“¿UNILATERALISMO O MULTILATERALISMO?”

Algo más que la victoria de una guerra entre la OTAN y Rusia se define en Ucrania. Más allá de los fabulosos negocios armamentísticos de EEUU y la UE están en juego la geopolítica de las próximas décadas por venir y la estabilidad global

Por Charles H. Slim

Algo más que costosos sistemas de misiles múltiple HIMARS, piezas de artillería M777 “Howitzer” y misiles anticarro de última generación es lo que ha proporcionado la OTAN en la contraofensiva pasada sobre Jarkov. Toda la red de satélites, aviones espía y Drones estacionarios de vigilancia electrónica se concentran sobre los movimientos de las tropas rusas produciendo caudales de información que le ha permitido hallar huecos en sus frentes. Ello le permitió avanzar sobre puntos rusos más blandos y desprotegidos. Pero en Washington saben muy bien más allá de la parafernalia mediática esto no significa una victoria decisiva ni mucho menos. Incluso más. Como saben que eso no durará en Washington los burócratas que asesoran a Biden, pretenden ir más allá y cruzar una intolerable línea roja entregándole a los “banderistas” misiles balísticos de mayor alcance.

En resumen, la OTAN y Washington se están jugando el todo por el todo (a costa de la paz mundial) para intentar quebrar la voluntad rusa de prevalecer en Ucrania sin importarles (como de costumbre) las consecuencias. Precisamente estas se van multiplicando producto de sus propias decisiones, las cuales apremian a los propios ciudadanos occidentales y se agravan con el paso de los días. En Europa las poblaciones están levantándose contra las carencias energéticas, la deficiencia en los servicios y el alza inaceptable de los precios de los combustibles, alimentos e impuestos producto de seguir ciegamente las políticas de Washington ¿Cuánto podrán resistir esos gobiernos genuflexos ante las necesidades y los reclamos de sus propios ciudadanos?

La apuesta de Washington es billonaria y eso no hace más que reafirmar que occidente está desesperado por evitar que se derrumbe su paradigma de control geopolítico hegemónico en el que se sustenta el moribundo unilateralismo angloestadounidense (que jamás fue benevolente) y en ese camino no reparará en los daños ni en las consecuencias humanitarias. 

Bajo este paradigma nada democrático los EEUU trata de revivir esa engañosa confrontación entre el “bien y el mal” argumentado por George W. Bush tras el 11/S en 2001 para lo cual ellos, necesitan justificar (y como quedó muy claro en Afganistán e Iraq) hacer lo peor para (según su visión) imponerse al “mal”. Washington y la UE ignoraron todas las llamadas a conversaciones e incluso, alentó a Zelensky a lanzar gravísimas amenazas contra la integridad ya no solo de los ucranianos del Donbass sino de toda Rusia.

Recordemos sino como el 19 febrero del 2022 Zelensky declaró en Münich que estaba dispuesto a adquirir armas nucleares que podrían llegar a Moscú en solo 5 minutos ¿Quiénes estarían en condiciones de otorgárselas? Sabemos quiénes y entonces ¿Por qué Rusia debía cruzarse de brazos y esperar que aquel cumpliera con esa amenaza? Pero esta clara estrategia de arrinconar a Rusia, no parece estar siendo meditada ¿Qué otras consecuencias podrían traer para Europa y el mundo?

El discurso del presidente ruso Vladimir Putin del día 21 de septiembre pasado ha puesto sobre la mesa no solo la determinación de Rusia por defender a las poblaciones rusofonas del Donbass de la agresión de un régimen filonazi apoyado por la OTAN sino que y lo más importante, persigue proteger a sus propios ciudadanos de esta amenaza haciendo valer el derecho inmanente a la defensa colectiva que la ONU conforme al art. 51 de la Carta Orgánica, expresó -en el marco de los nunca explicados hechos del 11/S- mediante la Resolución 56 y la que emitió el Consejo de Seguridad el 12 de Septiembre de 2001 mediante la Resolución 1368.

A pesar de que estas resoluciones no autorizaban el uso de la fuerza, vimos como mediante un entendimiento discrecional y arbitrario sirvió a los propósitos de Washington. Mostrarse como agredido y en base a mentiras y falsedades, dio rienda suelta y se justificó una agresión generalizada contra Afganistán, Iraq y el mundo árabe islámico ¿Dónde están las condenas y puniciones ante tal violación al derecho internacional?

Hoy los papeles se han invertido y son EEUU y la OTAN quienes están arrastrando al mundo a una guerra global. No era necesario que Putin haya tenido que señalar que Zelensky no quiso sentarse a negociar el alto al fuego. El mandatario ucraniano hace tiempo que no toma decisiones que se vinculan con la guerra y eso es algo que nadie puede ocultar. Su función es meramente decorativa y dedicada a la propaganda de medios.

Para entender la decisión del Kremlin es importante ver todo el contexto. La Operación Especial no fue un arrebato de un loco o de un malvado como los medios concentrados occidentales -y los lastimeros argentinos- y sus laderos en gobiernos obsecuentes repiten histéricamente. Sin tener que retrotraernos a 1991, las maniobras y acciones de Washington que desde 2008 vinieron implementando para membrecía mediante, meterse en Ucrania y Georgia son probados antecedentes de lo que vendría seis años después.

Acaso se olvida cómo funcionarios norteamericanos caminaban por las calles de Kiev repartiendo pan, los mismos que en 2014, fueron descubiertos en sus planes conspirativos -pillados en una conversación telefónica entre Victoria Nuland y Geoffrey Pyatt- que terminaron en el sangriento golpe de estado del mes de febrero, fueron y siguen siendo el principal motivo de preocupación para la existencia de Rusia.

La resistencia de los pobladores de la región del Donbass desató una cacería contra los ciudadanos ucranianos de habla rusa quienes tras el ascenso del régimen para-occidental comenzaron a ser perseguidos tanto en Kiev como en el oeste de Ucrania encontrando único refugio en el este. Si bien los pobladores de Donestk y Lugansk rechazaron a ese Status Quo y se organizaron militarmente para resistirlo, la desproporción de fuerzas era notable. La infantería ucraniana fue disuadida de penetrar en el Donbass pero no de bombardearla de forma sistemática y cotidiana causando miles de muertes entre los pobladores. Ni la UE y mucho menos Washington se conmovieron con estas atrocidades. Su preocupación solo pasaba por haber sido frenadas las expectativas de tomar una región altamente estratégica para la OTAN.

Desde ese momento, el engendro que controla Kiev no sigue su constitución nacional ni el ordenamiento jurídico que de ella se desprende. Hay un estado de cosas que claramente se haya sumido bajo las reglas de su patrocinador enmarcadas en ese poder unilateralista basado en reglas creadas a su propia conveniencia que sirven solo y a los únicos fines geopolíticos de EEUU.   

 

 

 

“PLOTTING IN BAGHDAD”

The stealthy footsteps of Washington and its allies can be heard approaching. Will the Arab Republic of Iraq be able to rise again from the prostration to which it is subjected by a failed Western adventure? The prolegomenon of the end

By Ali Al-Najafi

When Ahmed's uncle was torn from his home in the populous Baghdad neighborhood of “Sadr City” by a mixed gang of US military and Shiite militiamen from the collaborator regime's “Wolf Brigades” on that night in October 2006, it was the last Once they knew about him, he became one of the numerous disappeared in that sinister moment of occupation. The charge brought against him was cooperating with the Jaysh Al Mahdi Shiite “insurgency”, although his family always denied this. Continuing to ask was a risk of certain death since these government bodies had the impunity to assassinate anyone since the Americans looked distracted.

The supposed democracy that the invaders brought and that they tried to legitimize with a written constitution that (in addition to having been drafted and written in Washington) never responded to the political, cultural and confessional reality of the Iraqis. On the contrary, it was the mark of the arbitrary unilateralism with which they were imposed. In reality, the Americans already knew it and that is why they implemented a chaotic system from which they would have the strings to pull from to manage impostor governments that only function with the fuel of political-economic and financial corruption as democracies are managed. of Anglo-Saxon capitalism.

Not only to the Iraqis but to the Arab-Islamic world everything has become very clear that all these massacres and brutalities against millions of Muslims have been largely engineered by that poisonous and amoral political sect of the neoconservatives (and to which Joseph Biden and Co. part) and who along with Zionist proponents such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Benjamin Netanyahu and Bernard Henry Levy and the Western media conglomerate including Arabs such as Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera, have instigated interfaith hatred and mistrust within Islam.

Iraq was his testing ground and refinement of this tactic and to orchestrate the subsequent violent actions against the rest of the countries in the region and those intentions have not disappeared, on the contrary they go for the perversion of the soul and the family by encouraging the LGTB ideology. Since 2003 the Iraqi union has been crippled by constant sabotage by obnoxious characters like Nouri Al Maliki and his secularized “Dawa” sect, pro-Iran coalitions like the Fatah Alliance, and conspiracies woven by our neighbor for Iraqi Muslims to kill each other. others and that is why neither Washington nor Tehran and their respective collaborators will not allow someone to unite the will of the people.

The architects of this Islamophobia today have turned their insidious speech against the Russians into a raging Russophobia. We saw the connection of this racist poison (from a Judeo-Protestant supremacism) with the impunity with which the brutal murder of the Palestinian journalist Shirin Abu Akleh and the infamous terrorist murder of the Russian journalist Darya Dugina were executed and later covered up. These same are the ones who continue to work so that Iraq does not rise up and for this perpetuating the division is paramount.

Iraq is a country without real power but it still maintains people and political sectors with the spiritual strength to face the power of evil that has parasitized the country since 2003. The Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr continues to be the reference to change that but he is a path full of dangers and he knows it. The material poverty of the people created by the invaders has undoubtedly debased many but at the same time it has made spirituality grow in many others (regardless of being Sunni, Shia or Coptic Christian) without necessarily their religiosity. It is the triumph of Islamic spirituality over the satanic materialism of Westerners. There is a tomorrow for Iraq, free from the entrenched tentacles in the Green Zone, but this will require a struggle that goes beyond the material.

His Excellency Moqtada Al Sadr continues to be the most outstanding and credible option for this task, but without falling into the temptation of being entwined in the tricks of the snake of dark sectarianism that the Anglo-Americans raised and fed during their stay with Sunni farces such as “Al Qaeda Iraq” and “Daesh”, but also Shiites like the bodies of assassins from the “Badr” and “Wolf” Brigades that Tehran (in a diabolical pragmatism) helped water for its own convenience.

The Iranians know this and many do not support its continuation. The most lucid of their Ayatollahs and some IRGC strategists know that this will bring misfortune to the entire nation. Iran is a nation with a Shiite majority with a government based on Shiite Islam and despite the fact that we have part of the history on our soil and the faith of these noble currents in Karbalah does not mean giving in to the national interests of Arab Iraq. Shiization is functional to Anglo-Americans and is not a pious act. Very involved in this manipulation are the British intelligence agencies financing sects that operate from London and that the Iranians would have used for their own benefit during the occupation. They do not do it out of human conviction or values, they do it out of a simple deduction from the cold political reasoning that they have assimilated from Anglo-American colonialism and imperialism.

There is a war in Eurasia that seems to be spreading to the south and that is not by chance. Oil and gas resources have once again become of interest to globalism led by the US. His miscalculation in Russia's reaction to Washington's financial terrorism that has led to an economic-commercial catastrophe for the West and especially for Europe, which hopes to heat its homes with wood, requires physically regaining control of deposits and regions with incalculable potential. And if not, look how the Americans are stealing Syrian oil in trucks driven by Kurds.

There is no doubt that the discords between the groups of righteous men of the Moqawama are instigated. Also the agitation that would be brewing in the Sunni tribes of “Al Anbar” and in the “Sham” desert by certain suspiciously Arab elements who would be Saudi agents at the service of the Americans and the Israelis with sanctuary in Kurdistan and in Deir Zzor In Syria.

The Iraqis sense that the Americans and their associates will try to generate new confrontations at home and, as always, the blood will be shed by the Iraqis unless a force of upright and truthful rebirth emerges. As long as the traitors and the corrupt who serve Iraq's immobility are in power, that danger will persist.

 

 

 

“EXTENDING THE THEATRE”

The sudden escalation of hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan smacks of a planned instigation that proves that no matter how many unwary people's blood needs to be shed to serve the interests of the US and a decaying organisation like NATO.

By Sir Charlattam

When several situations occur in a coordinated and consecutive manner, one cannot speak of coincidences, much less when the same subject is involved in all of them. The latest developments on the Armenian-Azeri border are pointing to this and inform us that "someone" is trying to spread the Ukrainian conflict scenario to other theatres.

Less than a week ago, without either of them claiming to have started it, Armenians and Azeris have broken the ceasefire after the bloody 44-day war in 2020. In this new skirmish, almost a hundred casualties are reported between the two sides. As was the case then, both sides accuse each other of having started it, but in reality there is no certainty about who actually attacked first (if indeed either of them did) and it is very likely that a third party acting from the shadows was involved.

Why do I come to this conclusion? Well, if you consider that it was Vladimir Putin's government that brokered and guaranteed the ceasefire between the two sides, it is not at all unreasonable that stoking the fires between the two sides that are contained by a nation like Russia that is itself engaged in a war in Ukraine at a very opportune moment is suspiciously convenient. In addition, the size and irregular terrain of the frontline makes it very plausible that someone could remotely (and undetected) launch a drone or surface missile attack on either side or even both simultaneously. Who might be behind it?

Let us not forget that the hand of one of its most prominent MI6 agents in Ankara would have been heavily implicated in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020. Of course, the Foreign Office pretended not to notice and if the secretary had been asked for an account we would have heard the worn-out “No comment”. Certainly, there are a number of questions that call for reflection on the motives for and expectations of this event. It was known that two weeks earlier Armenian representatives Pashinian and his Azeri counterpart Ilham Aliyev had met in Brussels with the European Council in a quest to turn the ceasefire into a final treaty, but it was known that there was much reticence on both sides. Mutual mistrust lingers. In addition, the presence of Western elements in the region and even advising the parties reinforces suspicions of provocation. Recent events have conveniently frozen these expectations and open the door to reopening instability throughout the region. Sudden clashes on the Tajik-Kyrgyz border add to suspicions of a coordinated destabilization. The question is who stands to gain from this?

For NATO, distracting Russian forces and forcing them to deploy in different parts of its vast geography would mean a weakening of operations in Ukraine.

As we know, Washington long before the war in Ukraine had produced a report on how to wear down Russia by opening up, through various methods and actors, various scenarios of instability. The timing is ideal. After the Ukrainian counteroffensive on Kharkov (led by NATO) that forced a Russian withdrawal, creating problems for Moscow in other regions beyond this scenario would be within the logic of the expected attrition. In light of this, the concentrated media is constantly talking about a triumphalist Ukrainian epic that is clearly part of the SBU's psychological operations under the direction of “Five Eyes”. But make no mistake, while Zelensky and his cronies believe it is for Ukraine this tends to ultimately benefit Brussels.

The development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit that began on 15 September in Uzbekistan would also be another of the objectives to be scrubbed with the resumption of hostilities in the Caucasus. It is an entity that seeks to become a forum of multilateralism in which Russia, China and an important part of the world can find, through respect for cultural diversity and political sovereignty, a space and new formulas for dialogue among its members. Interestingly, Armenia and Azerbaijan are members of this organisation and the events of the last few days have clouded their participation and it may be impossible to seat them in this forum at the same time.

The potential for the SCO to become a broader and more influential trade and economic cooperation bloc is increasingly foreseeable. While the West is committed to pouring trillions of dollars into armaments to fuel war in Europe, Eurasia is projecting an alternative, participatory capitalism far removed from the sinister dynamics on which the US has sustained its economy for the past 30 years. Just on this occasion, Iran signed the memorandum of accession to the organisation, which signals the beginning of greater possibilities that include countries in distant regions such as Latin America - possible, very real and undoubtedly something that the White House and its lackeys in the European Union are not at all amused about.

For Washington and its obsequious supporters in the EU (Joseph Borrell; Ursula Von Leyen, Macron, Schol) and of course Liz Truss's Tory cronies, such organisations promulgate a geopolitical agenda that represents a challenge to their hegemonism and a threat to the already unveiled plan for NATO to penetrate Asia regardless of the means and consequences.