think and rightly so, that anthropologically (the Lord!), sociologically, politically and internationally thinking, we can only wish him a happy 'Macedonian nation' and offer him the newly minted gifts. A "classic": 1) our support for the start of its accession process in the EU is a very expensive one: 2) our full support for its invitation to join NATO, and some strategic and economic interest for Skopje and Germany such as those provided for in Articles 13, 14,§4 where the creation of gas and oil pipeline infrastructureist infrastructureis touts are evident.oil, in the same Article §6 where the... enclosed and sea-free Skopje "will exploit" together with Greece "the best available technologies and practices" (i.e. the... German, on the axis of Axios, Morava, Danube I say), and so on. With all of the above as tools, Berlin is working to abolish all, Anglo-Saxon influence, NATO-Western-type "energy security" provision of the EU, since Berlin's energy strategic partners on this and the port of Thessaloniki will be the Russian and Iranian energy industries, through Turkish territories. Of course, from this German targeting, to its implementation, there is the question of the expected American reactions! If these do not exist, it will be proven that Washington has lost the geopolitical game in the North Aegean to the benefit of the German-Russian-Turkish-Iranian mlok. where China will soon be involved through its use as part of the "New Silk Road" (OVOR)! But let us now look at the geopolitical picture of this ambitious plan to float a river freight route. History The importance of the Morava River as a waterway of freight transport and especially hydrocarbons of high strategic importance arises from its ability to connect northern, western and central Europe with the Mediterranean Sea via the Port of Thessaloniki, first recognized in 1841, when Serbian newspapers reported that four ships carrying mail sailed to the town of Ćuprija through the Morava River. The "French - Serbian Society of Navigation" was then formed, which operated from 1844 to 1864, organising navigation on the Danube, Sava and Morava rivers, while at the same time joining under the cover of the French "Major Company for Navigation", which was established by decree of Napoleon on 14 September 1850. In July 1859 a company of French interests called 'Principal Compagnie de Bateux à Vapeur' addressed Prince Miloš Obronović requesting the exclusive commercial use of the Morava River for thirty years. Although the Russians were pushing for their own exploitation, the convention between Serbs and the French was signed on 18 September 1860. In 1879, the "Bulletin of the Serbian Learned Society" published the book by Serbian Engineer Ante Aleksić "Morava - Its present state and possibilities of navigation", which describes the technical possibilities and economic feasibility of navigation on the Morava River. In 1904, it was proposed to build a waterway linking the Danube to the Aegean Sea and efforts were made to attract funds from England and Germany. The waterway from the Danube River through the Morava River to the Aegean Was called the "line of European economic gravity in relation to Suez". This link is shown by the relevant studies as 'fundamental to the freight link between China, India, the Middle East and Europe'. Of course, this interconnection, when completed, can transport liquefied natural gas from the US to the Central European, Western European and North European areas, enhancing European energy security, as understood by the West. That is, he's dependent on Russian influence. It is true that in the near future, the economies of Central and Eastern Europe will be able to transport goods through OBOR, but an alternative sea route, which will benefit from the dynamic economic developments under way in East Africa and South Asia is crucial for both Europe and China. From a geo-economic point of view, there is no better sea route than greece, with its ports being the closest European continental ports to the Suez Canal. (6) In addition, in 1907, in New Jersey (USA) the "American Engineering Company" was founded, which hired Professor Nicholas Stamenkovic from the Technical School of the University of Belgrade to carry out preliminary studies on the design of the Morawa-Vardar/Axios waterway. In 1973, a group of United Nations experts prepared a report on the Morawa-Vardar/Axios route highlighting the importance of the project, while in early 2013, Professor Milan Bačević again raised the issue of the integrated management of the Morava River and the construction of the waterway from the Danube River to the Aegean. In addition, the "understanding protocol" was signed for the preparation of the sustainability study for the implementation of the infrastructure project on the Morava River, with the company "China Gezhouba Group Corporation". In 2013 the same company submitted a comprehensive design report, proposing the revival of the project, specifying the next steps to be taken. (7) Beijing assesses this interconnection as a continuation of one Belt One Road (OBOR), and the most advantageous for supplying European markets with Chinese products and the Chinese market with European products. Chinese officials estimate that the country has invested more than $8 billion (6.7 billion euros) in Central and Eastern Europe as part of infrastructure building for OBOR. It is important to note that bilateral trade between China and central and eastern European countries in 2016 increased by 11% compared to 2011. China has been particularly successful in the Western Balkan countries (Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina), where EU funds are not available and European Union regulations do not apply. When the Chinese President visited Belgrade in 2016 he discussed in detail the construction of the canal, which has been a priority of the Serbian leadership in recent years. Already the Chinese company China Gezhouba Group Corporation (CGGC), which has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Serbian government, has delivered to Belgrade a comprehensive project design report setting out the next steps, but for which the consent and consent of Athens and Skopje are necessary. According to Chinese experts, the project is considered feasible and sustainable. China is already responding to the show of interest in taking over the financing, and there is also the solution to granting exploitation rights, as is the case in other similar cases. At the same time, and if the project is deemed feasible and sustainable, the involvement of the European Union, which has as a priority, is considered to be the priority of river transport, which is part of the Trans-European Transport Networks. It is typical that as early as the 1970s China was systematically trying to establish trade cooperation relations with the other communist countries of the Balkans, with the efforts constantly bearing fruit in recent years. In particular, at this juncture, China is in the TOP10 trading partners, in all Balkan countries without exception, with market shares presented both in percentage and absolute numbers, in Table 1, below. Table 1: Balkan countries' trade arrangements with China (in $) Πηγσ: Eurostat 2016 Additional indication of China's interest in the Balkan region are the funds invested between 2005 and 2017 by Chinese companies in infrastructure projects, which are presented very graphically in the map below. Figure 1: Chinese companies invest in infrastructure projects (in billions of dollars), 2005-2017 Πηγή: China Global Investment Tracker, 2017 Key features of the project Supporters of the Danube-Morava-Axios channel point out that this project strengthens the transport of products to the markets of Central and Northern Europe as well as the Caucasus and the Black Sea, while significantly reducing the role of maritime transport and the strategic character of the Bosphorus Straits. This clearly undermines Turkey's geopolitical importance and clearly enhances that of Greece and FYROM. Of course, particular attention is needed to the issues of neo-Balkan altruism between the two countries, which was in no way demonstrated by the notorious 'Prespa Agreement', in order to avoid in the future claims which will be supported, as is the case today by the German-Austrian conflict. The fact that this Agreement does not meet these security requirements is constantly evident from the use made by Mr Zaev, speaking of "a single Macedonia, a single Macedonian ethnicity and a single Macedonian language" having already forgotten the name "North Macedonia", but based on the name "North Macedonia", but based on the agreement with the Greek signature, "mace"nationalethnicity and not citizenship/citizenship, 'Macedonian language' and 'Macedonian culture'. It is also clear that the 'continental German-Saxon' influence on European freight transport is being strengthened and the Suez-Europe and China-Europe links are controlled by the Berlin-Vienna Dipole. This is clearly substantiated by the fact that the waterway will provide a much faster and lower cost route for cargo destined for Europe from the Far East. Studies suggest that such a route would be shortened by four days, compared to the existing situation. (8) From the point of view of the EU's energy security, this link is supported by the Serbian and German sides, that it will be an alternative way to supply oil from the Middle East, increasing European energy security and driving Serbia even closer to its accession within the Union. As far back as 2004/2005, the writer had pointed out the importance of the Port Side-Rotterdam axon and had portrayed it in cartographic. This axis and its route will be completed completely with the implementation of the axiou/Vardari-Morava-Danube waterway. Figure 3: The Geopolitical Axes of the Mediterranean Source: I. T. Mazis, Geopolitical approach to a new Greek Defence Doctrine, Papazisis, Athens 2006, (Map 7, p. 48) In addition, fibre optic cable infrastructure for the transfer of high-speed data may be developed along the road in question during its construction. (See Figure 4) Figure 4: River interconnections in Europe and OBOR According to Milena Nikolic, of the Belgrade Institute for Applied Studies and Dragan Duncic, of the Office for Regional Development of Serbia, 2015 are the following: More specifically, for technical reasons the project was divided into five sub-sections: "The first section will start from the Danube and reach Stalak, with a length of about 150km and will have a total altitude difference of about 58m. In this section, according to the design of the project, there will be a total of 7 lifting points (locks) in order to achieve navigation through the channels. The second section will start from Stalak and end in the Presevo catchment area, with a length of about 196km and a total altitude difference of 266m. In this section, according to the design of the project, there will be a total of 30 lifting points (locks). The third section will start from the Presevo catchment area and end in a horizontal channel between the Danube basin and the Vardar/Axios catchment. The length of this section will be about 30km, with a total altitude difference of about 36m. It is easy to see that if, in the meantime, the disputed exchange of Presevou with Mitrovicas between Serbia and Kosovo occurs, then the Albanian element of the region gains greater strategic influence over this crucial geostrategic axis and that means that Turkey is gaining even greater influence on the same axis. The fourth section will start from the horizontal channel between the Danube basin and Vardar/Axios and end at the border between Macedonia and Greece, with a length of about 202km and a total altitude difference of 386m. In this section, according to the design of the project, there will be a total of 22 lifting points (locks). The fifth section will start from Macedonia's border with Greece and end in the Aegean Sea, with a length of about 73km and a total altitude difference of 44m. In this section, according to the design of the project, there will be a total of 3 lifting points (locks)"(11). An indicative sketch of the technical aspect of the waterway is shown in the following images. Figure 5: Sketch of the intersection of the Danube-Morava-Axios waterway (Cross section) (Prof. Nikolic M., Duncic D., “Danube-Morava-Vardar/Axios-Aegean Sea waterway and Silk Road Economic Belt”, Belgrade, p.11) Figure 6: Horizontal intersection of the Danube-Morava-Axios waterway Figure 7: Lock mode(14) (Prof. Nikolic M., Duncic D., “Danube-Morava-Vardar/Axios-Aegean Sea waterway and Silk Road Economic Belt”, Belgrade, p.11) Project Capacity The assessment of the possible capacity of the project is based on the maximum capacity of the lifting points that will exist along the waterway, to serve the passing ships. At one lifting point it is possible to simultaneously serve two ships with a total capacity of 2,500 tons. The time it takes to enter and exit ships at the lifting point is 30min. The maximum hypothetical quantity of goods that can move each lifting point is 120,000 tonnes per day or 43.8 million tonnes per year, while the average hypothetical quantity of goods that can move each lifting point is: 5000 t/h x 18 hours x 250 days = 22.5 million tonnes per year. (15) Project Cost An overview of the cost distribution of the project, with nominal values for the year 2006, is given below: Table 3: Danube-Morava-Axios Association Project Cost Allocation European waterways Inland waterway transport at European level occupies a 6.9% share in the total volume of freight transport and comprises around 40,000 kilometres of inland waterways, but this percentage is significantly higher in countries with good inland waterway infrastructure, such as the Netherlands, which has 46.6% and Romania at 29%. Figure 8 : EU transport market share Πηγσ: Eurostat, 2014 At the same time, waterway transport shows the second best growth rate performance among the various types of freight transport in the period 1995-2013, immediately after road (see Figure 9), but the latter are extremely aggravating for the environment, as we see in Figure 10. Figure 9 : Percentage increase in freight transport by species 1995-2013 Πηγσ: Eurostat, 2014 Figure 10: Greenhouse gas emissions by industry Πηγή: Inland Navigation Europe, 2017 Comparison of transport costs on waterways A 1,350-ton barge consumes four to seven times less fuel than a road vehicle. With only 5 litres of fuel, a barge can carry a ton of cargo at a distance of 500 km. With the same amount of fuel, a train could carry a ton of cargo 333 km, a truck just 100 km, while a plane is just 6.6 km(18) (see Figure 11). Figure 11: Distance that can be carried out with 5 litres of fuel per category This does not include the indirect costs incurred by local communities and may be due to accidents, noise, pollution, climate change, etc. For rail transport, the same indirect cost is EUR 12,34, while for waterway navigation it is estimated to be a maximum of EUR 5. Table 4: Indirect Transport Costs In addition, as to the transport capacity of the barges used in the waterways, it is sufficient to quote the following image, in order to understand their importance. Figure 12: Comparative capacity of means of transport Source: European Court of Auditors, Special Report: "Inland waterway transport in Europe, 2015 It should be stressed, however, that inland waterway transport is slower than those by road and is used for non-perishable products and goods which do not require direct delivery, such as ores, petroleum refining products, coal and crude oil. Potential Investors A. GERMANY One of the most likely investors and certainly one of the most key supporters for this project could be Germany. The construction of the waterway between Morava, Vardar and the Aegean could significantly enhance the value of the Rhine-Main-Danube waterway, creating a strategic link between the North Sea and the Aegean Sea and by extension the Atlantic Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea. It is no secret, after all, that Germany is the biggest user of river routes, with the German steel and coal industry making the most of it, with the Netherlands, Belgium, Ukraine and Serbia following, as shown in the table below. In short, with the countries that Germany wishes to integrate into its particular geostrategic sphere of influence. Table 5: Top 10 international flows of transport of minerals and other mining and quarrying products Πηγή: Eurostat, 2016 B. EU and JAPAN Serbian academics Sarcevic J., Karanovic S., argue that: "Apart from Germany, potential investors could be the EU or Japan as one of the world's advanced technologically and economically. In this way, Japan will participate in one of the major projects in Europe, while Serbia, Macedonia and Greece will ensure in the long term an investor and stable partner." (22) Admittedly, Sarcevic J., Karanovic S., does not seem to attach any particular importance to the American control houses of the route. C. INA Finally, the Chinese side is almost certain to express an investment interest, as in 2013 the maritime link between the Danube and Thessaloniki returned to the news with the visit of Serbian Minister of Natural Resources Mr. Milen Bacevic to China. Beijing regards this link as the most advantageous alternative route to import their products into Europe after the port of Piraeus. So a MOU was signed between the Serbian government and the Chinese company China Gezhoubou Group Corporation. After all, Beijing sees Serbia as an important strategic transit base for the projection of economic power to the EU, since it has already included Greece in its overall investment plan. The fact that Serbia is not a member of the EU and the corresponding Community commitments do not apply is an incentive for Beijing to integrate the Serbian river basin into the Axios/Vardari, Morava and Danube crossings to Central, Western and Northern Europe. One of the priorities in this respect is the EUR 2 billion railway line between Belgrade and Budapest (HSR) for which an agreement was signed in December 2014. The railway is part of a larger project aimed at connecting Piraeus and Budapest via a high-speed (trans-Balkan) railway station, which has been under consideration since 2014. Agreements have been signed between the Chinese prime minister and his counterparts from Serbia, Hungary and Skopje. So far, China has financed Serbia a thermal power station in Staniri ($1.7 billion) and a 1500-metre bridge over the Danube River in Belgrade (170 million euros), while other infrastructure projects have been considered. Some of them are the construction of the Belgrade ring road by the Chinese state-owned Sinohydro, a project estimated at $608 million, and the creation of an industrial zone, especially for Chinese companies, is being discussed. (23) Arguments against the Project The most important arguments against the investment are the following: - 'Excessive cost: On the cost, there are various estimates of how much the project can cost as a whole, as in addition to the canal, other installations will have to be built. In addition, sceptics argue that this waterway will effectively "cut" Serbia in half. For this reason, a large number of bridges should be built - Construction period: according to some estimates it will take at least 13 years to complete the project, with the most pessimistic talking for more than thirty years. Their main argument is that the Germans took almost a century to complete the Rhine-Main-Danube channel, from the day the idea was conceived. - Effects on the environment: There are fears that the construction of the waterway and other side-effects will destroy the environment in the countries of interest. - Profitability of the project: Although maritime transport is certainly the most profitable, it is also the slowest. In addition, the question arises which trend in the transport of goods will prevail during the period of completion of the project. This increases the complexity in predicting the depreciation of the project" Arguments in favour of the project The most important arguments in favour of investment are the following: - "Electricity generation: Building such plants, in parallel with the project, will fully meet Serbia's electricity needs and to a very satisfactory degree of other countries. Especially for Serbia, there may be excess energy production to such an extent that it will make it an electricity exporter. - Jobs: At least twenty thousand workers will be employed in the construction of the waterway, while the positive effects on the economy will also be observed by the development of river tourism. - Shortcut routes: The sea route from Belgrade to Thessaloniki will be shortened by 1,260 km, since ships should not cross the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, which ensures a more efficient and economical connection between the Mediterranean and Northern and Central Europe" Infrastructure Projects on European Floating Routes One of the main objectives of EU transport policy is to eliminate bottlenecks, which hinder the smooth flow of people and goods between the Member States of the Union. The European Commission's "CEF – Connecting Europe Facility" unit co-finances infrastructure projects totalling EUR 24.05 billion. For the years 2014-2020, with 6% of this budget addressed to waterway infrastructure projects, while in June 2016, the European Commission has once again indicated that it wants inland waterway transport to play a much more important role than it does today. In particular, in a joint statement in Rotterdam, the transport ministers of the Danube countries stressed the importance of the development of inland waterway transport and agreed to step up efforts to restore and maintain waterways. (26) Είναι χαρακτηριστικό ότι σε όλη την Ευρώπη υπάρχουν 5 έργα σε φάση εξέλιξης για την αναβάθμιση των πλωτών οδεύσεων, 2 έργα σε φάση μελέτης και 1 έργο σε φάση προγραμματισμού, ενώ μόνο στην ευρύτερη περιοχή που καλύπτει ο Δούναβης, υπάρχουν 5 έργα σε φάση εξέλιξης, 2 έργα σε φάση μελέτης και 1 έργο σε φάση προγραμματισμού. Πιο αναλυτικά, όλα τα έργα παρουσιάζονται στον παρακάτω χάρτη, ενώ τα έργα που αφορούν τον Δούναβη, παρουσιάζονται στην Εικόνα 13 και στον Πίνακα 6, οι οποίοι ακολουθούν. Εικόνα 13: Έργα υποδομών πλωτών οδεύσεων στην Ευρώπη Πηγή: Inland Navigation Europe, 2016 Πίνακας 6:Έργα υποδομών πλωτών οδεύσεων στην περιοχή του Δούναβη Πηγή: Inland Navigation Europe, 2016 The reflection on the study presented by Article 13 of the Prespaagreement on the written and in agreement granting rights of the enclosed State to FYROM, at the time provided for under the Law of the Sea, (Articles 58 and 69) at the request of the party concerned (FYROM), was expressed from the floor of the House by the Member of the Democratic Alliance, Giannis Maniatis. "It should be noted that by law "Maniatis" 4001/2011, in Article 156, the first regulation for the Greek EEZ was incorporated. More specifically, the article states: "... Underwater areas shall be understood as the seabed and subsoil of the inland waters of the aeyalitis zone, the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone (once declared) up to a distance of 200 nm from the baselines from which the range of the aeyalitis zone is measured.'; It is important to underline that "29 of the 30 coastal states that existed at the time took part in the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. After the dissolution of the Sovian Union, these states became 42, including Skopje. Yugoslavia was one of the most active states at the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, was a strong supporter of Greece and Cyprus and signed UNCLOS. But when it was dissolved as a state, the provinces of Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Macedonia had to rejoin UNCLOS under their new name. So Skopje joined UNCLOS on 19 August 1989 under the name Macedonia". Studies on the Danube-Morava-Axios Link - Aleksic, A., Velika Morava, its present state and possibilities for navigation, Glasnik Srpskog ucenog drustva, Belgrade, 1879 - Stamenkovic, N., Project of the Danube – Thessaloniki waterway, American Engineering Company, Belgrade, 1909 - Project Bureau for River Transport, Preliminary project of Danube – Thessaloniki waterway, Belgrade, 1961 - Institute for Water Engineering of SR Macedonia, Economic Study of Vardar River Catchment Area, Skoplje, 1961 - Project Bureau “Ivan Milutinovic” PIM – Engineering and Contracting Company for Waterways, Study of Navigation on Velika, Juzna and Zapadna Morava rivers, Belgrade, 1964 - Institute for Water Engineering “Jaroslav Cerni”, Study and problems of traffic in connection with arrangement of Morava Catchment Area, Belgrade, 1964 - United General Water Engineering Enterprise “Morava”, Economic base of the Morava river catchment area, Belgrade, 1971 Ioannis Th. Mazis is Professor of Economic Geography and Geopolitical Theory, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens https://www.tanea.gr/2018/09/29/politics/to-zitima-tis-symfonias-ton-prespon-kai-o-akson-aksiou-vardari-morava-dounavi/

Ова би ги потопило Велес и Скопско поле? Милијарди фрлени во уништување на природата.

Супер брза железница е подобро и поевтино решение.

Edited by Staro Skopje - 18-Jul-2020 at 11:56