“¿CÓMO SE VE DESDE AQUI ABAJO?”

¿Hay conciencia en la Argentina del alcance de la crisis financiera global en puerta? El triunfo del mundial de Qatar no borrara la realidad

 

Por Pepe Beru

Desde el extremo sur del continente americano la evolución de la crisis económico-financiera global que se avecina parece que no se advierte en Argentina. Con lo revelado hace unos días y ante todo recordemos que CABA no es toda la Argentina (aunque allí se tomen las decisiones) y mucho más cuando ha quedado bien claro que los hilos del país se tiran (como extensión de Londres) desde una estancia en Lago Escondido en la provincia de Río Negro.

La isla del ombliguismo y del perpetuo autoengaño se resiste a abrir los ojos y sus habitantes siguen escuchando crédulos las monsergas y las estupideces que -por intermedio de las empresas informativas- les cuentan los “expertos” y economistas que pueblan la capital.

Detrás de sus acostumbrados e interminables discursos, los economistas y los políticos argentinos esconden una terrible realidad y ella se vincula, al verdadero origen de la crisis que se avecina. Si bien ya la economía argentina esta sumida en una velada y acostumbrada hiperinflación, el marco general en la que se desarrolla se vincula a los efectos producidos por los manejos de la economía global. Puntualmente la reserva Federal estadounidense y los bancos centrales de los países que le siguen, estarían creando una burbuja financiera (mediante créditos hipotecarios) mucho peor que la de 2008.

Pero como lo informa un interesante artículo del consultor de riesgos estratégicos F. William Engadhl, no son los mercados de valores lo verdaderos artífices de esta situación, el corazón del problema se origina en el mercado de bonos particulares, gubernamentales, corporativos y de agencias que desde 2021 han venido mostrando una depreciación sin pausa (https://www.globalresearch.ca/global-planned-financial-tsunami-has-just-begun/5784217 )

¿Cómo se protegerán los argentinos ante estos manejos del poder financiero global? Parece imposible que toda esta bolsa de tecnócratas y charlatanes que han estado en cada uno de los corruptos gobiernos de los últimos 39 años sean capaces de formular una solución. En realidad el problema argentino no tiene un origen específicamente financiero, sino político que se basa en no existir voluntad y mucho menos valor, para afrontar a quiénes son los creadores de aquel. También la solución está en el acuerdo y la decisión política por lo cual, para tener un piso desde donde construir el andamiaje de una salida se debe llegar a un serio duradero acuerdo de todos los sectores de la vida política del país.

Pero más allá de los efectos de la caída del mercado de bonos y su sostenimiento con alza de tasas a niveles bestiales, hay una intencionalidad bien dirigida. Las burbujas financieras (creadoras de deuda) y las estanflaciones que llevaron al colapso económico en 1929 y 2008 han tenido una raíz política y ella ha provenido de organismos gubernamentales o de círculos cerrados compuestos por exclusivos miembros (G-7, DAVOS, Club Bilderberg), causalmente todos angloestadounidenses y europeos. Así tanto La Casa Blanca, Reserva Federal, Wall Street y DAVOS son los verdaderos autores de estos “reseteos” financieros que persiguen finalidades políticas y financieras (como la bancarización global) que solo les beneficiarían a ellos.  Las actuales circunstancias globales de pos pandemia, la sequía y la falta de fertilizantes por los efectos de la guerra en Ucrania (agravados por la batería de medidas estadounidenses) prevén una escalada inflacionaria que recién comienza.

Es ahí donde queda muy en claro, la inutilidad de escuchar a los economistas mediáticos hablando de abstracciones, estadísticas y números que nunca se cumplen. Para peor, en éste país los políticos tienen un serio problema con el concepto y el manejo del poder con lo cual, al momento de entrar en contacto con él no saben o no quieren ejercerlo para la función estatal. Esto ha sido sin dudas, una de las taras (nacidas del clientelismo, la falta de autoridad y la partidocracia) más acusadas de las últimas décadas y por ello de las causales de actual ineficacia y desestructuración de las áreas estratégicas del estado.

El gobierno de Alberto Fernández que no es solo de él, es la representación paradigmática de esa impotencia política para no poder ni siquiera atender y mucho menos solucionar sus propios problemas. Si apenas tiene poder político para controlar a los suyos (con su vice procesada) y con una realidad económica que el ciudadano vive cuando va a comprar el pan ¿Qué puede pedírsele más allá de la mirada de su escritorio? Igualmente y para ser justos, no se le puede achacar a Fernández su impotencia ante semejante crisis global en danza pero si, es responsable de haber sido parte de este sistema que ha sido el generador y profundizador de la desestructuración mencionada y en particular del desguace de las áreas estratégicas del estado como son las flotas comerciales mercantes y la modernización de los puertos que habrían significado una fuente de ingresos invalorable ante la actual situación aunque habría que ver, si su gobierno tendría el valor político de desobedecer a las restricciones comerciales impuestas por Washington.  

Pero si vamos un poco más allá, vemos que no es solo un problema de un mandatario o un gobierno impotente que gobierna un país sujeto a una cadena a esos poderes facticos globales, sino más bien proviene desde la anuencia de cada uno de los ciudadanos que aceptan sin protestas este sistema que sirve al consumismo representativo del actual capitalismo angloestadounidense.

Si tomamos en cuenta todos estos factores y los ponemos en consideración de lo que puede esperar el ciudadano argentino ante lo que se avecina solo vemos dos alternativas: Una, seguir creyendo en un sistema corrupto y circular que le seguirá dando las mismas falsas soluciones o simplemente, abandonar la dependencia a este sistema consumista que no solo roba la riqueza sino también la salud y la vida de sus habitantes.

 

 

“KEEP CHARLES IN THE DARK”

Why wouldn't it be in London's best interests to jump on a possible nuclear gamble? It's best that the King doesn't find out about the little problems that exist in the equipment because of the savings.

 

By Sir Charlattam

At this stage of the conflict in Ukraine, and given the unsustainability of defensive lines loyal to Kiev, it may well be NATO that will need to consider pressing the red button, but of tactical nuclear weapons. Be that as it may, if they dare to do so, the Russian response would be forceful.

This is just an estimate. Let me digress a little, ladies and gentlemen, but on the basis of facts.

First and foremost, if we consider that Russia has thwarted attempts by special groups led by intelligence agencies to create a radioactive material incident in places like Zaporizhzhia, one can sense that the Atlanticists have lost their surprise and have been exposed in their plans.

The situation on the ground is desperate. If those in Brussels saw it as viable to deploy such a strategy in support of the depleted Ukrainian militias, they would not be able to lift a finger without Washington's decision. And so I wonder what will be the role of the British troops deployed in Lithuania and all the advisors operating inside Ukraine?

Don't worry, the White House will send Mr. Biden to smile with his fixed dentures and shake hands with the Prime Minister who with the promptness of a good butler will give him excellent service. The senile old man's artificial smile is not at all unfounded. How could he not when he knows he is surrounded by sycophantic European officials and especially the British government that rules them on his behalf?

All this would be tolerable for a second fiddle but don't let him ask to go to the front against Russia because if so what will Russia's actions be countered with, recruiting our fascists in the pubs and murderers from Iraq? It is already too much of a nuisance for citizens to have to pay high taxes for energy and watch inflation hit their pockets because of US financial gamesmanship to benefit the pro-Nazi regime in Kiev that has imposed martial law and is “purging” society of everything Russian. Where have we heard that rubbish before? We are creating a monster and I don't think the King knows it.

There is now a shortage of gas to heat London's homes and all thanks to the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines probably executed by the SBS and the Seals. What a setback. Will King Charles have the same difficulty heating his royal feet?

It is one thing to believe the pantomimes of the BBC and the Russophobic media; it is quite another to face up to the reality of this war. If Prime Minister Sunak believes that the development of a new stealth aircraft to replace the Typhoon by 2030 is good news, I think his optimism can only be seen as positive by the delusional in his party, the ignorant like Truss and the arms industry kleptocrats of British Aerospace (and their Italian and Japanese partners) who are drooling over the war.

It seems that King Charles III asked: “How are we prepared for war?” And among the answers the MoD is said to have said: “We have never been better, Your Majesty!” The new development for the RAF was even discussed and described as: "Splendid!" According to rumour, Charles did not pursue the enquiries further and it was only then that all the defence chiefs breathed a sigh of relief. Tens of millions of pounds sterling are at stake, gentlemen!

Let's not forget the technical problems that have been occurring in many of the fleet's units due to budget slippages and also the very serious problems of misconduct on board. How threatening are the Royal Fleet's weapons if they malfunction, what happened on the submarine “HMS Vanguard” last November, did some boards burn out due to malfunctions or did a drug addict stumble over his beer in the middle of a party?

And who's conducting the orchestra? The Americans of course, and the song to justify all those billions of pounds going down the drain to Ukraine and those to be spent on “new weapons” is entitled “keeping Britain safe”.

 Once again and as the establishment has done since Britain was an empire, created the insecurity now we will sell you the security.

That had better be true as the British are being deprived of a normal life not because (as the story on this side says) “it's the autocrat Putin's fault”, but because of the games of chess they deploy over there across the ocean in that place called “The Pentagon” What are the British gaining from these games? Let the companies close down and move to...the US because they are not so affected by the inflationary pandemic created by the Wall Street overlords and their colleagues in the City.

However, if Washington were to order its European minions (including the British) to prepare for a nuclear offensive against Russian forces the defence minister and his enthusiastic General Sir Patrick Sanders should check that there are enough NBC suits at Porton Down and that what is available is not leaky.

 

 

 

“POR QUÉ RUSIA NO ES EL AGRESOR”

Ante la repetitiva y torcida versión atlantista sobre lo que ocurre en Ucrania, no es cansino volver a encuadrar en su justo termino la historia y las circunstancias que precedieron el inicio de este conflicto

Por Charles H. Slim

Como se suele decir, “la primera impresión es la que cuenta” y ello ha sido muy bien aprovechado desde el final de la segunda gran guerra por las ingeniosas editoriales y la propaganda de los medios angloestadounidenses al momento de comentar y relatar hechos cruciales de la historia.

Siempre listos y dispuestos, estos medios han jugado el rol de certificadores de la verdad oficial de los gobiernos en Washington, algo que en los últimos tiempos ha entrado en crisis y ello, por haber sido pilladas en sus manipulaciones e intoxicaciones informativas llevándolas a perder la credibilidad de los lectores.  

Despejando todo el humo generado por esa propaganda anglosajona destinada a desfigurar la realidad de los hechos, se podrá ver que gran parte de la historia que se ha contado en torno al asunto Rusia, sus gobiernos y su evolución política han estado deliberadamente alteradas por dicha continua y costosa propaganda rusófoba inspirada en gran parte por una rancia animadversión (que existe desde el siglo XIX) de origen británico.

En lo que hoy vemos en Ucrania hay una larga cadena de consecuencias originadas en factores causales que llevan directa e indirectamente a las injerencias de EEUU y sus socios de la OTAN posibilitadas en gran parte, por adeptos sectores políticos ucranianos quienes hoy con un cómico de capirote como Volodymyr Zelensky a la cabeza de un régimen nacionalista integrista, llenan sus bóvedas privadas con el dinero de impuestos de los estadounidenses y europeos.

Haciendo un poco de historia, veremos que anteriormente este maniqueísmo rusofobo ya estaba presente. Cuando se habla de la crisis de los misiles de 1962 se suele olvidar que aquella reacción de la URSS fue impulsada por la colocación por la OTAN en 1959 de misiles nucleares “Júpiter”, (PGM 17) “Thor” y “(SM 62) Snark” de alcance intermedio en territorio turco que estarían a pocos minutos de Moscú. Por tres años el Kremlin trató infructuosamente de negociar por las vías del teléfono rojo el desalojo de esa amenaza. Obviamente eso nunca fue publicado. Cuando Nikita Kruschev mostro su resolución a empardar a Washington recién allí los estadounidenses atendieron el teléfono. Pese a ello, la historia occidental cuenta muy sesgadamente toda aquella circunstancialidad que la compone.

La década de los noventas bajo el gobierno de Boris Yeltsin la Federación estaba sumida en el caos, un caos que la OTAN explotaba (mediante el MI6) apoyando de todas las formas a los independentistas e islamistas chechenos (Ichkeria).

Cuando Obama junto a sus socios británicos y franceses pusieron a rodar la farsa de las “primaveras árabes” echando mano (como estrategia) de la demonización de ciertos gobiernos árabes y la manipulación de los medios, tuvo un éxito parcial hasta que sus planes colapsaron definitivamente en Siria gracias al apoyo de Rusia. Desde ese momento Vladimir Putin y Rusia pasaron a ser la bestia negra para occidente y sus medios se esmeraron en reflejarlo.

Lo mismo ha tratado de hacerse con la actual situación en Ucrania. Como primer señalamiento hay que dejar en claro que la guerra no empezó el 22 de febrero del 2022 sino tras el golpe de estado de febrero de 2014 y que llego al punto cúlmine ante una planeada ofensiva de Kiev para marzo del 2022. Pero las operaciones contra Rusia vienen desde hace más de ocho años. Aquellas vinieron acompañadas del fomento y empleo masivo (y como parte de una guerra híbrida) de vectores agresivos e ilegales como son la producción y tráfico de drogas sintéticas (sales y Mefedrona) coordinado por el SBU y la CIA con destino a Rusia. La mecánica buscada era -además de envenenar a la juventud rusa- proveer de financiamiento como lo hicieron en los ochentas con la conocida como “Irán-Contras” ¿Recuerda quiénes eran los involucrados?  

Pero incluso, la instigación y los preparativos para ello se fueron gestando mucho antes del golpe. En la Conferencia de Seguridad celebrada en Münich en 2007, Vladimir Putin denunció las maniobras y las injerencias de la OTAN en torno a las fronteras de la Federación. Putin no se había equivocado y en agosto de 2008 Georgia que estaba conducida por un viejo socio de la CIA (con ansias de ingresar a la OTAN), trató de anexarse Osetia del sur. Eso paro en seco los planes de Bruselas y solo rodo la cabeza de Mijeíl Saakashvili a quien Washington dejo solo.

Pero desde que Barack Obama llega en 2009 a La Casa Blanca puso en la tarea de reactivar las operaciones al Secretario de Estado John Kerry y éste a su vez a su agente operativa de campo, Victoria Nuland (esposa del sionista Robert Kagan) quien con total desparpajo y acompañada de elementos de la embajada repartían por las calles de Kiev bolsas de pan a los transeúntes. Incluso, un artículo publicado en el Washington post por el recalcitrante Carl Gershman presidente de la neocon National Endowment for Democracy (NED) de septiembre de 2013, alentaba a provocar a Rusia con esta agitación.

A partir de ese entonces, las provocaciones, las operaciones negras (como el derribo del Vuelo 17 de Malasia Airlines) y los bombardeos sobre la población rusofona del este no tuvieron pausa y las tratativas de Moscú materializadas en los acuerdos de Minsk fueron completamente ignorados ¿Cómo pueden interpretarse estas acciones?

De haberse hecho algo similar en Washington o en cualquier país del hemisferio o en México, los medios habrían hablado de una “conspiración criminal”, de la “amenaza terrorista” y otros rimbombantes titulares y por supuesto, clamado por urgentes sanciones desde Naciones Unidas.

La misión de Nuland y Cia fue la de supervisar el derrocamiento del gobierno pro-ruso de Viktor Yarnucovich y reemplazarlo por uno pro anglosajón y hacerse con el control de la península de Crimea, este último objetivo fracasado.

Pero Washington a través de la CIA tiene una extensa y profusa historia de generar golpes de estado, revoluciones de color y asesinatos que los insignes medios de la democracia como The Washington Post y The New York Times siempre han evadido contemplar. Y es curioso esto último máxime cuando son “objeto” de culto por parte de los anglófilos lameculistas de la intelectualidad argentina y de ciertos periodistas capitalinos que viven divagando sobre la democracia y las libertades y quienes pese a proclamarse como “liberales republicanos” se les escapan esas aberraciones. 

Al interpelarles sobre las crasas inconsistencias de la admirada “democracia” angloestadounidense y en particular con el escandaloso contubernio con el nazismo y la ultraderecha eslava en Ucrania, no hallaran en sus bocas -y si es que se animan a contestar- más que las mismas palabras y rumiaciones que generan las editoriales del norte; así de nulos y serviles son por aquí.

Los hechos de febrero de 2014 en la plaza de Maidan no fue un alzamiento popular como lo relataron artificiosamente los insignes medios angloestadounidenses y que repiten simplonamente los medios argentinos, sino el despliegue de grupos de milicianos ultraderechistas de “Pradvy Sektor” apoyadas por células de mercenarios (quienes no trabajan gratis) reclutados de varias partes del mundo dirigidos por la CIA y por supuesto todo ello, financiado por insondables fondos negros. Al poco tiempo y tras haber derrocado al gobierno de Viktor Yarnucovich los comprometedores contubernios no pudieron ocultarse y simplemente estaban a la vista. Aunque The Washington Post, New York Times, la CNN y todas sus repetidoras, pasaron por alto esas evidencias y todas las que se han venido acumulando con el paso de los años, verdaderas causales de lo que hoy sacude a toda Europa, dejan por demás en claro que no ha sido Rusia quien dio inicio a esta guerra. 

 

 

 

“HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO EXPAND DEMOCRACY?”

How the latest events committed on Russian soil can be ascribed to democratic hands

 

By Danny Smith

We have seen over the years how violence is condemned or justified or rather reflected in a positive way, according to the news media that treat it. The attacks on two Russian military bases on the territory of the Russian Federation undoubtedly imply military actions through terror tactics, but that, today, is not what matters in this case. The implications that this entails reveal two important points: The extension and escalation of war actions and the cost of carrying them out.

Without a doubt, things are getting very ugly and several of the pro-Washington partners are the ones warning of this. Fear begins to run through their heads and they are quite right to feel it. If they blindly continue to follow Washington's directives, the lives of Europeans will simply go down the toilet. This has already begun to show consequences. Apparently there are several European officials and several of the members of governments that are part of the EU who secretly ruminate (as if that were possible) that this cannot continue. The attempted coup in Germany confirms these rumors and the worst thing for Washington and NATO is that it would not be the only case.

Here in Argentina, all this is silenced with the obsequious religiosity that is customary given that the country's largest media and its businessmen respond fervently to the Anglo-American political line. Clarified this, let's continue with the important thing.

The three attacks on Russian airfields in Ryazan and Saratov are undoubtedly relevant events (especially propaganda) and beyond the objectives pursued by their perpetrators, this leads us to ask: Who, How and How much does an operation like this cost? To understand and accept the answers to these questions, get rid of the preconceptions and nonsense of the film industry, which, as you must know, is part of the Anglo-American propaganda machine.

As we have said before, democracy is a word that has been bastardized by those who have claimed to be its faithful defenders and have denigrated it to the point of making it bland and meaningless. For the Anglo-Saxons who love the language of images, democracy is a political elite of very well-suited subjects with pearly smiles, but when the cameras turn off, there are only true self-employed people hunting for opportunities and business.

Although Volodymyr Zelensky tweeted that the attacks were planned by his commanders, in reality he was as surprised as the Russian commanders of the bases that received the bombings. Putin's fears were justified and the threat to the sovereignty of the Russian Federation is a confirmed fact. With this it becomes clear that NATO has long since crossed all the red lines that have existed and will be and without a doubt, with the consent of The White House (Joe Biden and his neocon partners) is willing to go for more.

For these operations, Ukrainian secret agents or commandos were not infiltrated under the direction of the CIA and MI6. No. It's pretty clear that they weren't going to risk getting caught halfway. Nor is it feasible that (as these agencies style) they have recruited Russian citizens or local underworld elements for money to carry out these actions; That takes time and although the collaboration of some local informer is not ruled out, a CIA network is not set up that quickly.

The answer seems to revolve around the use of Drones by expert hands.

This tactic had already been seen before in Iraq since 2015 and then it became widely used in Syria. And who do you think used it? ISIS jihadist mercenaries. Don't ask where they got the drones and the equipment to direct them from the ground, but it is sung for those who know how to use their brains. In these scenarios we saw very curious things that the western media tried to cover up with arguments so far-fetched that they already insulted the intelligence of a kindergarten child.

In 2016, as coalition Iraqi militias and Iranian forces pushed north toward Mosul, they were systematically harassed by "mysterious drones" that dropped bombs on unsuspecting people moving on the ground. These Drones carried up to ten bombs on their wings and dropped them on troops on foot or in their vehicles. The attacks were filmed by those same drones and then posted on the internet as “Islamic State” propaganda, something that revitalized that “fight against terrorism” montage.

It was clear that the suppliers of those UAVs and their bombs did not come from the “Al Sham” desert or from the “Daesh.Co” arms industry, the latter simply because it never existed. So where did they come from? The components and elements for these actions came from the West, which would not have arrived without the authorization of the true orchestrators of all this, who very surely were rubbing their hands in their offices in Washington and Tel Aviv.

When the Russian Khmeimim airbase in Tartus was attacked in April 2018, the Western media treated the issue as a Syrian “rebel attack” but despite an attempt to stage the event around an act carried out by simple Arab fighters , the Russian “Panzir-C” anti-aircraft defenses were able to shoot down several of these UAVs and there they discovered that in addition to having been manufactured with homemade elements acquired in different European markets, they were equipped with electronic implements and explosives that were made far away from there. For example (and coincidentally), the 400-gram shells of explosives were manufactured in the Ukraine and there was no way (except through intermediaries) that the jihadists had them under their belt.

But that was just a detail. Who provided the electronics and the support to guide these drones? It was very clear that from the West and even, the executors of the attack on Jmeimim could have been Anglo-Saxon expert hands from a computer in a room or simply a van miles away assisted by satellite information provided by the NATO nano-satellite network.

Undoubtedly, the attacks last week against the Russian airfields correspond to the same source and the same authors, but revealing a greater sophistication (and with it greater cost) in the use of the tactic, which also reveals having achieved penetrate the countermeasures of the radio electronics of the Russian forces, which has undoubtedly been taken into account by Moscow.

It is very clear that the US and NATO do not want the war to stop and these attacks deep in Russia bear witness to this. The issue is, what does the UN do?

 

 

“HOSTAGE TO THE KLEPTOCRACY”

What is the price the EU and all Europeans have to pay for their alignment to Washington against Russia?

By Sidney Hey

Nine months have passed since Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to launch Special Operation “Z” (For Victory) with the aim of staving off a massive offensive that Western-backed Ukrainian forces were preparing to launch in early March. Without knowing these reasons, and with little known in the West about what has been happening in the Donbass since 2014, it was certainly easy for Washington and London to manipulate the origin of the situation.

But despite this, citizens in the West are not so gullible, and this was evident from the moment Washington tightened its censorship of Russian media and pro-Russian websites. Certainly, a measure that worked very well in the 1980s and even the 1990s, but which began to falter in the new century after it became clear (thanks to alternative media on the internet) that the US and Britain were committing atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Incidentally, we have yet to see any international tribunal citing those responsible for these crimes against humanity which -despite abundant documentation such as the Chilcot Report- still go unpunished.

Once again, the US and in particular the White House jumped into the fray promising to “fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood”...of course without giving any guarantees that the Europeans will also have to put up a share of their own. And while enthusiastic pro-Washington European officials -including Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak- applauded the words of the loudmouth of the day, the Americans launched their secret weapon with which they had brought other nations to their knees in the past and are keeping their feet firmly planted in the present, economic-financial extortion by freezing and robbing bank funds of Russian assets in the West. Thus, the continent's most fervent Russophobes such as Von Leyen, Borrell and Stoltenberg were squaring up to the measures, the State Department and the CIA were already outlining with their British colleagues to damage the Russian Federation's economy. How can we do this, they asked themselves?

The answer soon became clear in the form of brutal trade sanctions (including threats) against anyone who dared to deal with Russia, and when that did not work, they turned to sabotage and terrorism. Thus, more than ever, the face of the Anglo-Saxon “democracies”, which are more like “kleptocracies” controlled by neo-conservative sectors with hegemonic pretensions, was exposed.

As part of their Machiavellian elaborations (which do not originate in law), they deliberately set the EU as the dummy, knowing that it will be their citizens and their companies who will suffer the brunt of these measures, which, on the contrary, will benefit the USA. Since the cut-off of Russian gas supplies due to the sabotage of Nord Stream, Europeans' standard of living has been deteriorating to such an extent that they feel they are refugees in their own land.

It is more than clear that it was the Anglo-Saxons who cut off access to gas, even though they knew it would harm their continental "friends". Just to illustrate this, let us imagine Emmanuel Macron waking up in the middle of the night in his luxurious bed in the majestic room of the Elysée Palace and when he turns on the lamp it does not light and, to make matters worse, he realises that he is freezing to death simply because the heating has been cut off: “Mon dieu, que se passe-t-il!!!”. Obviously, this is suffered only by ordinary citizens, although Macron himself seems to have come to terms with it after asking his peer Joe Biden to share, or at least consider, the economic losses the French are bearing for their loyalty. Predictably, all he got was a smile and a handshake, which translated into reality means “You're fucked, man”.

The followership of European officials on the other side of the channel is founded on mere political subservience to the US at the expense of the profits and fortunes of European businessmen.  For it is impossible to understand how the EU's governing bodies have co-sponsored every one of Washington's measures that undermine the living standards of Europeans for the benefit of the Americans. Europeans who have already realised this look at each other and ask how come?

Quite simply. While the US and Britain cut off -by means of naval sabotage- the supply of cheap Russian gas, American LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) companies have become the suppliers of European needs who in return are paying six times more than they used to pay Moscow. As you can see, the Anglo-Saxons have thrown "market freedom" out of the window.

The latest White House commandment (drawn up by the White House National Security Council) and channelled through the G-7 is that Russian oil cannot be paid more than 60 dollars, giving another indication of the “democratic” nature of the US government's measures, which are more akin to a mafia threat. With this captive price, Washington is seeking to sink the Russian economy, although that would work if there were no markets willing to buy it on market principles. The manoeuvre is downright risky, as evidenced by the fall in oil futures, which owe their allegiance only to trade.

Moreover, this illegal and anti-economic measure will damage the world energy market and ultimately make the lives of Europeans and emerging countries even more precarious. How far will Europeans allow themselves to be held hostage to Washington's plans?