A SILENCE

INCRIMINATING

Since Russia discovered dangerous bacteriological warfare facilities in Ukraine and, on the basis of elements collected on the ground, brought the case before the United Nations, the silence of the collective West has echoed through its silence. Who watches over international legality?

 

By Sidney Hey

 

Needless to say, there is a deafening silence following the confirmation of the involvement of the US and its Norwegian partners in the blowing up of the pipeline under the Baltic Sea. The Western media are trying to explain the inexplicable. How can we explain that Biden betrayed the Europeans in order to make them dependent on his LNG? The same silence is echoing around the walls of the United Nations, of the watchdogs for the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction and of the much-talked-about (but never accepted) International Criminal Court over the embarrassing Russian findings involving the Pentagon in the running of bacteriological laboratories in Ukraine.

The affair of the biowarfare laboratories and the products and tests that were being carried out there (with the participation of private laboratories such as Pfizer, Moderna, Merck and Gilead) are -in addition to the scandal- a true test of the lack of scruples and disregard for human life not only of Ukrainians but of all Europeans. If and beyond the fact that there had been hidden experiments on the resistance of the immune system of the inhabitants of Kerson, a leak from any of these laboratories would immediately affect the inhabitants of Western Europe.  The question is, were the European Union and its political monkeys like Borrell and Von Der Leyen aware of these labs, what is the position of the European governments and in particular France and Germany? Also the involvement of METABIOTA through the son of the US president Hunter Biden in the investments in this area are one of the crucial points in these findings and which his father tried to hide with the illegal manipulation of the FBI.

Ever since Russia uncovered some thirty secret facilities where, among other things, what Dr. Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins and the entire US health establishment accused as a zoonotic virus from a dirty market in Wuhan, China, was being made. Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins and the entire US health establishment accused as a zoonotic virus coming from a dirty market in Wuhan, China, the Anglo-Saxon media have tried to divert attention by hysterically alluding to the “summary executions in Bucha”, “Russian missiles falling in Poland”, “kidnapped Ukrainian children” and other accusations that despite their stridency, some already discredited by their proven falsity, others lack any basis based on objective evidence.

Another discursive tactic is to continue to shift the blame onto China, an argument that has weakened over time. But as a scapegoat, China was central.  Don't even forget how Trump (who might have authorised the use of this pestilence against China) referred to the “Chinese virus” as a way of blaming Beijing. It is well known that a variant of SarS-CoV had already been developed and patented in the US in 2003, so the hypothesis of the manufactured origin of  “COVID-19” is not an unfounded one. This was stated by Dr. Robert Redfield, former head of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who was censured by Fauci, Collins and the US scientific establishment for his position. With this in mind, I wonder where is the proclaimed democracy? Likewise, Washington has never been able to refute the Fort Detrick events and the strange coincidence of this “event” held at the GATES Foundation.

Washington initially denied this and denied any involvement in the facility. It even tried to cast doubt on the veracity of the Russian findings. But as time went on and with Russia's progressive advances on the ground, new findings confirmed Moscow's allegations, making the State Department's and Pentagon's arguments more difficult.

This silence is disheartening for those who expect an impartial and blind investigation. They are certainly not wrong as the whole governmental cover-up and media silence on both issues is simply shameless. It is a historical and legal throwback that takes humanity back to the days before the establishment of the United Nations, a time when the colonialism of European countries led the world into two great wars. The Charter, the founding document of the United Nations in 1945, was supposed to curb the warmongering, war of conquest and colonialism that had led the world (and in particular Europe) into humanitarian chaos. As it turned out, this architecture only gave rise to another great evil: American imperialism.

The origin of the Covid pandemic remains unclear. The “authoritative voices” of science in the West are only those who toe Washington's discursive line and who happened to exaggerate reports of the impact on global health. Those who have questioned that were vilified and dismissed, even though their scientific reputations preceded them. The same is happening with the side effects of vaccines, such as the high risk of inflammatory conditions like myocarditis.  The central point of discussion was and still is the nature of this “virus”; is it a natural mutation or a laboratory creation?

Until before 2022, the leading virologists and experts in the West were putting their signatures behind the bat hypothesis, the one that suits Fauci and his followers. As usual, the media replicated as revealed truth and omitted other scientific opinions this position until the Russians made the first findings. On the basis of this, Lieutenant General Igor Kirilov, head of the Russian Army's radiological, chemical and biological defence troops, gave a public report detailing the implications of the finding.

These same media outlets, when they could no longer omit this, tried to downplay its credibility by talking about “Russian propaganda”. But it was the enquiries of independent investigators and high-ranking US officials that helped these paper mercenaries to contradict themselves. At this crossroads, and with bad news coming from the front in Artemivsk (Bahmut), the need to divert the public's attention becomes imperative. Perhaps Japan's involvement in the situation in Ukraine could be a sign that Joe Biden and his advisors may be plotting the suspected move in Asia-Pacific for a dual purpose: to open a front in the Russian Far East to complicate operations in Ukraine and to outflank China.

 

LA FALACIA DEL LIBERALISMO

¿Por qué el liberalismo anglosajón no representa a la democracia ni el respeto a las libertades de nadie?

 

Por Charles H. Slim

Cuando nació el liberalismo como ideología opuesta al poder absoluto de los monarcas del siglo XIX, suponía un avance de las libertades del individuo contra el intervencionismo del estado en el cual los individuos eran considerados el medio para cumplir los fines del “Leviatán” de Hobbes.

 Aunque durante todo el siglo XX y arte de lo que va el actual en los claustros académicos occidentales han rebatido esta visión clásica en la que el estado naturaleza del hombre es la del “hombre lobo del hombre”, la misma ha sido la más exacta interpretación de la realidad contemporánea. 

El liberalismo no significa igualitarismo ni jamás garantizo la igualdad entre las personas, todo lo contrario. En las relaciones internacionales, los estado “liberales” han sido prolíficos en violentar la soberanía de otros estados por el solo hecho de no coincidir con su pensamiento ¿Eso tiene algo de democrático? La historia del desarrollo de estas sociedades basadas en el liberalismo casualmente fueron las que progresaron económicamente a costa de la apropiación de los bienes de otros pueblos mediante la conquista bélica, el colonialismo y la depredación. Incluso decir que un estado es liberal es un error ya que el liberalismo es una conducta humana ajena a una entelequia político-administrativa.

Este ha sido uno de los errores más difundidos y políticamente aprovechados durante todo el siglo XX para penetrar en los asuntos internos de otros estados. Quien más usufructuó esta falacia es sin dudas EEUU. Pero incluso el mentado pluralismo político dentro de este país nunca fue tal, dado que siempre hubo un estado omnipresente y vigilante sobre la individualidad de sus ciudadanos. También, su bipartidismo es una estafa discursiva que (simulando alternancia) no es otra cosa que un negocio cíclico para pocos (elite política) y que se vende al mundo como el ejemplo de la democracia. De la mano de esta falsa visión, los estados anglosajones se valen de la palabra democracia como un valor del cual y en teoría, se garantizaba la pluralidad de opiniones, el respeto por las diversidades sociales y culturales, en fin, la consagración del estado de derecho. Hoy muchos se preguntan ¿Derecho de quién?

Desde el final de la segunda gran guerra (en 1945) los estados anglosajones, en especial los EEUU transformaron esta ideología-filosofía en un verdadero activo de merchandising para fines geopolíticos propios al cual se creyeron con legitimidad de exportar e imponer a la fuerza. El valor democracia en este contexto solo fue y sigue siendo un formalismo descriptivo del sistema electoral basado en el sufragio. Bajo esa premisa e instalando falacias discursivas como “Estoy en desacuerdo con lo que dices, pero defenderé hasta la muerte tu derecho a decirlo” (atribuida falsamente a Voltaire) o justificar las invasiones y las agresiones bajo el argumento de la defensa de los derechos humanos y la promoción de la democracia, estos estados han pisoteado de forma grosera, bestial y explicita los valores que dicen defender y hoy, bajo nuevas circunstancias, pretenden llevarlas más allá con el reeditado riesgo de una guerra química, biológica y nuclear.

La historia contemporánea esta suficientemente ilustrada de las agresiones, las extorsiones, los latrocinios y crímenes colectivos que estos estados liberales-democráticos han cometido bajo el amparo de un derecho difuso, poco claro y de una legalidad altamente cuestionable que durante todo lo que fue la segunda parte del siglo pasado hasta el inicio del presente, se conoció como “un derecho internacional basado en reglas” ¿Qué significa eso? Para el vice ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de la República Popular China Xie Feng, esto no es otra cosa que la implementación de la ya conocida “ley de la selva”. Igualmente y más allá de coincidir con esta descripción hasta hoy muchos se preguntan ¿Cuáles reglas?

Las reglas que Washington suele argumentar, discordan groseramente de sus acciones claramente contrarias al derecho internacional y ni que decir en su aspecto humanitario. Las consecuencias de sus políticas injerencistas nada tienen de democráticas. Sus métodos (sigilosos y secretos) han quedado en evidencia de estar a la altura de los autoritarismos más detestables de la historia sin importar cuál sea su orientación ideológica de derechas o de izquierdas. Pero esto no debe asombrarnos ya que es advertible como dentro de EEUU y también Gran Bretaña desde hace al menos dos décadas hasta el presente ya no es posible distinguir entre derechas e izquierdas e incluso más, como en sus decisiones gubernamentales se advierten esa pecaminosa inclinación a la derecha extrema. No es un descubrimiento que la sociedad estadounidense esta infectada del racismo, el prejuicio y el odio hacia las minorías religiosas que tan puntualmente ejercitaron en estas últimas décadas contra los musulmanes.

Estos sectores no usan esvásticas ni se visten de caqui como sigue mostrando el estereotipo desinformador y sesgado de los medios audiovisuales occidentales. Creerse que solo hay extremistas de derecha o “protonazis” porque usan camperas de combate o blanden banderas con ezvásticas es una forma de tapar la realidad como si se quisiera tapar el sol con el dedo. Incluso nuevas producciones cinematográficas que pretenden ser un reflejo fiel de la historia que insisten en esta simbología, son más bien un intento vano y artificioso en tratar de manipular a la opinión pública manteniendo la mirada en el pasado para ocultar el abrumador y vergonzante presente. Estamos en una etapa de la historia donde muchos mitos políticos se han venido abajo y ya no es posible maquillarlos como lo hacían las (hoy desacreditadas) corporaciones de medios.

Ni pertenecer a una religión o etnia determinada otorga calidad democrática ni mucho menos las coloca por encima de otros como se suele escuchar aún para justificar las arbitrariedades de estados ocupantes y sus bizarras acciones inhumanas. Mucho menos democrática es la aspiración globalista de estos liberales anglosajones quienes buscan crear un estado total disgregando a los estados nacionales. Es en las conductas individuales donde se traduce el liberalismo y la democracia en las acciones éticas y morales que lejos debieran estar en ir contra los derechos de otros por el solo hecho de ser diferentes. Por caso que usted se pregunte ¿Cómo catalogaría a los neoconservadores y su secta extremista de los Straussianos?

 

THE KINZHAL LIGHTNING

To the continuous acts of interference of the Anglo-Saxons in the Ukraine, Russia has an ace up its sleeve to cut with a situation that could lead the region to dangerous radiological contamination. Will Washington and London understand reasons?

 

By Danny Smith

It was 4 a.m. on March 8 when the Ukrainian anti-aircraft alarms sounded throughout the Dnipro, Kremenchuk and Lviv region. A few seconds later, powerful explosions were heard at specific locations in each of these places. Several strategic targets were hit by Russian vectors that the Ukrainian flak batteries apparently failed to see. What happened?

In this attack, one of the Ukrainian command and control bunkers was hit despite being hidden several meters from the surface. The missile would have followed the signals that were being transmitted from that installation to the mobile units of “S-300” and Startreak missiles mounted on cars. The consequences of this was the loss of all its occupants, among which were several high military commanders, many of them belonging to NATO.

Apparently for Kiev, much less for the Biden administration, the explanation would not be so easy or convenient to make known. The first part of this explanation goes through making it clear that the systems provided by the US, Great Britain and Germany are not as effective as they claim to be. Throughout the past year the mass media of the West have made a great myth of the capabilities of their missiles surrounded by all kinds of misinformation resorting to all kinds of misinformation tricks. But reality is reality and on this occasion neither the Americans nor much less their British second-in-command can give a credible explanation. Either the monitoring network run by the Americans and the British is junk or the Russian missiles are of superior technology, that's the crux of the matter and just raising it already embarrasses bureaucrats in the collective West.

We are witnessing how myths of invulnerability hidden behind the propaganda propelled by the Western media conglomerate are broken. Volodymyr Zelensky said on several occasions -and not by chance- that he intended to create an “Israel” trying to recreate that Anglo-American media mystique of a supposed divine protection that in reality was nothing more than the inexhaustible military and financial assistance of the US and Europe.

Zelensky, pretending to emulate that example and with all this assistance, is not only trying to defend his fundamentalist regime, but has tried to hit inside Russia using the same dirty tricks and asymmetric tactics that his admired Israelis customarily carry out against the Palestinian population and against Iran and Syria.

But unlike these last two actors, Russia due to its political-military power is not conditioned by economic-financial blackmail and years of intermittent aggression from the Western centers of power and can respond with the forcefulness that the occasion warrants. This is where the decisive importance for a serious state of developing a military capacity sufficient to dissuade stopping plots such as those called the “collective West” (which are nothing other than the Anglo-Saxon world) becomes clear.

In these attacks, the Russian Aerospace Forces used the Kinzhal hypersonic missile which travels seven times faster than the speed of sound and therefore impossible to intercept by any anti-missile shield system currently in service by the US or NATO. The consequences of its use are plain to see. With this it is very clear that the Americans defrauded their puppets in Kiev and at the same time, it is verified that Vladimir Putin's promises are more than fulfilled.

When Putin announced in March 2019 that Russia had hypersonic missile development impossible to intercept by NATO, many in the Pentagon and also in Congress believed that he was bluffing and even that the computer recreation showing the trajectory of the intercontinental hypersonic missile that he projected in That opportunity was just that, a recreation.

This incident, which is none other than the reiteration of the various blows that Russia dealt to Ukraine's infrastructure and the logistical support that the Polish partners covertly provide, shows that Moscow does not play games and that the words that are poured out are sustained. for the facts.

The characteristics of the Kinzhal missile and its means of employment are a loud and clear warning of the continued interference by Washington and London in continuing to feed the fundamentalist regime in Kiev (no Kyiv). Emboldening him to carry out terrorist acts on Russian soil was a bad idea for which Kiev paid handsomely for the well-aimed hit of the Russian missile. Its degree of precision is as or more valuable than its hypersonic speed is a serious warning to take into account since Zelensky or any of his representatives should look at the sky before opening a window, no matter how small it may be.

These days, the Lieutenant General of the Russian Armed Forces, Igor Kirillov, in charge of the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Troops, has publicly denounced that London has been delivering piercing artillery warheads with depleted uranium for armored cars, which represents a open violation of the prohibition of the use of contaminating radioactive weapons and that can be considered of mass destruction (WMD). The consequences of its use would be dire not only for Ukrainian health and environment but for the entire region.

The precedents on the horrible consequences of the use of this sub-caliber ammunition are recorded in all the interventions that NATO has had, but an emblematic and occasionally critical case is that of Iraq where, since 1991, the Anglo-American forces used bombs dropped from airplanes in bulk. with this radioactive element and that after the 2003 invasion, they added projectiles from artillery shells and from Bradley and Abrams armored cars. What about the resilience of Iraqis in the face of such brutality? The dust generated after the impact of this type of ammunition rises into the atmosphere and after descending it enters the lungs of the people who did not die from the bombardment. If a single explosion causes these indirect consequences, what will thousands of explosions do? How many Iraqis are radiated in Baghdad alone?

The consequences of this use and abuse have been the saturation and radiological contamination of the entire Iraqi population, particularly in the province of Al Anbar where, since those dates, all kinds of cancers have been recorded in the inhabitants, spontaneous abortions in women and unpleasant deformities. in newborns.

Perhaps the British will ignore Russia's warnings, perhaps (as is their custom) try some dirty trick to sneak in these poisonous munitions en masse. Maybe Washington will use some of its outsourced resources to do it. But unlike the countries that have been attacked with these weapons, Russia has a card in hand, a tactical resource to stop this and it is called Kinzhal.

 

 

TWENTY YEARS ON FROM A CRIME IN PROGRESS

The 2003 invasion of Iraq and all the political circumstantiality that preceded it remains one of the most shameful chapters in international humanitarian law and contemporary history.

 

Por Sidney Hey

On 20 March 2003, US troops that had been amassing for months on the borders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan crossed the borders of Iraq to carry out one of the most abhorrent criminal war campaigns in contemporary history, based on lies and falsehoods that would become one of the crimes against humanity that still goes unpunished.

The damage done not only to the country but to the humanity of the Iraqi people was so great and brutal that no figure can describe the magnitude of the crime.

Under the cover of the opacity of international bodies, including the United Nations, the US and Britain launched a brutal bombing campaign on Baghdad, Basra, Mosul and Tikrit with the obvious intention of softening up the Iraqi defenders. For George Bush and Co, the “shock and awe” campaign would be enough to make the ill-equipped Iraqi troops surrender and the tortured civilians, stunned by the bombs, would emerge from the basements to greet the invaders as liberators. That was the fevered vision of the neo-conservatives, contrived in the framework of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) which pursued ambitious geopolitical as well as economic goals (the latter linked to the appropriation of oil).

Devised in 1993 by one of the most prominent Republican Zionists in the neo-conservative circle, Paul Wolfowitz, this plan only worked if there was a shocking event that would force the US to go to war. Interestingly enough, this is how the events of the morning of 9/11 2001 unfolded, which, among the inconsistencies noted, involved those young israelis partying after the attacks on the towers in a New Jersey flat, who, after being arrested by the police, were released and promptly deported to Israel, something the federal government has never been able to explain.

And it is important to remember what was the excuse of Washington and the Bush-Cheney administration for the basis of the aggression and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. But few have asked where did the inspiration for this interventionist policy come from? This brings us to Israel and in particular to the then prime minister Ariel Sharon and his then minister Benjamin Netanyahu, protagonists and precursors (each in their own experiences) of bloodless actions against the Palestinian population and Arab neighbours under the argument of “preventive war” and which the US neocon ideologues (mostly militant Zionists) adopted and would shape as a cog in that project for the new century.

Creating the terrifying event that would hit a US society that is usually disinterested and ignorant of what is going on abroad head on, by pinning it on the CIA's operational sham Al Qaeda, was one of the central tactics in building the case against the “Islamic world” and more specifically against the old and now useless partners in Central Asia such as the Taliban and the pesky witness to Washington's interference in the Middle East that ruled in Baghdad.

Impunity and malice took hold of the federal government and the likes of Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, backed by the farcical representative Colin Powell to the United Nations, orchestrated the cloak of lies that would justify to an already sceptical public the wars that were about to be launched. Government resources were in the hands of the war's supporters and they would use them accordingly.

Bush relied on alleged intelligence reports (among other lies) arguing the complicity of Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi government, a lie that had been warned long before it was discovered as such. Likewise, the media made a circus out of this thesis and, sticking to this untruth, encouraged not only the invasions but also the taking away of liberties and the justification of total espionage on the citizenry and the development of atrocious practices against human integrity such as kidnapping and torture in all its forms.

On the basis of these abject practices they forced certain Arab assets such as Abu Zubaydah Ibn al-Libi to confess that Saddam Hussein was allied with Al Qaeda. The US, following the lies of these neocon psychopaths who copied the Israeli approach, had fallen several notches down in terms of respect for human rights and this would get worse as the wars dragged on.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is one of the most sinister chapters of US foreign policy. It was not a simple mistake as some Anglo-Saxon political analysts portray it. Millions killed, millions maimed (physically and mentally) and millions displaced are the best testimony to that. Bush and Cheney infiltrated sectarian hatred by breaking Iraq into pieces and Obama and Biden (through the ISIS hoax) ensured that it will never be reunited.

The Anglo-American occupation created an administration of terror and through it, subjected Iraqis to an iron law whereby the military, military intelligence and the CIA turned Baghdad into a gigantic labyrinth of horror where death and disappearance was around every corner. Abu-Graib was only the symbol of that administration and the tip of the iceberg of a circuit of torture, humiliation, rape and humiliation, including the trafficking of women for prostitution. Is there an ongoing investigation into these bestialities?

The weight of this black part of US political history cannot be ignored, much less when officials like Joseph Biden have been involved in part of the creation of all the dirty dynamics that gave rise to the “fight against terrorism” and today, as if he had no stain on it all, he condemns third parties and promotes judicial measures before bodies that his own country has scorned. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CALENTANDO EL MAR MERIDIONAL

A pesar de la caótica situación de las fuerzas ucranianas en el frente y la negativa de Washington a permitir que Kiev acepte un cese al fuego y se siente en una mesa de negociaciones ¿Biden busca abrir otro frente bélico en Asia-Pacífico?

Por Charles H. Slim

Como ya se sabe, los conglomerados de medios occidentales reflejan las realidades políticas que convienen a Washington según sea el momento especifico que se trate. Lo mismo sus Think Tanks que usan sus cerebros gracias a las generosas subvenciones y recursos financieros que los incentivan. También sabemos que cuando esa realidad es adversa a sus conveniencias, se encargan de maquillarla a medida y cuando eso tampoco alcanza simplemente adulteran la realidad que presentan.

Cuando Biden llegó a La Casa Blanca una parte de los ciudadanos estadounidenses creían que iba a cambiar la impredecible, caprichosa y personalista administración de Trump. Pero como ellos mismos saben, fueron víctimas (una vez más) de un sistema corrupto y elitista que sirve solo a los plutócratas que manejan el poder real. Hoy estos mismos ciudadanos sacudidos por una crisis socio económica claramente se preguntan ¿Quién es el peor de estas opciones?

Al menos Trump, ese odiado outsider de la clase política no mordió más de lo que podía masticar, esto en lo que hace a su política exterior, aunque no estuvo exento de aprobar situaciones reprobables. Obviamente esto en referencia a los gastos que el gobierno federal recorto en el área de la defensa y en ese gran agujero burocrático como lo es la OTAN.

Pero Biden apenas llegó a La Casa Blanca, piso el acelerador en materia de política exterior y reengancho a EEUU en la agenda globalista de los neoconservadores para reactivar el avance de la OTAN sobre todo Eurasia y todo el Asia-Pacífico. Ucrania es la consecuencia de esa agenda que (nada tiene de democrática) como también es sabido, comenzó hace nueve años atrás cuando desempeñaba el cargo de vicepresidente (en la administración Obama) con el fomento y respaldo del golpe de estado en Kiev, una página de la historia que en Washington y los medios que le respaldan saltan con deliberada intención.

A diferencia de Trump, Biden no es un advenedizo ni empezó ayer en política. Si hay alguien que ha pasado por una buena parte de la historia política contemporánea de EEUU es Josep Biden y como tal, es uno de los grandes responsables de episodios catastróficos no solo para los intereses de su país sino para toda la humanidad, particularmente la del Medio Oriente, Norte de África y Asia Central (salvo que no consideren a los árabes, a los musulmanes y orientales como humanos).

Biden es el presidente de la guerra y parece que tiene ambiciones de ampliar esta cualidad abriendo otro frente bélico en el sudeste asiático, más precisamente proyectándose desde el Pacífico hacía el interior de Asia teniendo como principales cabeceras para ello a Corea del sur y Taiwán. Estas intensiones quedaron bien claras tan pronto comenzó su agresiva campaña de propaganda y sanciones contra China que culminaron con aquel viaje relámpago a la isla de Taiwán de la presidente de la Cámara de representantes Nancy Pelosi, precisamente para inflamar los ánimos en Pekín.

Como vemos y si lo comparamos con la administración Trump, la actual gestión de Biden es superlativamente más belicista y desaprensiva con el costo humano que ello implica, si consideramos los riesgos de una escalada nuclear que conllevaría seguir alimentando la guerra en Ucrania. Sin dudas que la reunión celebrada en Moscú entre Xi Jinping y Vladimir Putin evaluaron esta preocupante situación.

En este escenario, La Casa Blanca ha estado maniobrando para acaparar el negocio y las ganancias de la producción de los semiconductores sacando las empresas de producción que tienen radicación en la isla para trasladarlas a EEUU. Estos pequeños chips de silicio se han vuelto imprescindibles para el desarrollo de la vida económica de cualquier país, pero mucho más para los más desarrollados. La intención de Washington es quitar el desarrollo tecnológico de uno de los componentes más usados y necesarios en la producción de artefactos a escala global que van desde un teléfono celular (iphone) hasta un Dron de uso militar. Casualmente, estos pequeños implementos además de ser construidos en Taiwán también se desarrollan en Corea del sur y Japón.

Bajo el argumento de defender la libertad de navegación y “mediar” con vecinos ribereños como Vietnam, EEUU ha estado incursionando y provocando a China con su flota que merodea el Mar Amarillo con la tangencial intensión de flanquear a Corea del norte. Precisamente y en este plan, Washington ha anunciado la realización de grandes maniobras militares con Seúl lo que representa una nueva provocación a gran escala para la soberanía y la seguridad de Pyong yang. Cabe recordar que los norcoreanos han debido soportar las continuas sanciones internacionales (ilegales e ilegitimas) implementadas por órdenes de EEUU como parte de su estrategia de asfixiar su economía en espera de que la población se levante contra sus gobernantes. Actualmente estas medidas tratan de impedir la importación de cereales como parte de una siniestra -y muy usada- estrategia con el fin de hambrear a la población.

Es por ello que además de continuar con los ensayos de sus misiles intercontinentales ICBM (los cuales pueden llegar incluso a EEUU) y ejercicios de contraataque táctico nuclear, ha puesto en estado de alerta y movilización al Ejército Popular de Corea lo que ha involucrado a más de 800.000 voluntarios para enrolarse al servicio activo. Esta claro que China toma nota de esta situación y toma las previsiones del caso ¿Acaso es esto lo que Biden considera una política para asegurar la paz?