INSTIGATORS, GENTELMANS AND BERKS

How will London cover up the British intelligence disaster in Ukraine?

 

By Sir Charlattam

According to the Atlanticist media narrative, on 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine without provocation on the orders of the ‘evil’ Vladimir Putin. Following this children's story, the democracies of the West, particularly the Anglo-Americans, took on the role of saviours and provided the Kiev government with everything it needed.

But the Russian reaction was foreseen long before in the assessments of the Western intelligence agencies that cooperated and assisted the neo-Nazi and far-right groups in the Maidan coup in February 2014. Their expectations were that Moscow would dive headlong into Ukraine, but the veteran and experienced ex-intelligence agent Putin burned their plans. The coup staged from the US embassy in Kiev was aimed at the new regime taking control over the entire territory and especially those of strategic importance to NATO, namely the Donbas and the Crimean peninsula.

Contrary to the situation in the west of the country, the Ukrainian population of the eastern Donbas region rose up to repudiate the coup which (besides being engineered by the experts in that) was euphemistically called ‘Euromaidan’ by the Western media and was nothing more than an operation to install a puppet government instigated and directed by the Atlanticist intelligence agencies.

But less than a week after neo-Nazis overran public buildings in Kiev and horrifically murdered many people in Odessa, Vladimir Putin and his government in Moscow were watching closely. While the people of Donetsk and Lugansk were organising to resist the regime without firing a shot, Russian troops entered Crimea and re-established order as one of NATO's plans was to take over the peninsula.

At the time, the US administration under Obama and the British administration under Cameron had to bite their tongues and write off the game without abandoning their plans.

Since then, the involvement of these agencies in Ukraine and especially in fomenting the conflict against the Russian Federation was a fact that, due to the characteristics of their modus operandi, was not in the light of day, but was noticed by the movements and political decisions of their governments.

But as we know, both MI6 and the CIA were not going to operate from the inside without cover, without a local intermediary answering to them. Their main assets were and remain neo-Nazis and ultra-right-wingers with a long-standing hatred of Russianness. Both agencies were very familiar with recruiting agents and fringe elements within the countries where they operate. In Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria they recruited and created fake NGOs (MI6's White Helmets) and jihadist groups with Muslims of dubious origin, with ‘Al Nusra’, “ISIS” and the Afghan version ‘ISIS-Khorasan’ being the latest and best known spawn.

Thus, British intelligence took charge of weaving a network within the governmental structure in Kiev with the aim of choosing and placing an agent who, from the inside and in the most sensitive position, would carry out the plans in favour of NATO. To this end, counter-intelligence set up an office in Kiev and the candidate recruited in 2020 was the comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, an outsider who was an electable outsider in a country mired in political corruption.

Since then, technically, Zelensky is a British agent recruited and funded (in part) by the “BAE Systems” arms industry and occupies the highest seat of political power in Ukraine. Under these circumstances Zelensky has betrayed his people by involving his country in a war that serves the interests of his employers and NATO. There were pieces of information, human sources and OSINT pointing to this situation, but nothing official. This was a suspicion until not so long ago, not until Russian intelligence worked with patience and determination to deal a devastating blow to British counter-intelligence already operating in Ukraine.

In an operation that could very well be recreated in a movie that Hollywood clearly will not produce, a raid by Russian Spetsnaz special commandos specially sent to Ochakov behind enemy lines, managed to storm a command centre and capture none other than the head of British military counterintelligence and other officers involved in terrorist operations run by neo-Nazi SBU cells and other irregular groups from the West. Kamikaze drone operations and sabotage raids were monitored from this location.

The captured material includes recordings of communications between this section and senior British and other NATO military commanders that categorically compromise Washington's professed bona fides for a ceasefire. Among those captured are Colonel Eduard Blake, head of MI6's psychological operations unit, and two other intelligence officers. 

The news was widely covered in Russian media such as TASS, RT and Sputnik but went (unsurprisingly) unnoticed by the ‘mainstream’ London media (except for The Mirror) and the Western media in general. Indeed, it could not have been otherwise, since not even the imaginative narratives of MI6's servile BBC editorialists can come up with anything convincing.

The feat of the Russian raid could be doubly successful, as the outcome of the operation was determined by the fact that they managed to sneak in and extract the captured spies undetected by Ukrainian forces.

There is no doubt that the acknowledgement in London was immediate, so much so that according to some unverified sources in Vauxhall, there have been high-level phone and video calls to try to negotiate a possible prisoner swap under total secrecy. These days Sir Starmer, John Healey of the MOD and his staff in the Foreign Office must be juggling.

 

 

PUERTA DE INGRESO PARA EEUU EN SUDAMERICA

¿Qué podría significar la visita de la secretaria del Homeland Security Department?

 

Por Javier B. Dal

Mientras desde los medios argentinos se dio cuenta muy por arriba de la visita de la secretaria del Departamento Homeland Security, nadie en el gobierno y en general parece saber a ciencia cierta qué es este organismo, cómo surgió y cuáles son realmente sus objetivos.

Desde la complaciente prensa argenta se habló de que Washington levantaba las restricciones que mantenía para los visados de argentinos que quieran viajar al norte. No faltaron los alcahuetes de siempre y los americanistas de los medios quienes elogiaron el anuncio para que esta fracción de elitistas, pueda seguir viajando a Miami.  

Una vez más, los argentinos pecan de ilusos y hasta de cándidos si no toman conciencia de que esta visita tiene otros intereses más que ampliar el visado de ciudadanos argentinos a los EEUU. Va de suyo que los gobernantes en la Casa Rosada saben solo una parte de esas intenciones reales.

La visita de que realizo la secretaria Kristi Noem al gobierno de los hermanos Milei no es un acontecimiento tan usual como los desinformadores oficiales y sus alcahuetes en los medios de CABA presentaron. Las circunstancias y la naturaleza de esta agencia federal deberían ser tenidas con mucho cuidado si los argentinos no quieren llevarse nuevas sorpresas. Pero ¿Qué es la Homeland Security Department? Se trata de un organismo federal, de características militares relativamente nuevo creado por la administración Bush-Cheney en el marco y bajo la justificación de los atentados del 9/11 en 2001. En la mayor parte de su existencia se ha dedicado a generar inteligencia interna es decir, espiando e interviniendo sobre la intimidad de toda la población estadounidense.

Creado en el marco de la llamada “Ley Patriota” de octubre de 2001 y por la sanción de la ley se Seguridad Nacional de 2002 y por una orden ejecutiva del presidente George W. Bush, comenzó sus operaciones el 1º de marzo de 2003, casualmente en vísperas de la invasión a Iraq que recordemos estuvo basada en mentiras. Solo como referencia de esta última circunstancialidad recordemos que toda esta legislación y este nuevo órgano, surgieron por motivaciones políticas (instigadas desde los círculos pro-israelies) y tuvieron como objetivos centrales a los musulmanes y a ciudadanos árabes en general.

Actualmente esta agencia es la que encabeza la campaña del presidente Donald Trump  contra los inmigrantes dentro de los EEUU, y que con aparatosas redadas militarizadas, ha puesto en evidencia la brutalidad, la arbitrariedad y el inocultable tufo racista que se ha visto en sus operativos a lo largo de todo el país. Para Trump y su administración los inmigrantes son enemigos dentro de los EEUU y es por ello que como parte de esa calificación, son cazados por las unidades de la Homeland Security Department (HSD) en cualquier lugar que se hallen y tras ser trasladados como criminales son recluidos en centros similares al detestable Guantánamo, Cuba.

Según algunas fuentes, la detección de ciudadanos inmigrantes se apoya en una gran parte en soplos de estadounidenses que como en todos los regímenes policiales denuncian anónimamente sus paraderos, demostrando la vileza y el nivel de fanatismo pro-trumpista que existe en la ya racista sociedad norteamericana.

Como se puede ver, las competencias de esta agencia federal van más allá de simples trámites burocráticos aduaneros, entonces ¿Qué finalidad tuvo la visita de su jefe a Buenos Aires? Si nos creemos el cuento de beneficiar el visado para los argentinos, estamos siendo demasiado estúpidos. La misma jefa Kristi Noem no haría un viaje de casi 9000 kilómetros para eso. La entidad de lo que debió ordenar a los Milei y gabinete justifican su presencia recordando que ello es como si el mismo presidente Donald Trump hubiese viajado.

No hay dudas que esta visita se interrelaciona con otras visitas (como la del jefe del SouthCommand) y desembarcos no anunciados de empresarios vinculados a la CIA que los medios argentinos de CABA han guardo en un cajón.

La situación económico-financiera de la Argentina es particularmente conveniente para quienes desde el exterior busquen sacar toda clase de ventajas de un país quebrado. Milei con su retorno a las recetas del FMI ha devuelto al país a la sumisión financiera que refuerzan los grilletes que ya existían con ese organismo. Sumado a esto, una casta de funcionarios pro-estadounidenses y con una marcada militancia sionista que le secundan, la ecuación no podría ser mejor. No dejemos de ver como en alguna medida Milei está reproduciendo las mismas relaciones canales menemistas y todo lo que ello traería consigo sin dejar de señalar los peligros intrínsecos que ello representa para el país.

No es un problema que el gobierno tenga estas predilecciones ideológicas y un convencimiento de que asirse para buscar el desarrollo del país. La apertura y el trato con todas las naciones es parte de la política exterior aún, con aquellas que arrastran tras de sí gravísimas situaciones contrarias a la legislación internacional. El problema está en que para ello, el gobierno actué como un “amigo” o aliado incondicional sin un marco propio que limite (realmente) las injerencias de esos actores foráneos demostrando (además de candidez) una supina irresponsabilidad.

 

 

HACIA UNA NUEVA GEOPOLITICA O HACIA EL ABISMO

La política de guerra económica global impulsada por la administración Trump-Vance ¿Allana y favorece el camino para nuevas alternativas?

 

Por Charles H. Slim

Si hay alguien que ha empujado al mundo a las actuales circunstancias es sin dudas los EEUU quien ya en un franco declinar de su influencia geopolítica, forjada por el intervencionismo blando y el directamente bélico que sin pausa ha venido orquestando en los últimos treinta años hasta esta parte, nos hace reflexionar sobre la imperiosa necesidad de una geopolítica limpia y desintoxicada del americanismo estadounidense,

Las proclamas sobre la importancia de la democracia y los derechos humanos y de imponerla sobre aquellos que no las adoptan como parte de un realismo político, han caído en saco roto por el simple hecho de que EEUU ha quedado en evidencia que no tiene autoridad moral para imponer valores que nunca respetaron. Esos valores fueron solo adornos para los oídos en las estratagemas dialécticas de los asesores más trascendentes como fueron Kissinger y Brzezinski.

Mientras las administraciones estadounidenses (indistintamente de republicanas o demócratas) se arrogaban ser el faro de estos valores, bajo la alfombra y en la clandestinidad se autorizaban golpes de estado, asesinatos, magnicidios, atentados y las invasiones que han traído a cada uno de los países implicados catastróficas consecuencias humanitarias y que hoy se reflejan en las mareas de refugiados de las cuales tanto EEUU como sus socios europeos en aquellas aventuras, fustigan como amenaza.

Solo como muestra de ello y de lo que va del presente siglo, la supuesta democracia impuesta en Iraq que costo un millón y medio de iraquíes asesinados por su invasión y ocupación en 2003 forja un nefasto precedente de entidad que deshace estas elucubraciones pretensiosas.

La era del “policía del mundo” ha terminado y ellos lo saben. Lo mismo con los sermones moralistas hacia el mundo declamados por décadas tanto por demócratas como por republicanos. El último y desesperado intento ante guerras fracasadas y sus calamitosas consecuencias ha sido el tratar de dibujar un derecho internacional paralelo (y conveniente) que permita continuar con aquellos mismos objetivos, pero por otros medios. Como estratagema para tratar de reubicarse en el cambiante contexto mundial y el descredito ganado por aquellas políticas, los cerebros demócratas han fabricado o más bien remozado la entelequia de un “orden internacional basado en reglas” que a simple vista no dice nada y deja más preguntas que certezas.

Pues bien ¿Y cómo esta la cosa con Trump? Al parecer su política se orienta más al utilitarismo económico que a seguir sosteniendo la costosa estructura con la cual se esparcía toda esa propaganda de valores que los mismos políticos estadounidenses no cumplían pero que servía para mantener programas y operaciones clandestinas en el exterior. Así las radios, sitios de internet, las agencias pantalla de ayuda “humanitaria” y los fondos que los subvencionan para radiar propaganda subversiva contra los países que Washington trata de cooptar se desmontarían por la actual administración. Al parecer y como lo dejó en claro un alto funcionario, ya no les importa estar diciéndole y forzando a otros países cómo pensar y cómo deben vivir.

Esto último no significa una mejora con la farsa anterior. Es un sinceramiento que esconde un nuevo engaño. Se podría decir que en apariencias es un punto neutro en la política exterior y un abandono del excepcionalismo con el cual se han manifestado desde la mitad del siglo pasado en el concierto de las naciones. Así La Casa Blanca puede tratar con Israel y al mismo tiempo con la Siria bajo el control de Al Qaeda, o con la Federación de Rusia y al mismo tiempo con la UE de quien en este último caso le arranco un acuerdo económico increíblemente ventajoso y que ya ha desatado reclamos contra Úrsula Von Der Leyen. Y bien digo en apariencias ya que, si bien a Trump le interesan los resultados contantes y sonantes, eso no le impide seguir operando bajo cubierto para hacer prevalecer la hegemonía estadounidense.

A estas alturas muchos estadounidenses de a pie se dan cuenta que MAGA no significa hacer grande a la nación sino (entre otras), al ego de Trump. Si no lo cree así pregúntese ¿Qué ha cambiado desde su llegada? El gasto militar que prometió reducir no ha sucedido, por el contrario, lo ha aumentado. Esto último se constata con la continuación en el aprovisionamiento de misiles y equipos a Ucrania y el ilimitado y variado surtido de armas a Israel con las cuales lleva adelante un genocidio contra la población árabe-palestina. Todo esto favorece que (sumado a otros pasivos como los no remunerados) siga aumentando la deuda pública que según algunas fuentes del Tesoro hablan de 37 billones de dólares ¿Acaso los estadounidenses no lo votaron para que esto cambie?

Pero allí no terminan las contradicciones. Al aumento en el gasto militar para seguir financiando guerras ajenas y que influye en el número rojo mencionado, el presidente obra como un capo de la mafia exigiendo tributos abusivos en nombre de los EEUU y si te opones, te impone aranceles confiscatorios que se suman en muchos casos, a sanciones económico-financieras que no tienen ninguna base legal ni legítima y que (descaradamente) persiguen destruir la competencia comercial internacional con particular interés en los BRICS ¿Dónde está el respeto al derecho internacional aquí?

Si hacer “América Grande otra Vez” significa atropellar a los demás y continuar la política exterior de agresión militar para complementarla con medios económicos y comerciales (como son los aranceles abusivos), no es un buen augurio para la estabilidad global. La extorsión como método podría funcionar un tiempo y hasta un matón lo sabe, pero ¿Cuánto tardara el mundo en rebelarse contra EEUU?

 

 

DELICIOUSLY STUPID

Why are Trump's decisions and comments endangering the world?

 

By Sir Charlattam 

It is already clear that Donald Trump and his Republican administration do not seek peace if it does not suit their interests. We have not really discovered the gunpowder with this observation, but it is good to highlight it in order to expose the lies and intoxication to which the mass media have accustomed us.

Not even with the best of Hollywood scripts (if there were any) could the US media disguise the stupidity and arrogance of a president who, kicking his own campaign words, today launches ultimatums against all those who are an obstacle to the plans of the internationalists and their colleagues of revisionist Zionism who nestle in the cubicles of power in Washington.

Trump could have been a very good comedian on shows like Saturday Night Live in his native New York or even and may be in time to do so with other such hilarious and tragic comedians as Keir Starmer and David Lammy in their British version to be aired on Sky Max.

Trump's arrogance, mixed with childish whims that he embodies with his grimaces and hilarious gestures, could arouse laughter, but a moment later we see that this stridency is part of the behaviour of a psychopath who believes he can decree the death of tens of thousands and smile before the cameras like an imbecile. With the same arrogance he tried to fool the government of the Russian Federation with talk of seeking peace; and when Vladimir Putin proved him wrong, an obfuscated Trump issued a 50-day ultimatum to stop the war or he would impose higher tariffs.

But while the comedian Trump spoke of his interest in stopping the war in Ukraine, teams of SBU saboteurs and Atlanticist mercenary cells -with British involvement- were launching attacks with drones and GRAD systems against the populations bordering historic Russia, causing civilian deaths and injuries. He stepped up high-precision missile strikes against command centres, arms industries and weapons storage centres in Ukraine (especially in the ports of Odessa), accelerating the deterioration of their supply lines on the front line.

Even one of the targets of the hypersonic ‘Khinzal’ missiles was unit 169th, a training and troop assembly centre in Goncharovskoye, a settlement in the north-western part of Chernigov Oblast, which was literally wiped out. The loss in manpower was so catastrophic that it is possible that among the more than 200 bodies there are a few British and other Atlanticist advisers. By now the situation in Pokrovsk is critical and the Ukrainian forces are almost surrounded in a cauldron that foreshadows their elimination.  

Stunned by this, what could Trump do? He doubled down like a game of chicken and reduced his ultimatum to 10 days in the belief that Putin would chicken out. Before the response came, Kremlin officials were already beginning to warn that the US partner's tactics were highly risky for peace. Perhaps most emphatic in pointing this out was former premier Dmitry Medvedev, who warned the US and especially Donald Trump of the dangers of continuing to play on Russia's patience with its ‘ultimatum game’.

What was Trump's reaction? He ordered the mobilisation of two nuclear submarines to ‘appropriate regions’ which in one sentence means ‘a latent threat’ and a dangerous provocation against Russia's sovereignty.

Who would have suggested to Trump to use the navy to challenge Moscow? I ask this because on 21 July last year the Russian fleets conducted a mega naval exercise called ‘July Storm’, which was carried out very successfully in two seas and two oceans. From these exercises it was possible to conclude a very good performance of coordination and precision in the development of combat operations against surface targets and also against submarine threats. It was against this background that Trump sent two nuclear submarines to intrude into the waters of the Russian Federation...genius!

It is this same genius that we see in the treatment of the situation in the Middle East, particularly in trying to normalise Israel's genocide against the Palestinian population and its ambitions to expand into Lebanon where it is no longer a secret that the Republican administration is an active and enthusiastic participant in pro-Israeli actions and in that plan, it has proposed that the Arab Islamic resistance should disarm.

There is no doubt that to Netanyahu and his officials that would be ideal and although Trump's envoys have carried this ‘proposal’ which is nothing more than a threat, the Lebanese Arab citizens themselves and the Palestinians throughout Gaza know that to accept that would be something like a ticket to total subjugation under Israeli occupation. Without a force to oppose Israeli plans, the territories and vital resources such as drinking water would be under the total control of companies answerable to Tel Aviv.

In short, Trump's intention is that both the Lebanese Shiite resistance movement Hezbollah and AMAL and the armed groups that make up the Palestinian resistance should hand over their weapons to Israel, which by all accounts, given the abuses and crimes of the IDF, would be a foolish thing to do. But there is nothing to be lost by trying. With this proposal Trump is trying to sow division within both peoples trying to weaken the political idea of opposing Israel's occupation and to some extent make it easier or easier for his henchmen to physically eliminate anyone who opposes Israel. 

Let us not forget that it was this same Trump who in his first term tried to use these tactics with North Korea and what did he achieve? He got Pyongyang to strengthen its defence policy and nuclear development along with the technological development of its missiles. On that occasion, the only thing left for a frustrated and annoyed Trump to do was to label Kim Jong Un as ‘rocket man’.

He did the same with Iran after abandoning the nuclear development talks and after the fiasco of the attack on the three Iranian facilities just to please Netanyahu and the Zionist establishment to which he answers, he has tried to disguise that failure with words only by trying to tell the Iranians "don't do it again or I'll hit you again! "

But the genius in the White House may not realise that by these mafia-like threats (which foment more deaths and greater distrust) and these comical expressions he only strengthens the resolve of his enemies and makes the world a more insecure place.

 

 

 

SEWING CHAOS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

The sudden outbreak of border hostilities between Thailand and Cambodia Who is in whose interest and why?

 

By Sidney Hey

The sudden outbreak of hostilities between two Indo-Pacific countries, Thailand and Cambodia, is not simply a matter of border friction or the settling of old scores dating back to French colonial times. From a strategic point of view, we should look at who benefits from this discord and who it could complicate if the war spreads.

It has not yet been determined who initiated the attacks as both sides accuse each other of having been attacked without justification. It could be the usual tactic of victimisation despite being the aggressor, or perhaps both are telling the truth; so, who could have attacked?

Let's look at the context and see who might be behind it. There is a simmering regional arm wrestling match between the US and its NATO partners against China and North Korea, which provides a rather suspicious framework for what happened. If we go back to contemporary history, we see that Washington, through its agencies, has artfully created casus belli that gave it the key to enter the regions where they were created. One of the tactics employed and which has become well known is the so-called ‘false flag operation’ in which, by imitation, it is attempted to make people believe that a third party was the aggressor.

Precisely in the same region but in the second half of the last century, the Americans, in order to get involved in Southeast Asia over the North Vietnam issue and to prevent the advance of the communist bloc's influence, fabricated an alleged North Vietnamese attack on one of the US ships (USNS CARD) in Tonkin Bay, which served to justify to Congress and public opinion the US entry into Vietnam.

These kinds of deceptive operations, in which aggression is fabricated through an attack by a regular force or an attack by a terrorist group, are usually carried out by cells recruited, paid for and commissioned by Western agencies. The reactivation of border conflicts by means of a deception operation would not be far-fetched, especially when Donald Trump acts as a mediator hours later.

For years, the US has been trying to bring the Indo-Pacific states in line with its geopolitical guidelines, which, not coincidentally, run counter to China's interests. As part of this, Washington has concluded bilateral agreements and accords linked to (among other things) military assistance under the grandiose and merely enunciative headings of security, regional stability and peace.

In the case of relations with Thailand, they go back a long way and are based on a very good understanding that materialised in the so-called ‘Manila Agreement’ of 1954, which, under the label of a treaty for the collective defence of Southeast Asia, allowed the entry and operation of US military forces in the region, and which a decade later would actively intervene in neighbouring Vietnam. Despite the problems of recurrent human rights violations by military governments, it is considered an ‘extra-NATO ally’, and after the military coup of 2006, relations between the Pentagon and the Thai military leadership have always remained solid, as evidenced by the proportion of armaments such as cluster bombs and US-made F-16 aircraft.

Nor should we forget Thailand's role in cooperating with the CIA by allowing it to house secret prisons and torture centres for abductees around the world, which since 2001 the Washington administration has deployed under the pretext of the fight against terrorism.

Ties with Cambodia do not appear to be as deep and intimately dark as those with Thailand, but in recent years, especially during the Biden-Harris administration, the Pentagon, through Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, has worked hard to align Cambodia's interests with Washington's. The Americans have been concerned about growing bilateral relations with the Chinese, especially with regard to naval movements in the Gulf of Thailand. The Americans watched with great concern as bilateral relations with the Chinese grew, especially with regard to naval movements in the Gulf of Thailand. While they could negotiate a more direct anti-Chinese policy with the Thais, it was not foreseeable that anything similar could be done with Cambodia.

Against this backdrop, one had to ask: what is Cambodia's value on the map? Simply because it is the country closest to China's borders and that is an invaluable geostrategic factor if you are seeking to establish an advantage over your opponent.

Now then. If we see that the Pentagon has historically had extensive and very reliable relations with the Thai military (deepened during the Vietnam War), while on the other side is Cambodia, which in 1970 was invaded by the Americans and triggered a civil war that further weakened the country and led to the Vietnamese invasion in 1978. In short, there is no similar relationship between Washington and Nom Pen as there is with Bankok. but both have long-standing unresolved border issues, especially over the 11th century temple, which UNESCO declared a World Heritage Site.

While we will never know who attacked whom, or whether there was a third hand that deliberately started the fire, it is certain that it has opened a passageway for the Americans to have a greater presence in the region.