“THE TRUTH THAT WASN'T A LIE”

Why did journalist Seymour Hersh's article on the attacks on the Nord Stream I and II gas pipelines annoy the US Establishment?

 

By Sidney Hey

The first light of the morning of 26 September 2022 would reveal that in the middle of the Baltic Sea, a few kilometres from the Finnish coast and the European continent, the water showed a gigantic bubbling of pressurised bubbles rising from the depths, which was none other than the gas leaking from the Nord Stream I and II pipelines coming from Russia.

Thus, the gas stopped reaching the German distribution platforms and thus all German citizens (including Merkel and Scholz) and the rest of Europeans. Even with one's eyes closed one could guess what had happened.

The situation was immediately clear: sabotage on each of these pipelines forced the Russian company GAZPROM to turn off the gas supply to Europe.  The White House was quick to point the finger at Russia as the culprit even though it made no sense at all. Why would the Russians destroy one of their most important economic sources, for an energy war against Europe? Unsurprisingly, Washington's European political cronies - especially those in Downing Street - were ratifying this version. The truth was that this deprived all European citizens of this resource, unleashing a chain of unprecedented social, economic and productive consequences.

Although European governments and especially European Union officials immediately lined up behind Washington's headless hypothesis and the Western media (as always) amplified it, ordinary citizens realised almost immediately who had really been behind the attack.

Within hours of the publication by renowned researcher Seymour Hersh pointing the finger at the US and the Norwegians as responsible for blowing up these pipelines, Washington was in a frenzy from the president's office in the White House to the Pentagon and the State Department. Confidential sources within hours of the release noted that the angry, distorted faces of Biden and Blinken (the main instigators of the bombing) said it all. Similarly, Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Machiavellian national security adviser Jake Sullivan, both of whom were notoriously upset, jumped into their cars and fled contact with the press. As had happened in the past, Hersh did it again and got the federal government in trouble.

But in the current circumstances not even the much-lauded journalist and investigator is safe from government manipulation.

Despite this, the first thing you should do is not to believe this supposed dismay of the US government because it is also quite possible that Hersh's source is not as transparent and good as it appears to be. Even if the media does not show it, the internal bickering and clashes are fierce. The tensions between the Biden administration and the Republican Party to stop the war have poisoned the domestic political environment so it is not unreasonable that Hersh is being used as a means to operate. On top of this, there is a tug of war within the US deep state over what is happening in Ukraine.

No one doubts that it was the Americans who benefited (especially commercially) from this sabotage. They had the opportunity during the joint naval exercises in the Baltic Sea in June 2022, where tactical divers were operating. Nor that the US is conducting a hybrid war against the Russian Federation that has reached dangerous extremes. The precedent that further incriminates their involvement came from the mouth of Joe Biden himself a few months before this event when he assured that the US would eliminate the pipelines. This was a move aimed more at reprimanding the Germans (because of their pragmatism) who were more hesitant to play Washington's game than to harm Russia. The novelty of this open secret is undoubtedly the mention of Norway as a party involved. If this is indeed the case, the Nordic country's involvement could encompass other very delicate situations that some sources have described as enigmatic.

At the time of the explosions inside Russia, some sources said they were Ukrainian saboteurs who had been able to infiltrate across the borders. Others that they were CIA sleeper agents who had entered in 2014 in the midst of the crisis that followed the coup in Kiev, or even Russian rogue elements recruited for good pay for the job, and others that they were cells of a mysterious CIA-allied intelligence agency that possessed the up-to-date knowledge and manpower to go unnoticed in Russian society. The appearance of this piece of information in Hersh's source could be the element that unravels that mystery.

From a political point of view, the attack executed in international waters but deliberately affecting foreign interests, including those of its EU partners and friends, the Norwegian involvement demonstrates a commitment and determination that would be useful for more daring actions within the borders of the Federation. In this sense, those in Washington and Brussels must have wondered what Oslo could not fail to do for us?

Norway is one of NATO's strategic members and as such one of the most interested in curbing Russia's influence in the Arctic. This, of course, is what was thought and discussed inside the Norwegian government, as they have little interest in provoking Russia with direct involvement in the Pentagon's hybrid war in Ukraine.

When the pipeline incident was discovered, the Norwegian government expressed surprise and even increased naval patrols over its port infrastructure, casting doubt on the nature of the attack. In the latter sense, what the Norwegians intended to point out was that Russia had been the cause of the attack (self-inflicted attack) by reporting that counter-intelligence had arrested a possible Russian undercover agent and other Russian nationals for flying drones that crossed into Norwegian airspace.

But despite these actions and attempts to mislead, the truth was impossible to cover up and was probably already known to the Russian SVR. The placement of the explosives by the Americans in the first stage and the remote detonation by the Norwegians put an end to the mysteries and speculation that the Western media tried to install. 

It is therefore not surprising that the Norwegian Intelligence Service (NIS) is the CIA's ace up its sleeve in the terrorist attacks within the Federation, although this would only be news to Western public opinion. The Kremlin was already aware of Norway's active involvement in the situation in Ukraine, especially in the Arctic, and began clandestine operations to disrupt espionage networks within their respective nations.

There is no doubt that Seymour Hersh's article is the ratification of a truth intuited by the global collective, and what most reinforces the credibility of what has been exposed is the attacks and the wave of discredit that the traditional Western media - servants of power - have received for it.

 

 

 

 

“UNA GEOPOLITICA

PARA ARGENTINA”

Un año muy complejo por delante con elecciones presidenciales para octubre parece haber despertado las atrofiadas neuronas de algunos representantes de la clase política argentina quienes bien tarde advierten de la necesidad de una geopolítica ¿Por qué?, ¿Cuáles pueden ser los lineamientos que estarían en pugna?

  

Por Charles H. Slim

Como dijo San Agustín “todo cae por su peso” y eso se aplica a la obtusa mentalidad de la elite política de Argentina que acostumbrada al chiquitaje y la contingencia hoy se da cuenta que hay otra realidad fuera de sus fronteras. Muchas veces he dicho que el sistema político que se nutre de políticos de partidos anquilosados y vacíos de ideales, cuando se trata de pensar una geopolítica para el país nunca han visto más allá de la punta de sus narices.

Hoy, la inseguridad por el crimen organizado vinculada al narcotráfico, armas y de otras mercancías ilegales a nivel internacional, el uso del terrorismo financiero como táctica con fines geopolíticos, la polarización política transhemisférica por efecto de la guerra en Ucrania involucrando con ello amenazas atípicas a la soberanía por el accionar clandestino, inconsulto y malicioso -tanto físicas como virtuales a través de ciberataques- de agencias las de inteligencia de los polos de poder global quienes a través de terceros privados (reclutando mercenarios y criminales) ejecutan operaciones agresivas (entre ellas de terrorismo) en un país que no tiene parte en las hostilidades.  

Durante décadas la clase más pudiente y la clase media argentina, en parte formadoras de los sectores de la política han mirado con sus anteojeras en una sola dirección. Su admiración y ansias se han volcado con entusiasmo a los EEUU y la Europa occidental (alimentada por una historia de colonialismo) como si de modelos políticos y económicos se tratasen, ignorando cuáles fueron y siguen siendo sus fórmulas para generar esa prosperidad a base del saqueo armado (Iraq, Siria, Libia) que alimenta ese consumismo que hoy -por efecto de las mismas tácticas de Washington- esta viniéndose al suelo. Esa fascinación que los políticos suelen mostrar lo justifican por considerar al norte como “el modelo democrático” a seguir, pero en realidad lo que les inspira es un mero interés económico a costa de un mero y desvergonzado servilismo político.

El gobierno peronista de Carlos Menem fue quien exploto con mayor olfato esta tendencialidad colectiva, alineando al país bajo las políticas de este occidente capitalista y consumista aunque sin prever los peligros que ello conllevaría y las posibles consecuencias para el país.

El oportunismo que el mismo George W. Bush olfateo con el pronto ofrecimiento de Menem en la participación en el Golfo Pérsico y los dos subsiguientes atentados terroristas en plena capital del país abrió las puertas a una turbia realidad geopolítica en la que los intereses negociales, los enredos políticos y los reclamos de justicia se entremezclarían de forma tóxica llevando a que (más allá de las acusaciones tendenciosas y netamente islamófobas) nunca se haya podido esclarecer el origen de esos ataques. Igualmente estos nefastos eventos han sido útiles y la excusa perfecta para que Israel pudiera penetrar y operar no solo en el país sino en toda la región.

En los últimos tiempos, la influencia de los intereses israelíes, movidos por la militancia sionista local han ido intercalándose en el ideario de muchos de estos exponentes de la política nacional con la clara intención de influir sobre una -y aún inexistente- geopolítica nacional. Algunos mezclan un actuado misticismo religioso mientras que otros solo se suman a la fila de los obsecuentes en expectativa de un interés. Estar del lado de Israel (que significa mirar a otro lado por sus crímenes) puede traer beneficios y estos arribistas lo saben aunque no están dispuestos a pagar el precio de esa relación. Quede claro que esto no tiene nada que ver con lo religioso sino con una estructura de pensamiento que con base en la ideología sionista, se acomoda con las derechas liberales (y las ultraderechas), tal como sucede desde hace décadas en EEUU, en Europa del este y que hoy se mimetizan en todos los partidos políticos argentinos.

La actual crisis global y la previsibilidad de una profundización ha hecho caer en cuentas a ciertos sectores de la política argentina que el país carece de una geopolítica. Precisamente, desde 1983 esta misma clase política (de radicales, peronistas, liberales y las izquierdas “caviar”) fue la que mediante un proceso desmalvinizador (que aplaude el Foreign Office) le mutiló al estado la proyección y el despliegue de una geopolítica con intereses estratégicos propios y en ese contexto ha entregado la soberanía de vastas extensiones de tierras y la explotación económica de sus aguas patagónicas a capitales extranjeros.

A pesar de que el Kirchnerismo hizo una chapuza sobre esta área, al menos aparento tener una intensión de generar una geopolítica nueva y diferente más ligada a tender puentes con Eurasia y al mundo árabe-islámico que cualquiera de sus predecesores. Actualmente el presidente Alberto Fernández ha seguido una línea similar, aunque con muestras de una gran improvisación y falta de tacto, puesta de manifiesto a comienzos de febrero de 2022 en su encuentro con el presidente ruso Vladimir Putin, dejando en evidencia la ignorancia de la realidad que se estaba desarrollando y al mismo tiempo la ausencia (por un estado ineficiente) de una geopolítica adaptada a esas circunstancias. En realidad no es que carezca de una sino, que el actual gobierno ha sido inconsecuente (tal como su presidente), nada inteligente y hasta torpe en la concepción y demostración de la existencia de una geopolítica presuntamente multilateralista que lo acerque con seriedad a Rusia y China. Desde este punto de vista, la asimetría entre Argentina y estos países es tan grande como la dos elefantes y una hormiga.

Por el lado de la oposición, la orientación marcadamente anglófila y pro-Israel de sectores de Juntos por el Cambio, el PRO y la Coalición Cívica los lleva irremisiblemente a distanciarse paulatinamente de Eurasia y en particular de China para alinearse con la geopolítica del occidente angloestadounidense. Al mismo tiempo esto significaría mantener al país sujeto a los parámetros económicos-financieros trazados por Washington y una decidida alineación con las políticas de “seguridad” de la OTAN (incluyendo sus injerencias en Ucrania y todo el sudeste asiático) que consecuentemente tienden a mantener la geopolítica unilateral y hegemonista de los EEUU.

Si triunfara esta postura ¿Cuál sería la postura de Buenos Aires con Londres por la soberanía sobre las islas Malvinas y todas las aguas circundantes?, ¿Podría existir algo así?

En esta misma línea de pensamiento aunque más exacerbada (o más exagerada) en sus discursos se hallan los llamados “libertarios”, ciudadanos que han perdido toda confianza en los partidos tradicionales liderados por personajes estridentes y de discursos altisonantes sobre la libertad del individuo en su relación con el estado, no son más que una mascarada aggiornada de aquellos liberales económicos (cabalistas) de la década de los ochenta del siglo pasado y en lo político, simpatizantes y ciegos seguidores del neoconservadurismo estadounidense (menemistas) que agrupa entre otros sectores, a los grandes conspiradores y partidarios de la guerra sin término como son los “Straussianos”.

Pero estos dos extremos de la política argentina siguen sin entender que la formación de una geopolítica requiere de tiempo y de mucho trabajo en el campo exterior y que no se reduce a colocar productos elaborados y materias primas para el intercambio económico-comercial entre los países solamente. Se requiere una doctrina, compromiso político y dedicación en seguir una planificación ajustada a los intereses nacionales que lamentablemente hace tiempo fueron abandonados.

Como se puede ver, la oferta política argentina es una redundancia que no lleva a ningún lado. Así la elite política se trata del mismo producto inservible con diferentes envoltorios. En este sentido, ni unos ni los otros pueden ser tomados en serio por sus respectivos mentores geopolíticos ya que, además de advertir estas inconsecuencias saben que el estado argentino carece de solidez institucional (no burocrática) y esta con un atraso tecnológico de décadas para participar en un nivel de igualdad en temas tan básicos pero trascendentes como el comercio exterior, la defensa y la seguridad ante amenazas no convencionales (nuclear, biológico y químico). Sin esto resuelto, se hace poco posible que se pueda visualizar más allá de los papeles y de los encendidos discursos, una estructura -cualquiera sea su orientación- que respalde esa pretendida geopolítica.

 

“PERSPECTIVE A YEAR AFTER THE WAR”

Who really are responsible for the war in the heart of Europe? The hands of the instigators are being left bare

 

By Danny Smith

The first question that we should ask ourselves to address the title of this article is why did the war that is being waged today in Ukraine break out? The answers will obviously be according to those who are on one side or the other, but we are looking for a better answer. If we accept that war is the last resort in the treatment of a political dispute between parties, it should be clear that all negotiable avenues have failed or, one of the parties wanted to buy time to attack by surprise.

The background to the current war goes beyond a confrontation between Ukraine and Russia. A strictly geopolitical objective is what is hidden in it. Its evolution comes from the implosion of the USSR in 1991, although its starting point occurred in 2004 with Western interference through the promotion of the so-called orange revolution, a ploy orchestrated by the CIA to co-opt the political management of the country.

With that seed, Washington and Brussels began little by little to seek to expand their subversive operations around creating fissures with Russia. As usual, the main items on which they focused were the promotion of distrust and a Russophobic counterculture disguised behind NGOs such as USAID or federal agencies disguised as altruists such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) that under the spent The argument of spreading democracy and injecting money to buy corrupt officials seek to subvert the political power of the countries where they operate.

With the arrival of Obama in 2009, the interest of the neoconservatives to invest resources in the advance of NATO towards the east was reactivated, with the main objectives being to control the heart of Europe (Hearthland), take over Crimea and thus control the Black Sea. To this end, the efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry and his side Victoria Nuland were strenuous to encourage the Ukrainian opposition so that Russia deactivated the Sevastopol naval base.

To achieve these objectives, Washington and its partners relied on politically unpresentable -but highly useful- actors whom they had been secretly contacting for some time. The CIA and its MI6 colleagues used Ukrainian Nazi gangs to overthrow the government of Viktor Yarnucovich in 2014 and then made them part of the current regime. Israel is also involved in these rocky relations and in particular “Bibi” Netanyahu who, with contacts with the Jewish oligarchs close to Poroshenko, lent his support to this move.

Thereafter, the Kiev regime targeted its own Russian-speaking fellow citizens who rejected the new Status Quo. But it was not Russia or Putin who faced this state of affairs, but the six million of these same Ukrainians who were not willing to be treated as second-class citizens. When Kiev began to persecute and kill Russian-speakers in the Donbass, with good reason Moscow began its efforts (with the sanction of UN Resolution 2202) to sit the parties at a negotiating table and that is how the Accords emerged. of Minsk I and II which, as already revealed, were used by the “collective West” as a ploy to gain time.

Meanwhile, Washington and London deepened their military advice to the FSU and ultranationalist gangs such as “Azov”, “Aidar” and other marginal groups of the “Pradvy Sektor” that would later be used as shock units for dirty work by the CIA and as a tip of spearheads a massive offensive that Kiev had planned to launch in March 2022. It is precisely these groups that are being financially supported and provided with the most modern weapons, leaving the Ukrainian army as cannon fodder. Warned of this, Vladimir Putin had to make a crucial decision and although it was difficult, it was undoubtedly much less damaging for Russia than what it could have been to see NATO razing the Donbass and installing itself without remedy.

One year after the launch of the Special Military Operation, stagnation on the ground was foreseeable, but the gains have been considerable. The securing of the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics has been the consequent result that has spread to a good part of Novorossiya. The interference of NATO -which at the beginning was underhanded- is now undeniable, although the Western media continue to ramble on about the heroism of the regime led by Zelensky that has been unmasked as arch corrupt, brutal and segregationist.

In that sense, the provision of state-of-the-art technological support through advanced software to intercept and infect cell phones of Russian troops and authorities of the people's republics that ended up revealing key positions to bombard them up to the HIMARS systems and HOROWITZ cannons, shows the participation of NATO in the field of operations. The extensive and dangerous network of US Biowarfare laboratories has also been exposed, in which for decades dangerous biological agents such as variants of SaRs-CoV have been produced in total secrecy.

Another consequence of this intervention has undoubtedly been the scandal that arose after the unclear business dealings of Hunter Biden involving, among many others, the current regime in Kiev in the “Burisma Holdigns” affair, had been aired. Not only Biden's businesses were exposed by digital files found on his “Laptop” (which they treated as fake-news) but also his expensive personal vices. But just as scandalous as this is undoubtedly the intervention of his father, Joe Biden who, using the influence provided by his public office and through the FBI and CIA, has been censoring social networks and even trying to delete online evidence of all this and even (according to some sources), these efforts today are focused on “cleaning up” traces in Ukraine.

In the political-economic sphere, the commercial and financial actions of the US did not have the expected effects against Russia. On the contrary, they have been counterproductive and ruinous, especially for their own European partners without moving their rulers. Russia has not stopped its energy production and beyond the Anglo-American blackmail that is done on weak governments not to buy their products, only some give in. If there is anyone that profits from this, it is the US LNG companies, technology companies and corporations in the arms industry, profits that are obviously not seen by the population.

As far as Ukraine is concerned, the only thing that remains from its current reality is a scene of the institutionality of a country that no longer exists. In this sense, his destiny has been signed. Whether due to the Russian military victory or a negotiated ceasefire, the financial debt taken on by Zelensky and his regime has sold the future to the creditors of that Western collective.