OPERATION SELF-DELUSION

Why is the Ukrainian incursion into Russian territory a chokehold?

 

By Sidney Hey

On 20 May, the head of the Russian PMC Wagner appeared in a video broadcast on Telegram with a Russian flag in his hands and some of his men behind him brandishing the flag of his group, announcing the total takeover of the city of Artemovsk (Bakhmut). The news could not have been anything other than the consequence of an expected event. Although several US generals had raised scepticism about the Kiev regime's hopes of driving the Russians out, Volodymyr Zelensky, emulating Stalin's bloodthirsty and blind stubbornness with his order 227 (Not a step back), sent tens of thousands of his fighters to their deaths.

It has become clear that this was a crushing blow to Kiev but also to the sponsors in Washington, especially Biden. For months the media in the collective West had been making war propaganda about Bakhmut with all sorts of speculation, much of it fantastical, trying to cover up a lousy situation.

The desperation of those in Kiev and their backers to distract attention materialised last week with the attack on the airfield in “Berdiansk”, Russia. The raid involved the launching of British “Storm-Shadow” missiles from MIG-29 aircraft (delivered by Poland) which caused the destruction of Russian aircraft stationed on the runway. Beyond the material result of the attack, legally Moscow has the legal grounds for retaliation against Britain. From now on, the British could ask: Was the Foreign Office aware of this, did its advisers who put these missiles on the planes and those who train the Ukrainians know about this attack on Russian territory?

With Yevgeny Prigozhin's announcement, a Hollywood narrative that sought to dent the morale of the Russian population, maintain a triumphalist folklore in the European Union and at the same time feed the White House's political arguments as to “why” it was necessary to continue donating billions of dollars and armaments in bulk to a pro-Nazi regime led by an Ashkenazi Jew collapsed.

The Ukrainian failure in “Bakhmut”, now “Artemovsk”, despite the massive armoury that was sent in, is a subject for further analysis. For the time being, its total seizure is a conclusive and irreversible fact that the hemisphere's media are trying to deny with child's fables.

Along these lines, and with a clear intention to distract, the CIA and its British colleagues have set in motion a staging of another of their assets on Russian territory in Belgorod. In broad daylight and firing on Russian civilians, a column of US armoured vehicles, two T-90 tanks and some eighty men from the “Azov” battalion and another group in Ukrainian uniforms sought a strong publicity impact to distract attention from the catastrophe announced two days earlier by Prigozhin from “Artemovsk”.

The added value of this incursion was the dissemination of videos of an alleged Russian nationalist commando called “the Freedom of Russia Legion”, which, giving a speech in the Russian language, seeks -according to its contents- the overthrow of Vladimir Putin. Perhaps public opinion, which has no need to know about deception and war propaganda, believes that there are “internal opposition forces in Russia” and that they have risen up spontaneously. It is quite clear that there is nothing clear in all this.

It is a scam that has been widely used by the CIA and its British colleagues for decades. The involvement of the “Azov” fanatics in this suicide mission is no surprise (as several attempts have already failed), but a Russian nationalist commando joined with these Russian-hating extremists? That's not really explained. The renting of a handful of people who do not agree with the policies of their governments is the “ABC” of how to recruit unscrupulous or unwary elements to be used by these agencies. There are several examples, but at the same time the most notable are the Iraqi militias made up of Arab mercenaries and Iraqi criminals recruited by the CIA and trained in Jordan before the 2003 invasion, which were later set up in opposition to other shams such as “Al Qaeda-Iraq”, the “ISI” genesis of “ISIS” in 2014, or the FSA that the CIA set up in Jordan before the 2003 invasion; or the FSA that the CIA set up with the cooperation of the Turkish MIT by recruiting officers from the Syrian army and the Kurdish FSD groups trained by the US military to attempt a coup against Bashar Al Assad.

To set up all these “ventures”, all you need is money, and that is something that agencies like the CIA have at their discretion.

The staging of this raid on Belgorod is not new, nor does it escape this mechanics. This kind of deception is part of an Anglo-American intelligence engineering that has been exploited ad nauseam in the Middle East (with the cooperation of the Muslim Brotherhood) but which, in the case of Europe, has extensive precedents. One of NATO's Cold War-era “Stand Behind” programmes was the use of terrorism as a tactic to eliminate pro-Soviet or pro-communist targets in Europe.

While the White House has publicly stated that the resources given to Ukraine should not be used on Russian soil, we know that such talk is false and actually follows the twisted logic of "double standards" in which the federal government pretends that one hand does not know what the other is doing.

The uniformed men and their spokesman could be Russian nationals, recruited and employed (and that means paid) by the CIA to act on the occasion and lend their skins so that in just a few hours they could be eliminated by the Russian anti-terrorist reaction force. They are not the first dupes the Americans have used for this purpose. Even confidential sources confirmed that the FSB was already carrying out raids and arrests of subjects inside Russia linked to this operation.

The problem with self-deception is that those who act in this way cover up the reality and, far from making the problems disappear, they will only multiply them.

 

 

 

 

RETURNING HOME

Syria's return to the Arab League is a momentous event. What will be the effects for the entire region?

 

By Ali Al Najafi

The dark clouds of the storm have passed and the sunlight of a new dawn is once again warming the face. That is the feeling that the Arabs felt when they learned of Syria's return to the Arab League summit that took place and culminated last Friday, May 19, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

The reception of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad was remarkable and highly promising. The reception at the airport by Prince Badr bin Sultan bin Abdulazi himself, the Saudi authorities and in particular Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was a great sign, and during the course of the summit there were even cordial talks with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, one of Washington's main allies in all that represented the export and financing of jihadists to overthrow Gadafi and the persistent attempts to repeat it with him under the media hoax of the “Arab Spring”.

Al Assad stepped off his plane as a victor, defeating nothing less than the Anglo-American hegemonic power and its ally Israel. His peers gathered in Jeddah knew that their disowned brother had undergone a trial by fire that has tempered him at the head of a Syrian Arab people, unjustly and criminally punished by some of the Arab governments that now salute him and occupy a seat in the League (especially the monarchies) subordinated to foreign agendas that are now in disarray.

What was unthinkable a year ago is now a reality. The nefarious influences of the US State Department seem to have dissipated, although we must never let our guard down. A transcendental step that opens the way to a new era that will seek regional development away from the intrigues and instigations of the West and, most importantly, without forgetting the situation of Palestine subjected to the constant colonialist advances of the State of Israel. It is also a chance for the Ummah to make a deep collective introspection and leave behind the discord and manipulations that the enemy used to penetrate its bosom and sow the tares.

But like all good news for some, it is bad news for others. While the Arab-Islamic world is entering a new dimension in relations between states and re-establishing a common agenda, from the Anglo-Saxon West and especially from Israel this cannot be good news. Even more so. For the Islamophobic sectors that are rampant in the high cenacles of Western power that aligns them ideologically with the Zionists and the state of Israel, it is very bad news.

For decades it has been a continuous and persistent policy to undermine the relations between the Arab Islamic states and these towards the West, with the big corporate media being especially insidious in marking differences between Arabs and Islamists in order to isolate the Islamic Republic of Iran during a good part of the second half of the last century (and seeking purely political objectives).

One of the most damaging agents in all of this deal was Turkey and its pan-Islamist government (at the service of NATO) headed by the now devalued Recep Tiyip Erdogan, who gave cover from his territory to the operation of the intelligence agencies' hoax called “ISIS”.

The cynical leadership of the USA that presented itself as mediator and party (with great Israeli influence) has no place in this new scenario and this was fully confirmed with the resumption of talks between Riyadh and Tehran under the auspices of China. In this regard, it is evident that in addition to the Chinese good offices to seek connections and channels for a conversation, Washington never sought this and on the contrary, when there were possibilities of normalizing relations, incidents and misunderstandings would magically appear, always involving some statement from the State Department.

The tragedies between Iran and Iraq, the civil war in Lebanon and the continuous attempts to reactivate it, the iniquities woven against the Palestinian PLO and, closer in time, the interventions in Iraq, Libya, Syria and the fratricidal war against Yemen are a sample of that sinister influence that ultimately tended to benefit Israel's geopolitical situation.

Despite the goodwill that marks this new beginning, the Arab-Islamic world will have to be vigilant not to fall into new deceptions and instigations by the Anglo-American agencies, always active and ready to foment subversion (through false humanitarian NGOs) in the name of “democracy”.

In this new era, the Arab countries and the entire region should join forces and create formulas for integration and growth in which each state, regardless of their systems of government, contribute their capabilities and wealth to act as a unified economic bloc and also to form a purely Arab-Islamic security and defense alliance, and that means, without Western interference (even when goodwill is invoked).

There is no doubt that each Arab state has its own characteristics and capabilities to contribute on this path. Syria's return to its seat in the Arab League will add much value in terms of experience in fighting terrorist conspiracies and all the dirty resources of a hybrid war supported by the US and some NATO partners. 

The possibilities for development and growth of such a bloc is as vast, if not more so, than the Arab-Islamic world itself, and therefore, apart from any attempt to create discord by the inevitable sectors that will continue to work in the shadows for Washington and Tel Aviv, it is a great prospect for everyone to win without harming anyone.

 

 

UNA PAZ ESTRATEGICA

A dieciocho meses de las elecciones presidenciales en EEUU y en medio de la incertidumbre de una guerra europea que podría globalizarse Trump reaparece y propone si es elegido una estrategia para la paz 

 

Por Dany Smith

La llegada de los demócratas a la Casa Blanca no garantizaría el fin de las intervenciones estadounidenses en el exterior y eso quedo bien claro con Joe Biden y su grupo. Biden es un globalista y como tal comulga con el ideario de los internacionalistas neoconservadores y en especial con los “Straussianos” que buscan imponer la supremacía de EEUU sobre todo el mundo.

El primer gran engaño de su administración fue la desordenada retirada de Afganistán que le hizo creer a los sectores blandos del partido y a los partidarios republicanos de Donald Trump, que EEUU terminaba con sus costosas y ajenas intervenciones belicistas en el extranjero. Ahora sabemos que esa fue una maniobra bien calculada y ya prevista por sus asesores en defensa ante una imposibilidad de remontar un resultado adverso.

En realidad fue un retroceso para tomar impulso y concentrar sus esfuerzos sobre dos objetivos mucho más importantes y grandes para abordar: La Federación rusa y China. Claro, que eso lo llevarían delante de forma tercerizada dándole a la OTAN el papel central en el desarrollo de esta nueva guerra híbrida tal como lo vemos hoy, que ya implica una posible respuesta nuclear.

A pesar de que podemos sospechar del supuesto desinterés de un hombre como Trump, su propuesta es mucho más razonable de la que hoy vemos salir de las bocas de los funcionarios del gobierno.

A un año y medio del inicio de la guerra en Europa, EEUU está inmerso en un caos económico y financiero que se ve con un estado al borde del default sin que sus representantes se pongan de acuerdo para ponerle techo a la deuda. Para empeorar el panorama, la retracción económica se vio claramente influenciada por las sanciones económicas y financieras unilaterales disparadas contra la economía rusa que, advertida su inocuidad, los genios de la inteligencia sugirieron complementarlas mediante acciones terroristas contra su infraestructura energética e industrial rusa (Nord Stream I y II y el puente Kerch).

¿Dónde diablos esta la oposición a estas políticas que están hundiendo a la Unión? Una vez más los estadounidenses no pueden esperar que los cambios provengan de la elite política que se subordina al Establecimiento financiero que tiene línea directa con el Estado profundo. Tampoco de falsos candidatos independientes que no son más que marionetas de esa misma elite; entonces ¿Dónde puede hallarse una respuesta para semejante dilema?

El 12 de mayo pasado reapareció por uno de los medios masivos Donald Trump quien el mes pasado paso por una prueba de fuego ante los tribunales del circuito de New York. Sus enemigos políticos creyeron que con eso bastaría para destruir su imagen y sus aspiraciones en la arena política, pero al parecer se han equivocado. Al parecer hay Donald para rato.

Precisamente al ser entrevistado en la CNN por Kaitlan Collins, sus enemigos deben haberse caído de espaldas. Trump estaba en vivo de costa a costa o mejor dicho de continente a continente tocando todos los temas que los políticos de la elite no pueden resolver. El más escabroso es sin dudas el conflicto en Ucrania y su punto de vista sobre cómo abordarlo y terminar con la guerra.

Trump sabe que la gente de a pie esta harta de la guerra y mucho más cuando ha reflexionado que los dineros de sus impuestos están financiando la existencia de una organización obsoleta como la OTAN para respaldar a una mafia ultranacionalista enquistada en Kiev de un cómico advenedizo como Zelensky. Muchos otros en Europa se vienen preguntando ¿Por qué debemos pagar por esta guerra?

Biden además de regalar sistemas “Patriot” para que los misiles rusos los hagan papilla con sus tripulaciones incluidas, ha donado con total desparpajo la suma de cien mil millones de dólares muchos de los cuales ha terminado financiando las operaciones especiales en Ucrania y los obscenos estilos de vida de los corruptos funcionarios ucranianos, vaya aporte a la paz y la democracia!

Desde que llego a La Casa Blanca su administración se ha saltado a la Constitución excediéndose en sus prerrogativas poniendo por encima a los artículos (especialmente el 5º) y principios de la carta orgánica de la OTAN. Trump ya lo había advertido y a él se unen muchas voces más que los medios del Establecimiento pagados por el partido de la guerra quieren callar.

Trump también expuso estos cuestionamientos a la presentadora dándole al mismo tiempo, cuál sería su política para que la guerra termine en 24 horas. Antes que nada, sabemos que Biden y sus partidarios del globalismo no quieren que la guerra termine y es ahí donde Trump se vuelve cáusticamente molesto y políticamente peligroso. Estos sectores oscurantistas saben que Trump puede usar esto como su slogan para regresar a La Casa Blanca.

A pesar de que han invertido millones de dólares en campañas para arruinarlo y aislarlo de los medios, “él ha vuelto”. Su propuesta de que si llega a la Casa Blanca en 2024 sentara a ambas partes en una mesa para llegar a la paz no solo es creíble sino incluso muy posible y es allí donde los partidarios de la guerra que ven con preocupación que Trump prospere en su carrera a una nueva presidencia.

Ya se han puesto a operar las usinas de desinformación de los neoconservadores para tratar de asustar a los electores argumentando que Trump y una parte de los republicanos son “partidarios de Putin”. La explicación para este descabellado argumento se centra en que aquellos son activos participes en la dilapidación del dinero público en la financiación de una guerra en Europa del este ¿Recuerdan la parodia del Rusia-Gate? Bien, es lo mismo solo que potenciado por los efectos de la guerra.

Si tomamos enserio la propuesta de Trump ello representaría una mala noticia para los negocios que se mueven detrás de la guerra y no sería de extrañar que la campaña contra su imagen se redoble furiosamente tanto que puedan amenazar la integridad física del mismo ex presidente.

 

 

ELECCIONES PRESIDENCIALES y…?

A pocos meses de las elecciones presidenciales la incertidumbre y la falta de respuestas a problemas crónicos como la deuda con el FMI y la inflación hace de la Argentina un lugar nada predecible

 

Por Charles H. Slim

Este año es crucial para la Argentina, quizá más que nunca el país se halla en una encrucijada existencial que obliga más que nunca a sus habitantes a tomar consciencia de si son sus verdaderos ciudadanos o solo los inquilinos de un territorio administrado por gerentes que sirven a otros intereses foráneos.

¿Por qué no es una exageración esta sentencia? Más allá que los charlatanes de los medios capitalinos y sus empleados viven hablando de superar la “grieta” y de auto consagrarse como los adalides de la democracia cuando ellos son parte de aquella fractura y obran en consecuencia, se deja lado una mirada marco que revela una pugna global entre el moribundo hegemonismo angloestadounidense y el multilateralismo propugnado desde Eurasia que impacta sobre todas las áreas de la vida nacional. 

La Argentina es algo más que un país descalabrado por la gestión de otra deformación del peronismo (como el Kirchnerismo), la ineptitud de una oposición heterogénea y la corrupción estructural. Podemos decir que la señora Cristina Fernández y Mauricio Macri, la antítesis (fogoneada por los medios) de una misma estafa política son historia, pero ello no resuelve los problemas. Detrás del caos sistémico que hoy la sacude hay un país rico y con muchos recursos para explotar y es allí donde se plantea el gran dilema ¿Cuál es la fuerza política y su liderazgo que podría llevar adelante esa empresa? Y si existiese dicha fuerza ¿Tendrían el valor para encararla? Al día presente, no hay respuesta a estas preguntas y solo con hacer un repaso al panorama político local se explica el por qué de ello.

Si comenzamos por la “izquierda” veremos que la oferta es tan multicolor como dispersa en sus propuestas políticas. A pesar de que existe un incipiente renacimiento de esta corriente en Europa, por una ciudadanía sacudida por la crisis socio-político-económica creada por una batería de sanciones antirusas por la guerra en Ucrania sin dudas, los izquierdistas argentinos no están en esa sintonía. Los europeos se ven sometidos por la sujeción de sus gobiernos a las directrices geopolíticas de Washington y es allí donde la izquierda ha retomado las calles para reclamar el fin de esta subalternidad. Los izquierdistas argentinos son ajenos a esto, carentes de realismo político, solo aspiran a un plato de comida sin importarles quien se los dé. En resumen de cuentas, la izquierda no tiene la misma mística y fuerza que tuvo en el siglo XX.

Hay otros argumentos para resaltar la opaca esperanza en esta corriente ideológica. No solo por haber fracasado en su pulseada contra el capitalismo angloestadounidense sino más bien, por el contubernio escandaloso que demostró ese “Eurocomunismo” y el socialismo con los más cáusticos intereses de la derecha de ese capitalismo guarnecido por la OTAN. Así muchos políticos de izquierda europeos como Javier Solana, Josep Borrell del PSOE y el mismo Felipe Gonzáles terminaron siendo descarados funcionarios y partidarios atlantistas con lo que ello implicaba y que hoy persisten bajo la máscara del “progresismo” y “la centroizquierda”.

Acá en la Argentina esto se replica de forma más encubierta, pero sucede. La izquierda con representación de Miriam Bregman y otros parece muy combativa y contestataria contra fantasmas del pasado pero totalmente renuente y sin dudas estéril para enfrentar las nuevas y verdaderas amenazas provenientes del Globalismo y sus adláteres locales. Su única propuesta sigue siendo la queja sobre las consecuencias de los problemas sin formulas prácticas ni planes para resolver las problemáticas sociales y ello en parte, por no tener vocación real por fabricar poder. Para esta “izquierda Champagne” típica de los porteños universitarios, asumir los sacrificios de una revolución al estilo cubano, del ruso, chino y ni hablemos de la de Corea del norte es algo que no entra en su imaginación.

En el otro extremo de la mesa vemos a un rosario de variantes de la denominada “derecha” que tal como la izquierda, se halla dispersa en algunos exponentes de los partidos tradicionales (Peronismo y Radicalismo). Como aquellos, también se pierde en discursos contingentes, inútiles y vacíos que centrados en la administración económica eficiente del estado y la necesidad de abrirse indiscriminadamente al mundo angloestadounidense (con alineamientos automáticos), tratan de explicar que ello sería la solución a todos los problemas existenciales del país. Esta corriente, con la cual los medios de comunicación capitalinos (empresas de negocios) se alinean gustosamente, siempre ha estado a la sombra del poder de turno y en la actualidad muestra sin tapujos su alineamiento con los discursos angloestadounidenses, que bajo el gastado ropaje de la “democracia”, están notoriamente signados por las políticas del Establishment global.

Pero igual que los Bregman y los Del caño, representantes como Espert, Milei, o Bullrich solo tocan la periferia de los problemas profundos del estado solo que, estos últimos exponentes cuentan con conexiones político ideológicas y financiera externas que le darían el apoyo político y financiero para subirlos al poder, pero sin garantizarles su permanencia. Un hilo ideológico en común es el sionismo al cual cada uno de estos adhieren en diferentes formas. Un ejemplo patente de esto es la ex Montonera, ex ministra de seguridad de Macri y hoy candidata con ropajes “republicanos” Patricia Bullrich quien a pesar de sus camaleónicos antecedentes, forma parte del sector que simpatiza con las políticas neoconservadoras de Washington y al mismo tiempo clama un ferviente partidismo pro-israelí.

En este último punto, se puede asegurar que toda la clase política de los principales partidos establecidos, concuerdan en grados diferentes (y algunos de forma oculta) su simpatía por el estado de Israel sin importarle las bestialidades que dicho estado y por toda clase de medios, comete a diario contra la población palestina en su ambición colonialista sobre toda la Palestina histórica y sus constantes ataques contra la vecina Siria. Pese a que suelen hablar de sus preocupaciones por los derechos humanos, es este caso nunca se les oye decir nada. Es así que estos militantes sionistas pretenden (como lo hizo Macri) involucrar directamente a los israelíes -y bajo la excusa de los atentados- en los asuntos de seguridad y defensa como receta mágica para parchar la ineptitud y el desgobierno de cuatro décadas.

Otro punto en común que tiene todo este universo de oportunistas es su reconocimiento a la “era menemista” de los noventas, un ejemplo a la medianía, la venalidad y el arribismo que caracteriza al llamado peronismo (de hoy dudosa existencia) y a toda la clase política de donde -entre otros- salieron el actual presidente y su ministro de economía.

Queda claro que esto es el muestrario de un país que notoriamente no es una nación. Sus representantes políticos y sus ambiciones personales son una clara prueba de ello y es por eso, que no se puede saber a ciencia cierta a dónde irá el estado dependiendo quien gobierne a esta clase de “ciudadanos” que, lejos de involucrarse en esta nueva realidad, siguen esperando que las soluciones se las proporcione un sistema infectado de corrupción.

 

 

 

SUGGESTIONS AND DEMOCRATIC AID

Why is the aid offered to you by the Anglo-American powers a real pain in the neck for those who receive it?

 

By Sir Charlattam

I have often said that the term democracy, with which the Anglo-Saxon West paints itself in the eyes of others, is only a paper and cardboard bag. Contemporary history documents this very well. The precedents for how governments in Washington and London conduct themselves speak for themselves to other countries about how and what methods they use to suggest to others what they should do "for their own good".

First of all, when Washington makes such suggestions, it is not for the benefit of others, but only for its own interests. The methods to achieve this do not skimp on putting third parties at risk, even if they are mere American “nobodies”. The system of government that runs the US is an oclocracy of mafia who, as their actions have shown, can commit genocide if necessary to achieve their plans.

Like any mafia, their methods are outside the law and their enforcers are no different from the organised criminals of East and South London. All help comes in exchange for something. Need money? They will lend it to you. They will give them to you but later you will pay for them too and at the current value. The democracy of American lobbies and lobbyists, that's the business.  Just like the Lend-Lease Act for Ukraine signed by Joe Biden on May 9, 2022, which under the label of “defending Ukraine's democracy”, besides indebting Ukrainians for four generations, will allow Washington to step in when no one else calls on them.

Nothing good can come of this. What is presented as disinterested aid ends up being a costly calamity. In what is happening in Ukraine their efforts are focused on keeping the war going and that - according to their discourse - they are doing so “to help the Ukrainians”. But as I said here, what appears to be help ends up being a double-edged dagger. Just look at what happened with the depleted uranium shells delivered to Kiev by the irreplaceable Ben Wallace and his MoD boys. In the last few hours the Russians have blown up some of the depots in the town of "Khmelnitsky" where these shells were piled up and after exploding they have released large quantities of gamma rays and radiation that will poison the whole region and its inhabitants. What have Kiev and London said publicly?

For the White House, for the European Union's obsequious and for the NATO Secretary in Brussels, this is not an inconvenience, let alone a concern. Nor, of course, for our Prime Minister Rishi Sunak who looks the other way while London's streets are ablaze with protests. Look at what is happening in the Finland of the beautiful "star of the European left" Sanna Marin, after joining NATO and its policies the citizens are suffering the same calamities as the Germans, the French and obviously the British, in short all the rest of the Europeans. Even when Zelensky and his regime are no longer useful to Joe "Globalist" Biden they will simply be discarded.

But this policy also applies to his established "friends". No one's head is safe. Last month's alleged leaks actually reported nothing new. That the US was spying on its allies is old news as former NSA Eduard Snowden back in 2013 had already exposed the extent of these embarrassing activities forcing him to flee and take refuge in Russia.

When Biden in the middle of the meeting with his German colleague Olaf Scholz promised that there would be no more Nord Stream pipeline if Russia invaded Ukraine, by fulfilling his promise with the September 2022 attack he did a disservice to the Germans and all Europeans. Although Washington tried to damage the Russian economy, it actually ruined the EU. Despite the evidence, European governments, not to mention EU officials, tried to turn a blind eye, even though the citizens know very well what happened and are today shaken by a crisis with no end in sight.

But behind it all were huge commercial interests linked to US LNG companies. As can be seen, the logic is none other than to extract customers from Russia. Going to Kiev for democracy, freedom and other such nonsense that says nothing is just that, nothing.

The Taiwanese are having something similar for breakfast today with their silicon industry. The island is a powerhouse in the development and manufacture of components for computer systems and anything else that requires chips, so that is where the strategic manufacturing facilities are located. To this end, it relies on the collaboration of mainland China, from which it obtains the raw materials for this industry. That is where Washington's interest lies, not what system of government the island has or the supposed threats from the mainland.

There are two sides to Washington's intentions. The first is that China does not manage to overcome and control the market for these components and the second is to take over the companies definitively and, if possible, transfer them to the US. 

For Joe Biden's administration, these manufacturing centres are in danger of falling into the hands of China, which is why the Pentagon is preparing a scorched-earth measure to deprive Beijing of this benefit. According to leaks, Washington would not hesitate to bomb the island's technology hubs in order to deprive the Chinese of the semiconductor business. This would be in case of an imminent risk of PRCh troops landing on the island. Once all Taiwan's facilities, personnel and industrial secrets are in the hands of Uncle Sam, what happens to the island and its “democratic progressive” government of Tsai Ing-wen will become secondary.

It is quite clear that the Taiwanese had no idea of this and would be wondering who is worse, our enemies in Beijing or our friends in Washington?

The Pentagon seems to have programmed pre-emptive action as described above in case these plans do not come to fruition, based on destruction by bombing or perhaps “mystery bombings” of all Taiwanese industry and, of course, the elimination of engineers who resist relocating to the US.