“GENERATORS OF VICTORIES”

How far are the sponsors of Volodymyr Zelensky and his supporters going to try to sustain their Status Quo?

By Sir Charlattam

Western media reports alone are not enough to discredit Russia, even rumours spread by intelligence agencies (with false reports) used to be enough to instigate and authorise the start of a war. Nor were edited videos with fake performances to sustain wars (like the CIA's videos of a supposed Osama Bin Laden or those of the White Helmets in Syria courtesy of MI6). But since people have become smarter and learned from the scams of the immediate past, few believe the novelised and highly embellished stories of the Anglo-Saxon Think Tanks.

How many lies we have seen circulating in the Breaking News. The latest, “the Russian missile against Poland”. Since the beginning of the Special Operation in Ukraine the rumour mill and the distortion of facts by biased interpretations have been going on and on. A couple of months ago, high quality videos began to circulate on the internet, showing combat and ambushes that show in remarkable detail (and the astonishing courage of the alleged captor) how Ukrainian troops shoot down two Russian helicopters using “Stinger” missiles or destroy a column of powerful T-90 tanks by using American “Javelin” missiles.

The plot of these elaborations is imbued with a triumphalist and notably pro-regime Zelensky air that clearly seeks to create in the viewer an instantaneous sensation that in reality is not. This is undoubtedly a tactic of psychological warfare which, although noticeable after careful observation, has an initial impact that implies a message that will be received by a largely young audience unfamiliar with the real origins of this conflict. This makes it clear that there are several hands collaborating with the Kiev regime and -although US allies- not necessarily NATO allies.

The level of detail in the images and sound is so realistic that at first you would think you were witnessing an episode of what is happening in Ukraine. Everything is very realistic, almost to the millimetre except, if you stop to look at certain details, it made me realise that I was in the presence of an elaborate simulation with advanced soft-ware that resembles a well-known game called ARMA 3 but seems to have been deliberately reproduced in a very well circumstantiated way to try to make you believe that the Russians are being crushed on the battlefield.

In reality this trick, which was used at the beginning of Operation Z by some news networks, has already been denounced as an attempt to manipulate the reality of events. The tricksters strike again. As soon as the first Russian tanks crossed into the territory of Donbass, all kinds of hoaxes began to circulate with the intention of showing a fierce resistance with lethal results for the enemy. This is a crude attempt to recreate the propaganda operations that the Iraqi and Afghan resistance (which the Anglo-American media called “insurgency”), in the face of danger, used to record their ambushes or direct attacks against the Anglo-Americans with video recorders and then publish them on the internet.

Despite the limitations and danger involved in carrying out these actions, the Afghans but particularly the Iraqis did great damage to the morale of the invaders and it was for this reason that the Pentagon had as one of its most zealous objectives to cut off this broadcasting that dented the morale of the troops and left the politicians in Washington in a bad light. 

It is ironic, but in those days Iraqis were vilified, reviled and abandoned by the same media that today feign dismay for the Ukrainians while at the same time extolling and using a pro-Nazi regime (led by an Ashkenazi Jew) that serves NATO's strategic purposes.

But in Ukraine it is different. It is not necessary for one of their mercenaries or one of the members of the neo-Nazi battalions “Azov” or “Aidar” (drugged to the hilt) to carry a camcorder or a phone to record the actions of their comrades. Moreover, why do this when there is extensive coverage by Atlanticist media? Even today, the technology exists to create, at will and pleasure, the most spectacular - though rarely possible - feats with the ass sitting in a quiet flat with all the comforts of home far away from the chaos. It is cheaper and less dangerous for graphics and design experts, equipped with powerful software (carefully following their clients' indications) to elaborate epic scenarios that try to recreate the glories sold by politicians and the media of the “collective West”.

As for the latter, we should not forget their strategic role in managing the direction in which (for Brussels and Washington) the war should go. We must not lose sight of the fact that thanks to this type of mercenary and notoriously biased journalism, countless war crimes and crimes against humanity have been concealed, disguised and justified in the cases of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and of course in Palestine.

For these media, their journalists and, obviously, for these ingenious designers of “virtual realities” (most of whom care little about political reality), the biggest concern that crosses their minds is that the cheques and deposits of their patrons are paid in every month-end. For it is only money that sustains Western foreign policy.

All these actors are tied together with the same cordon and even if many of them try to show some dissent or publish so-called exclusives that embarrass their governments, at the end of the day they are definitely united by the same goal. If you dig a little you will find the involvement of Anglo-American NGOs, many of them masks of the CIA such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), “concerned with freedom and democracy”, whose ultimate goal is that the subversion they are responsible for fomenting serves to make a lot of money, at the expense of others and in this case, at the expense of all Slavs.

According to Moscow, for the FSU and especially the SSU, the use of psychological warfare tactics is as important as the firepower of their troops, which, by the way, survives on the multi-million dollar donations of the “collective West”. Since the 2014 Maidan coup British advisors (military intelligence and ex-S.A.S.) and other NATO dirty tricks specialists in this area have not stopped entering Ukraine to give lectures, courses and training to military and intelligence cadres of the regime.

As can be seen, the only thing left for the pro-Nazi regime and its NATO protectors to do is to masturbate by imagining and generating digital victories by devices that would perhaps make sense in a metaverse where the Russian bear would not claw at them with a paw.

 

 

 

“VOLVER PARA SER GRANDE OTRA VEZ”

El anuncio que realizo Donald Trump hace unos días de volver a la política para competir por la presidencia en 2024 ¿Significa una implosión en el sistema bipartidista? Problemas en el paraíso de la democracia

 

Por Charles H. Slim

La reaparición de Donald Trump anunciando el regreso a la postulación como candidato para las presidenciales de 2024 son la muestra de que la administración de Joe Biden no va nada bien. Los demócratas de la extrema izquierda troskista que hoy usa la máscara del feminismo y los movimientos del LGTBQ para avanzar en su hegemonismo global, lo creían muerto pero al parecer, se han equivocado y Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama y todo el arco neocon deben estar tomando antiácidos por la descompostura que les produce este resurgir.

Es cierto que sus candidatos han tenido una magra perfomance pero, el dato importante e ineludible es que Donald Trump no ha desaparecido del vocabulario de los estadounidenses.

Desde el asalto al Congreso hace 18 meses, la corporación de medios alineada la agenda de los neoconservadores liberales, fulmino con todas sus fuerzas al “populista de derecha” intentando condenarlo al ostracismo como si de una muerte civil se tratara.

Trump es el primer presidente estadounidense censurado en Twitter, demostrando que hay muchos claros oscuros en el sistema que se proclama democrático. Quienes celebraron esto creyeron que lo habían silenciado y con ello, cerrado el camino de forma definitiva para su carrera política. Pero ¿Quién o quiénes han propiciado este regreso? La respuesta puede ser mucho más desconcertante de lo que usted puede digerir.

Si bien la “pandemia” de Covid (algo de lo cual la administración Trump sabe) destartalo el sistema comercial y de transporte internacional agudizando el problema de los parados y todo lo que ello conlleva para la estabilidad social dentro del país, la obsesión por la conquista y el militarismo de los neoconservadores (en particular la secta de los Straussianos) fue lo que ha llevado a los EEUU a la actual encrucijada en la que Joe Biden no sabe cómo zafar. Y sino ¿Quiénes cree usted que fueron los que han desatado la actual crisis recesiva de grado global que amenaza incluso hundir a la economía de la propia Unión?

La reaparición de Donald Trump presupone un posible regreso a la arena de la política para devolverle a los norteamericanos lo que los demócratas internacionalistas han estado sacando para invertirlo en guerras absurdas y en especial, para mantener organizaciones como la OTAN que representan un dispendio injustificado para el Tesoro norteamericano ¿y para qué? Para sacar a los europeos de problemas que son de los europeos. Es allí donde Trump vuelve a formular la pregunta que irrita a una buena parte de los estadounidenses que han sido abandonados por el sistema ¿Por qué debemos pagar con nuestro dinero a tipos como Zelensky y financiar su guerra cuando ese dinero hace mucha falta para detener los desahucios, la crisis social y el desempleo crónico?; ¿Acaso la democracia tiene algo que ver en ello? A la vista de cualquiera que este medianamente informado de la política exterior de los últimos treinta años sabrá que eso es falso.

Trump sobre lo mismo no dejo pasar lo sucedido en Afganistán, uno de los fracasos más estrepitosos y humillantes de la política exterior de Washington a la que hace responsable al mismo Joe Biden y su administración. Pero en razón de verdad preguntése ¿Acaso Trump de haber seguido en el poder podría haber retenido Afganistán? A mi modesta opinión, no. La situación era insostenible y las tropas de la ISAF hacía tiempo que estaban perdiendo terreno (y miles de millones de dólares al año) y fue por eso que -y a regañadientes de los neoconservadores que lo apoyaban- Trump ya había determinado una retirada progresiva. Ni las conversaciones secretas entre la CIA y el Talibán en Qatar ni el intento de recrear un “Estado Islámico” afgano -ISIS-K-, para disociar y resquebrajar a la resistencia (como lo hicieron en Iraq) funcionaron. Aunque EEUU no lo haya querido reconocer, ha sufrido en Afganistán el humillante revés de todos los imperios invasores que más tarde se arrepentirían de haberse adentrado en ese territorio.

Sobre lo que viene sucediendo en Ucrania habría que hacerse una pregunta similar ¿Habría Trump comprometido a los EEUU en una guerra contra Rusia bajo el paraguas de la OTAN? Por lo que dijo, acusando a Biden de poner al país al borde de un enfrentamiento nuclear es evidente quiso decir que no. Si nos atenemos al concepto que Trump tenía (y supuestamente sigue teniendo) de la organización atlántica calificándola de “inútil” y un gasto injustificado para los EEUU, es posible que las tratativas para que se cumplieran los acuerdos de Minsk siguieran en la agenda y de esa forma Rusia no se habría sentido amenazada tras las bravuconadas y movimientos hostiles de las fuerzas ucranianas avaladas por la administración demócrata y seguramente el presidente Vladimir Putin no se habría visto forzado a lanzar la Operación Especial contra el régimen de Zelensky.

Igualmente no se engañe. Donald Trump no es mejor que los internacionalistas que hoy ocupan la Casa Blanca. No se olvide que gracias a su administración y de forma ilegal le reconoció a Israel un estatus sobre Jerusalem que no tiene dejando en evidencia la simpatía y el estrecho compromiso que Trump tiene con el sionismo que dicho sea de paso, tiene sus pies en ambos lados del sistema político norteamericano.

 

 

 

 

 

FALSE FLAG IN THE COUNTRYSIDE”?

Why should the report of a Russian attack on Polish territory be suspected?

By Sir Charlattam

Late at night near the small Polish town of Przewodów, some 10 miles from the Ukrainian border, a loud boom was heard that shook the earth. As soon as it happened, rumours spread that a Russian missile had hit a rural village, killing two people. The Associated Press validated the information and this rumour became a news story that was picked up by the Western media with a clear objective: to accuse Russia of attacking a NATO member.

The fact could not have been more convenient and despite the fact that all the media in the hemisphere (and how could it be otherwise), including the Argentinean media, began to point the finger at Russia as the author of this alleged attack. The timing was not random either, as it came just as Russia had hours earlier systematically and punctually struck Ukraine's entire electrical and railway system, leaving the capital practically immobilised.

Intelligence sources could not confirm the accusations and the Kremlin itself immediately denied that it was a missile attack, so what could have happened?

As is well known, deception is one of the most common tactics used in war to try to gain an advantage over the enemy. Contemporary history is full of such examples. Just as an example, in 2003 when US and British planes were demolishing Baghdad, deliberate attacks on hospitals and mosques were reported, and the Pentagon, showing aerial photos, claimed that it was the Iraqis themselves who were blowing up these buildings in order to blame them. It was not long before it was proven that it was the invaders who had committed these acts, but that would no longer matter as they would overthrow the government and put a puppet in its place.

Nor should it come as a surprise to those who know the history of the region that it is Poland that is being attacked by an allegedly fallen missile in the middle of a field. Since before the beginning of Special Operation Z, Warsaw as one of NATO's tentacles has played a leading role against Russia. Historical quarrels have never been settled and the hatreds of the past linger on even longer after the suspicious death of Polish Prime Minister Lech Kaczyński on 10 April 2010 after his plane crashed in Smolensk, strangely enough near the banks of the Dnieper River. For the Russophobes in Warsaw (who enthusiastically cooperate with the neo-conservatives) the plane was sabotaged on the orders of Vladimir Putin himself and executed by the FSB and Kaczynki himself finished off when he was found dying in the wreckage.

But others attributed this to a British MI6 operation supported by Kaczynki's opponents (pro-EU liberals, as it happens) who wanted nothing to do with bringing Poland closer to Russia. If it had been a Russian attack, no doubt they chose the wrong time and place to assassinate him, an unbelievable clumsiness for something so serious.

And here it is again. Although the Polish government pretends to be surprised by this alleged attack, since the US in 2013 with Victoria Nuland, John Kerry and the US ambassador in Kiev Geoffrey Pyatt instigated what became a coup in February 2014, it has never ceased to collaborate with Washington's box of dirty tricks. Its borders have been a willing sieve for supplies, mercenaries and weaponry to enter Ukraine to go to the Donbass where at least 20,000 villagers have been killed since 2014. Certainly, a contribution to peace.

But what fell on that farm on Polish territory was it really a Russian missile? The question is pertinent since (in addition to other similar accusations in the past) it has not been confirmed what kind of missile it was and where it came from. It is even very suspicious that within minutes of the incident, the Western media blamed it with absolute certainty on a “Russian missile”. An investigation had not even begun and the intelligence agencies reporting to the White House did not dare to confirm the version, but the media and Zelensky himself already had the culprit; very suspicious, don't you think?

The hoaxes known as “False Flag” have been in the limelight for the last thirty years and much more clearly since the never-cleared-up events of 9/11. Fabricating an incident and making it look like it was executed by your enemy has become a common tactic in conflicts over the last twenty years. From Iraq in 2003 through Libya in 2010, Syria in 2011 (especially the Al Ghouta set-up in 2013), or what about the attacks on tankers in the Persian Gulf trying to implicate Iran in June 2019 to name but a few, the media have collaborated with their narratives to give each of these events the final touch to close the narrative that disguises the deception. The current circumstances in Ukraine were to be no exception.

The media in this conflagration have played an important role in the Atlanticist propaganda reaching paroxysm levels to try to fabricate incidents that can be blamed on Russia. With regard to the missiles, during the first weeks of the Russian incursion the versions produced by the main “news” centres based in London (BBC), the EU (Reuters) and Washington (CNN) were not exaggerated and in some cases even deliberately staged to generate Russophobic aversion to support the extortionate trade and financial measures that Washington was about to implement.

One such blatant event occurred on 26 February at a time when Russia was literally stripping the Ukrainian military infrastructure. At that time the Russian army was on its way to Kiev and its planes were clearing the surrounding defences and radars. It was at that moment that a Soviet-made BUCK missile was fired without considering that it was in the way of a building, which was caught on camera by some correspondents but blatantly blamed on the Russians in the West. Although the Ukrainians themselves witnessed this, the ultra-nationalist regime and its secret police (with whom the CIA and MI6 work in tandem) were not going to allow anyone to open their mouths and took it upon themselves to placate any slack mouths that dared to say otherwise. Equally, the amount of footage taken that instant and circulated around the world made it impossible to hide, so it doesn't matter if Zelensky and his supporters say otherwise.

Remember the incident in Kramatorsk in April 2022? All the Western media immediately did not hesitate to accuse a Russian missile but investigations and evidence from photographic pieces of the missile wreckage proved that what was reported was false and it was actually a missile of the Ukrainian Armed Forces that killed 57 compatriots. Radio silence.

What happened in the Polish countryside is far from clear. Since it is so easy to point fingers and accuse, let us speculate and ask ourselves these questions: Why couldn't it have been a missile fired deliberately from Ukrainian territory? And if so, was it necessarily a missile or could it also have been an artillery shot, or perhaps an air-to-ground missile fired from the airspace of one of the neighbours? The Western corporate media will continue to bleat what is convenient for Washington. It is known that Brussels will use it to justify Polish euphoria to “mobilise its troops for combat”, but also NATO members and in particular Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg know that without evidence to justify official entry into the war (because it was already taking part behind the scenes), it will have consequences beyond the merely discursive.

 

 

 

“NUCLEAR PREVENTION”

Who really is the nuclear threat to global peace? When the story is half told

By Danny Smith

The unsavory result of the mid-term elections in the US, which will change the situation little for the North Americans, will not mean anything transcendental for the Union's foreign policy either. This clarification is made to make it clear that it does not matter whether or not there has been a “red tide” (color of the Republican party) in Congress or that the blue color of the donkey of the “progressive” Democrats has diminished so that things can improve. Either of the two, in the end, respond to the same interests that are the ones that create the fabulous businesses with which “America becomes great”.

The day after this event everything was the same, with some variations, but without substantial changes. Neither what the Republican candidate Kevin McCarthy said nor the Democrat Evan McMullin provided new visions on foreign policy and in particular on how to continue with Ukraine. Those who have tried to establish a causal link between these elections and the Russian withdrawal from Kherson are only real smokestacks. Biden has done nothing, much less the 101st Airborne who is prepared to jump from Romania to the fight in Ukraine. Even the extreme right-wing militias, the mercenary groups led by the British and the Americans or what remains of the Ukrainian armed forces, or even better, all of them together, were the cause of the departure of the troops from the provincial capital.

The Ukrainian commanders themselves were surprised by the decision and rather than fuss, they prefer caution and therefore maintain a tense prudence. Even some of “Churchilian” Zelensky's personal advisers don't see this as a good sign. Not interpreting an event well in a war can cost dearly. Do you know the saying, take a run if you want to jump further? Is this not a strategic pushback to gain momentum to jump and fall beyond the city of Kherson?

But that is not a more serious problem to contemplate. The Europeans and when I say the Europeans, I mean the citizens in the streets who are already fed up with the sacrifices they must bear for the servility of their politicians in the geopolitical games of Washington. Today there is much more awareness of what “US friendship” represents, what its “democracy” means, or its always remembered “aid for reconstruction” after the second war with the Marshall Plan, which they are still paying.

Added to this, the entire era of the cold war under a latent threat of a nuclear conflagration, created meaningless generations or mired in the apathy of capitalist consumerism. Today, under the current circumstances and in light of the doctrine that Washington on Russia could implement in a surprising way, it only makes us wonder: Could the US attack Russia with nuclear weapons in a preventive way? The US elite (the neoconservatives of the Straussian branch) and not only Joe Biden would be tempted to resort to the preventive nuclear option under the pilgrim and worn argument of the right to defense. But, this idea is not theirs and it has been created for a long time.

The Plan for a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Russia has its origin even before the end of the second war. At that time the USSR was of strategic importance to defeat Nazi Germany but Prime Minister Churchill did not care and when the opportunity presented itself and with the complicity of the US, they would hit 66 strategic cities by surprise (including Kyiv, Kharkov and Odessa) with the weapon that the Americans had secretly developed since 1939 and tested with the Manhattan Project” What would the Ukrainians say if they knew the details of this?

This early Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack (PNA) Doctrine against Russia was never taken off the agenda. This is reported in a TOP SECRET memo dated September 15, 1945 addressed to General L.R. Groves and only saw the light of day in 1975. The “Cold War” actually began in 1947 at a time when Soviet intelligence was aware of these sinister intentions. The Cuban missile incidents of 1962 and the “Able Archer” scandal of 1983 are only a tiny part of the danger to which the world was exposed by the decision of madmen like Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The world was on the verge of a nuclear holocaust that was already previously designed by the self-proclaimed “liberal democrats”. Even the fall of the USSR in 1991 was not a reason to remove that sinister priority against Russia. Closer in time, after the rise in the year 2000 of the neoconservatives with George W. Bush as president, Washington kept markings for a Preemptive Nuclear Strike on Russia, China, North Korea and Iran among its list of candidates.

In the current circumstances with a conventional war in Ukraine that is gradually escalating and that NATO is unable to define at will, the Kremlin is very well justified in fearing that the US is taking the first step towards the abyss. Let us remember that Putin himself made it clear in a speech days before undertaking the Special Operation. This danger of launching an “Operation Unthinkable” (like the one Churchill had planned before the end of the Second World War) becomes very feasible if we consider the degree of fanaticism and madness of the neocon sectarians (with Victoria Nuland at the helm) and his constant instigations for the war to become more bitter.

If they have not done so up to now, it is for a single reason: The Strategic Nuclear Missile System (placed in a special deterrence regime) which is modernized and has to its credit long-range vectors that are impossible to intercept by anti-missile shields of NATO. It is in that doctrine of preventive attack with ICBMs and the danger that their application would entail for all of humanity, that Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation considered a strategic threat to limit the advance of the Atlantic Alliance on Ukraine.

Be that as it may, and if that is the idea that the neoconservatives and their most extremist elements are still incubating, it should be clear that, as the lyrics of the Australian boys from “Men At Work” say, “It's a mistake”.

 

  

 

“¿GUERRA PATAGONICA?”

En nombre del progresismo se han disgregado valores e identidades que entre otras consecuencias ha dado lugar a la operatividad de engendros como la RAM que podrían estar ocultando actores altamente peligrosos para la integridad territorial de Argentina

Por Pepe Beru

Asaltos nocturnos y actos de sabotaje en el paraíso del último lugar del mundo donde alguien nunca hubiera creído que eso podía ser posible, hoy es una realidad. Durante décadas la Patagonia fue un territorio olvidado por los gobiernos argentinos y eso significa, por sus políticos. Demasiado árido para unos, demasiado ventoso y desapacible, muy frío y solitario para otros. Esa es la obtusa visión que los pasatistas gobiernos “porteños”, cómodos en sus cajas de cemento y sus grandes avenidas acostumbrados a mirar hacia Europa y los Estados Unidos, es como han mirado a este vasto y rico territorio que -al amparo de cuatro paredes- fueron vendiéndolo a multimillonarios de todo el mundo. 

La Patagonia no solo es un espacio terrestre. Las costas y el mar adyacente también son parte de ella. En los últimos años ha estado marcada por hechos oscuros y nunca aclarados como fue el hundimiento del “ARA San Juan” y la desaparición de sus cuarenta y cuatro tripulantes. Es por ello que hay que ver bien todo el contexto para analizar las posibles causas y actores involucrados.

Los ataques y las usurpaciones en Lago Mascardi y en otros puntos de la provincia de Río Negro y Chubut con el paso del tiempo han ido creciendo en cantidad e intensidad. La operatividad de supuestos “mapuches” en la Patagonia argentina es un fenómeno nuevo de este lado de la cordillera pero antiguo y descontrolado del lado chileno. Curiosamente tras la asunción de Macri en 2015 es cuando estos grupos comienzan a tener una notoriedad mediática que jamás habían tenido en el país, incluso sobre las implicancias externas que se ven involucrados en su accionar no parecieron de interés para los medios.

En los últimos episodios contra casas y sus moradores han demostrado una violencia creciente y una osadía, que pareciera buscar mayor atención. Entre estos últimos estuvo el ataque con fuego de armas automáticas a una casilla de la Gendarmería Nacional que obligo a sus ocupantes a huir. Otro episodio que llamo la atención tanto por su violencia como por la organización del ataque fue el sufrido por Diego Frutos a quien tras ocuparle e incendiarle su casa en Villa Mascardi y ser golpeado por encapuchados “mapuches” debió resignarse a irse.

Alguien está ensayando una guerra hibrida y Buenos Aires no lo ve. Incluso más, sus gobernantes han esquivado el problema sea por miedo o por complicidad ideológica y eso es algo imperdonable para un estado que se jacta de su “omnipresencialidad”. Sin dudas, detrás de estos ataques hay en toda esta dinámica disfrazada de “aborígenes revoltosos” elementos que no están a la vista y que no tienen nada que ver con mapuches, simples agitadores o seguidores de viejos trasnochados ex miembros de ERP y Montoneros o incluso servicios argentinos o chilenos. Incluso más y como era de esperar, la aparición de misteriosas células “patrióticas” (convocadas por Wttsp) que están dispuestas a combatir a estos “mapuches” (y más allá de los supuestos sponsors locales), estarían siendo asesoradas por ciertos elementos profesionales foráneos ideológicamente afines, provistos de herramientas y extendido conocimiento para desplegar operaciones de “contrainsurgencia” y “contraterrorismo” ¿Quiénes son los expertos en el negocio de combatir estos fenómenos? La respuesta o barajar las posibilidades de una, es demasiado pesado para que los subalternos gobernantes y los políticos que viven del “sistema” se atrevan a dar.  

Las explicaciones reduccionistas de que ello es producto de la “generación de una derecha parasocial o parapolicial” -como gustan identificar los setentistas afines al Kirchnerismo- no solo son la demostración de un pensamiento anacrónico y con olor a naftalina sino también, de un razonamiento irreal y carente de un análisis práctico acorde con las actuales circunstancias globales.

Los organismos de seguridad del estado y la justicia han demostrado una total inoperancia y falta de previsión pero no por falta de interés sino más bien, por falta de un compromiso político de los gobernantes (y también de la clase política toda) para que se resuelva esto o incluso peor, por complicidad de algunos de ellos.

No se puede eludir (como lo hacen en Argentina) la génesis de estos grupos ni quienes los apoyan. La información que se maneja a nivel regional dice que forman parte de largas reclamaciones de la Araucanía chilena que vienen escalando desde hace décadas y que incluso el gobierno militar de Pinochet logro estabilizar llegando a ciertos acuerdos con los representantes nativos de esa región del sur. En ese entonces y hasta hace apenas cinco años atrás eso era un tema que afectaba al estado chileno. Pero estas reclamaciones no solo cruzaron la cordillera y desde entonces se han ido incrementando sino que peor aún, se han ido radicalizando.

La estructura organizativa bajo las siglas CAM (Coordinadora Arauco Malleco) y la RAM (Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche) tienen una pata exterior que da una idea de quienes son parte de estas iniciativas. La oficina que estos tienen -si no la han mudado- en un piso de Bristol en Gran Bretaña solo es un botón de muestra de la implicancia que tiene el Foreign Office en este asunto. Ciertamente que la RAM es “un fantasma” como lo denuncian la “Puel Mapu” y la Confederación Mapuche del Neuquén pero no se limita a un ingenio de la inteligencia chileno-argentina. Por encima de ambas (y no sería de extrañar) estaría el MI6 británico y otras agencias amigas quienes vienen hace tiempo trabajando en pos de una agenda que coincide con intereses privados ajenos al juego sucio de sus gobiernos.

Ahora, algunos en el país vienen a caer en cuentas y expresar sorpresa de que comienzan a producirse reacciones contra estos supuestos mapuches. Si la justicia no tiene el poder para regular la convivencia y punir las acciones criminales de estos grupos y la seguridad no es provista por el estado el peligro de que ciertos actores exploten esta situación se multiplica. Si los políticos argentinos dejan de esconder bajo la alfombra los problemas y no se hacen cargo de la posición geopolítica del país y cuáles son sus enemigos, esto no terminará sino que, empeorará.