RED SIGNALS

Why have NATO allies themselves realised that a nuclear escalation is close at hand and they will be the first to be annihilated?

 

By Sidney Hey

Despite continued bombastic support from Washington for the activities of Volodymyr Zelensky's ultra-nationalist regime, including provocative visits by congressional representatives such as the unpresentable Republican Lindsey Graham endorsing terrorism against Russian citizens and ever more 'imaginative' means of disguising the reality on the ground, Ukraine's fate is sealed.

Therein lies the great danger not only for Ukrainian and Russian citizens or Europeans in general but for the whole world. While the Foreign Office and British Defence Minister Ben Wallace himself in London are encouraging the Kiev regime to multiply attacks inside Russian territory, Washington is already assessing the serious possibility that things could get out of hand and the senile President Joe Biden could order the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) and STRATCOM to turn the keys to the nuclear weapons commands.

Americans are aghast that their aging president is more dangerous to world peace than the fussy Donald Trump, whose supposed insanity was feted by the media throughout his term in office. Now the impoverished middle class and not to mention those on the fringes of the "American dream" who in the midst of a recession see billions of dollars going down the drain for military spending, CIA covert operations and funds to support a philonazi regime and its vicious hierarchs in Ukraine are questioning Have we been wrong again with another hoax like we were with Barack Obama?

But the questions are also being asked where things can get out of hand. The Polish officials had been behaving like the neighbourhood's braves because of the support and privileged treatment they were receiving from the bully next door (Washington), but over the past few months and from the results on the ground they know they are pulling the strings too much and that beyond any slight prejudice of the fairground charlatans being aired in the Western media (who talk of a counter-offensive that never comes), Vladimir Putin is far from being a lunatic who doesn't know what he is doing.

Andrzej Duda's government senses that the Americans and their loyal British partners will try to trap Russia in a strategic trap that would force Moscow to use its tactical nuclear capabilities and would mean that Warsaw could earn all the numbers to be hit by a tactical nuclear strike for harbouring weapons, personnel and ammunition that are being sent to Ukraine and are today being used on Russian territory. With this, Poland has become a legitimate target because of its responsibility as a party to the aggressions.

Russia is entitled to protect its population from the bombings and incursions that NATO mercenaries are promoting, and one of the options for responding is its nuclear resources.

If this were to happen it would no longer be a business, even for the jackal capitals of multinational corporations such as BlackRock that seek to win all the contracts to rebuild Ukraine, even without Zelensky in power.

That possibility has been contemplated by the Biden administration and even in a talk between Blinken, Sullivan, Bill Burns and the Pentagon chiefs Biden himself reportedly expressed little concern about collateral damage to his allies in Eastern Europe and in particular Poland.

This has infuriated the most recalcitrant Russophobes in the House of Representatives who are the most insidious and insistent instigators of (and despite the illegality of) further terrorist attacks on Russian soil.

As can be seen, it is the same logic that Washington has used to manage its operations abroad. Hiding behind their vassals who implement their dirty policies on the ground is the clearest manoeuvre of their hybrid war against Russia. Obviously their allies willingly participate in these plans and every government, such as the Polish government, puts its armed forces to the task under the operational direction of NATO and the US military itself.

The problem that these dispensable partners warn of is that it is one thing to provide conventional support (arms, equipment, men and bases) without danger to their own existence, as happened in the past against small countries like Iraq, Libya or Syria, and quite another to provoke a nuclear power like Russia. These concerns were expressed in a request for reports to the generals and the AW (Polish Intelligence Agency) in a simple question: How confident are we that NATO will protect us?

Meanwhile, the idea of nuclear escalation is in the air and the US is already operating psychologically to try to justify the unjustifiable.

In this plan and to begin to normalise this horrific idea, the intelligentsia and the Think Tanks of the media propaganda of the "collective West", using the excuse of a very debatable revisionism, are already novelising that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 "were not so bad", adding to this lucubration that, if they had not done so, "the alternative path would have been much worse".

With this we can speculate that a nuclear escalation is in the best interest of the war cult in Washington, so if Russia does not fall for the trap, will they stage a false flag nuclear attack?

 

CHINIFICACION

DE

ARGENTINA

¿Cuál es el significado de la visita realizada por el ministro Massa y el núcleo kirchnerista a China?

 

Por Charles H. Slim

Desde hace unos días, la delegación argentina que visita China se halla en una misteriosa ronda de tratativas que buscarían auxiliar no tanto al país y tampoco al descalabrado gobierno de Alberto Fernández, sino más bien dar luz vede a un proyecto político que entre gallos y medias noches, parece haberse definido por una orientación geopolítica clara.

Ante esto hay que reprochar la ausencia de un nacionalismo sano en los corazones de los argentinos que impulsara un desarrollo propio sin la necesidad de estar dependiendo durante una muy buena parte de su historia política, del dinero, las conexiones financieras y las influencias políticas angloestadounidenses. Lo que vemos hoy es el vuelco de la mesa hacia el otro extremo, una continuidad de aquello solo que esta vez, con un nuevo y exótico acreedor. Así mismo no se puede dejar de decir que también es el resultado de la atomización política de una sociedad, anómica, disociada y que apenas tienen nexos que los amalgame como nación.

Somos testigos del despertar chino que hace 25 años atrás algunos visionarios vaticinaban y como era de esperar, los políticos argentinos nunca le prestaron atención a este evento.

La delegación compuesta por el ministro de economía Sergio Massa, Máximo Kirchner, Cecilia Moreau, Juan Manuel Olmos y Miguel Pesce no solo fue a buscar renovar un préstamo en yuanes (que ciertamente no es muy sustancial para salvar la economía), es un clamor de último momento para establecer algún contacto de poder ante un previsible fracaso electivo próximo.

Esta claro que no fue un viaje institucional del gobierno argentino. Tampoco una visita de convencidos militantes comunistas maoístas. No se puede esconder el notorio tono partidista y pragmático que solo busca reforzar a un Kirchnerismo en retirada. Se trata sin lugar a dudas de una misión encargada por la misma vice Cristina Fernández. En especial lo que se buscaría es forjar una relación más directa entre la “Campora” y el Partido Comunista chino sin tener que aclarar quien absorbe a quien. Han tardado 20 años en decidirse entre quedar bajo la égida de Washington y la OTAN (como lo habían venido haciendo los llamados “liberales” de la oposición) o avanzar en un proyecto geopolítico que trabaje sobre el multilateralismo empujado por la Federación rusa y China.

Pese a este planteo simplista en “blanco y negro” de esta “opción”, en lo que hace a las relaciones económico-financieras, no existen estos extremos y antagonismos como si los vemos en lo político y militar. Podríamos sintetizar estas relaciones como un entretejido de seda que se oculta en el forro de una rústica campera de cuero. Es un espectro de los negocios en donde la ideología es un mero decorado. Así lo vemos con la deuda billonaria que EEUU tiene con China y a pesar de ello, Washington articula toda clase de artimañas y trucos sucios para tratar de dañar la economía y el comercio chino. Entonces ¿Por qué Pekín no ahorca al gobierno estadounidense con la deuda que tienen en su contra?

Esto explica un opaco equilibrio entre ambas potencias que no implica abstenerse de fomentar una política anti china y de buscar provocaciones para una agresión abierta. Guste o no, Argentina ha entrado en esta dinámica y si quiere sobrevivir deberá estar a la altura de las circunstancias.

Esta visita ha sido la ocasión para que los sectores anglófilos y sus medios amplificadores vomitaran toda clase de teorías de miedo poniendo como centro, el peligro de la autocracia y la “culpabilidad por la aparición del COVID” omitiendo -y como no podía ser de otro modo- las comprobadas implicancias de EEUU en su creación en laboratorios de bioguerra de Maryland y los que dirigía el Pentágono con la cooperación de privados como “Pfizer” y “Moderna” en Ucrania.

Queda claro que esos comentarios más que estar basados en argumentos reales son parte de la operación de desinformación y propaganda sinófoba en favor del relato político de Washington. Hasta un niño se da cuenta de ello. Cada manifestación de esta clase, pese a lo repudiable que pueda parecer, pone en evidencia el grado y clase de democracia a la cual representan estos sectores, la misma que aplican mediante invasiones, juegos sucios y torturas.

El estado argentino tiene derecho a establecer relaciones con cualquier país del mundo atendiendo a sus propios intereses y conveniencia, pero esta claro que los medios anglófilos de la capital siempre direccionaran un relato ya consabidamente conocido.

La profundización de las relaciones con China traen consigo ambiciosas expectativas que más allá de las ganancias que reportaran para el lado argentino, son geoestratégica y geopolíticamente invalorables para Pekín. No olvidemos que desde 2010 el gobierno de Cristina Fernández autorizó la instalación en un predio de 200 hectáreas de una base china en Bajada del Agrio, provincia del Neuquén que se denomina Estación de Espacio Lejano que tendría funciones de exploración del especio con fines civiles.

Por supuesto que esto último es una verdad a medias. China tiene un avanzado sistema de investigación aeroespacial destinado tanto a lo civil como a lo militar y en este último caso, avocado al desarrollo de misiles intercontinentales que en breve podrían equipararse a las potencialidades que poseen en el mismo ámbito la Federación rusa y de los EEUU.

En lo que hace este viaje, por la renovación del préstamo de yuanes China tendría en planificación la instalación de tres puertos multipropósito en puntos estratégicos de la Patagonia argentina siendo uno de ellos en Tierra del Fuego. Esto significaría un gran avance para la difunta actividad comercial marítima argentina y sin dudas, una oportunidad de desarrollo para proyectarse en un litoral abandonado a su suerte. Pero eso ¿Significara la chinificación? Dependerá del talante y carácter político que asuman las autoridades argentinas.

Según fuentes confiables, los chinos ya habían estado tratando y siguen en conversaciones con Gran Bretaña no solo por la cercanía a Puerto Stanley donde hay una base de la OTAN sino, por la ruta antártica que controlan los británicos. Tal vez habría que preguntarle al gobierno argentino ¿Están al tanto de estas promiscuas relaciones?

 

 

 

POPULISM NOT POPULAR AT ALL

What are the ideological and doctrinal bases of Argentine populism?

By Javier B. Dal

Throughout the American continent, from the extreme south to the north pole, the so-called populism in its most diverse colorations has been the political guideline of the governments of the last twenty years up to now. First of all, we must recognize who was the precursor of this current that displaced the old-fashioned leftists and the cadaverous Castro's communism.

It was Hugo César Chávez Frías, president of Venezuela and founder of the Bolivarian Revolution, who unknowingly created this current that would later even reach the very domains of Yankee imperialism, only aggiornado to the idiosyncrasy and cold American character, where it was embodied in the figure of an eccentric and contentious multimillionaire like Donald Trump, who did not belong to the elitist club of the corrupt democratic system.

Undoubtedly, Chávez was closer to Peron 's third position than the K's. The only thing the K's conceived was, under the screen of "progressivism", to generate a clientelism that was paid with "rights" many times translated in kind (pensions, subsidies, food bags, etc.).

Chávez was followed and imitated by other world leaders. Some crossed the ocean and after establishing strong friendships and lasting cooperation ties, they took his imprint and vision with them to put them into practice in their own countries. Others in the region did the same, although with less enthusiasm and much more pragmatism, weaving relationships that zigzagged with the policies that Washington was bringing down through the OAS and some of the obsequious in the region.

But there was another that we could say that their approach was at the very least, fearful or even more so, self-interestedly limited. This is how the approach of the then government of Néstor Kirchner to Chávez may be described. And the fact is that in reality there was nothing in common between that man who had a global political vision that installed the idea of "multilateralism" and that other ungainly and petty speculator who during his entire political life, had been a careerist in the shadow of the established power who now played at revolution.

The so-called Kirchnerism had nothing revolutionary and even less popular. Its passage through the state has been to enhance what the old politics has been doing for decades: Stealing from the people. But to that he added one more task: to turn the state into a pilgrimage under the control of pimps and activists of anachronistic seventies organizations that made of public employment, the only source of work.

The local journalism, which can hardly criticize for its constant obsequiousness and slavish loyalty to every government that passes through the Pink House, today pretends to be astonished and ardently lashes out at a government that is sinking due to its own ineffectiveness. No one like them has been in the heat of the power of the moment. In the worst case, some journalists are so predictable in their comments that they cannot hide their political and geopolitical inclinations that contaminate the information.

But in the Argentinean case, what has been the geopolitical production of this K populism during the twenty years of government, has any strategic planning been formulated for Argentina facing the century it is going through, has Kirchner or his wife Fernández had any vision of global scope as Chávez had, has he had any vision of global scope as Chávez had?  The answer is none. Besides contributing to the intellectual impoverishment of their own cadres with obtuse leaders and the whole society (with a very poor elementary education), they have destroyed basic concepts for governance and the so called rule of law. The country has regressed in all aspects in which a supposed revolutionary populism would have excelled. Did the misery and general precariousness that shakes the country and its inhabitants arise from an intermittent struggle against the empire or the continuity of the struggle for the Malvinas Islands?

Venezuela suffers a siege of illegal sanctions driven from Washington and supported by the EU and Israel precisely because of the policies (national and international) driven by Chávez and inherited by Maduro. The K's did not bother any of these dangerous actors, on the contrary, they have always been aligned to them and (as the opposition) will be sitting at the same table showing their obsequious smiles. At no time did Néstor Kirchner or CFK condemn Israel's atrocities and much less did they expel their consular representation as Chávez did.

Kirchnerism is a political scam to say the least.

The flirtations with Russia and the cautious negotiations with China remained just that and today there is only an interested relationship with the latter to receive some coins to help a country that they themselves ended up ruining. The Argentine state has become so destructured that Buenos Aires cannot even control its vital spaces to intimidate (let alone stop) the fishing plundering that Chinese ships carry out with the complacency of the Kelper authorities in the Malvinas.

It does not take much imagination to guess that before the war, during the CFK administration, Vladimir Putin already knew that he was dealing with no one and therefore Russia could not expect anything. The Russian Federation could have provided interesting proposals to restructure a geopolitics that would give the country a power base for negotiations on a minimum equal footing with Washington and London. But as we have said before, that would have been too stressful for politicians used to being under the table picking up the crumbs of global financial power. Therefore, when Alberto Fernandez in his February 2022 visit to Moscow told Putin that he wanted to be the gateway to Russia, the Russian leader already knew that they were just words that would be blown away by the wind.

Who put Kirchnerism in power? It was the same Argentines who, trusting in that corrupt system that in 2001 clamored "for them all to leave" and dressed up as a democracy, is only a club for and only for those who are members and not distinguished in any way from a corporation. Today all of them suffer inflation, an insufferable tax increase and the rise in prices of basic foodstuffs such as bread and fruit, not because of an embargo by the empire (as it is suffered by those who really oppose it) but because of a lousy administration, the political-administrative corruption entrenched in the state that sucks billions of pesos for the payment of salaries and pensions of an army of totally useless militants.

Far from giving identity to a people who are accustomed to being abulic and distant from the world, the stay of this K populism only served to install adulterated narratives of history, thus helping to disintegrate even more the already decimated self-perception of national identity that the “porteños” give to their own country.

Will the next elections change the destiny of the country?

 

 

MINISTERIO DE LA VERDAD

En la Argentina, un país fracturado y sumido en una crisis cíclica, sus medios se hallan más ocupados en sus problemas domésticos ¿Pero quiénes informan sobre la realidad internacional?

 

Por Sir Charlattam

Quizá no haya más valerosos y arriesgados periodistas, que aquellos que se mantienen fieles a su sentido crítico e independientes de las empresas de negocios de la información manejadas por empresarios quienes a su vez responden a las cloacas del sistema. Así lo vimos con Julian Assange[1] quien por su osada actividad de informar lo que realmente estaba detrás de toda la pantomima de la “lucha contra el terror” y de los crímenes que se cometían bajo esa excusa, hoy se halla en un cadalso de la supuesta democracia occidental.

Tampoco olvidemos a quienes como las periodistas Serena Shim[2] y Shaireen Abu Akleh[3]  fueron asesinados por estas supuestas democracias

Cosas de la vida diría un viejo amigo. Pero en el negocio de los medios, a pesar del daño que han causado durante años y en especial en los últimos treinta, está en baja y ello por el simple motivo de que la gente no les cree.

Eso no significa que dejen de recibir dinero para seguir operando. En Argentina y en especial en la ciudad de Buenos Aires el nivel de operatividad de la propaganda de medios “anti”, es rabiosa. Como diría el periodista irlandés Declan Hayes (con quien suscribo sus fabulosos artículos), “son un órgano más de la propaganda del gobierno”. En razón de verdad debo aclarar que aquí a diferencia de lo que ocurre en el Reino Unido, la estructura cloacal de los servicios de inteligencia es tan difusa y sin objetivos estratégicos reales, que no se puede saber a ciencia cierta quien realmente ordena y a quienes responden.

Pero si hacemos un ejercicio deductivo y usamos el raciocinio, podemos advertir quienes en la Argentina son los que digitan la propaganda vinculada a los temas de información internacional.

Así como la BBC de Londres ha dado aire a “gloriosos” pederastas (como Jimmy Savile)[4] y memorables psicópatas (como George Orwell o Andrew Marr) controlado por el MI5 y el MI6, en un país como la Argentina donde su círculo rojo (y en especial sus intelectuales) que no hay dudas está colonizado por intereses anglófilos y en particular por el Foreign Office ¿Por qué no estarían bajo el mismo control?

El cierto que la BBC es un medio público y por ello, subvencionado por los impuestos de los ciudadanos, como el viejo ATC y hoy conocida como “Televisión Argentina” pero, en lo que hace al espectro privado, no hay dudas que las editoriales de los principales medios privados siguen al pie de la letra las líneas políticas que descaradamente bajan desde Washington. Claro que se amparan en el derecho a seguir la editorial que mejor les convenga.

Bajo ese amparo, estos medios se sirven a replicar las mismas mentiras e intoxicaciones sobre la situación internacional que sus colegas de la CNN y la BBC difunden con total desparpajo ¿Acaso creen que lo hacen gratis? 

Si te pones a leer los portales de los “prominentes diarios” porteños, o ver sus programas de noticias y ni que decir escuchar algunas radios de la capital, solo hablan de una realidad monolítica en lo que hoy ocurre en Ucrania, el Medio Oriente y ni te digo de Palestina a la que invisibilizan (en particular las aberraciones contra los derechos humanos de los palestinos) hablando solo de Israel. Incluso, algunos de sus corresponsales en el extranjero, especialmente en Londres y París, son tan exageradamente obsecuentes y tendenciosos que no sería extraño que sus editores, por vergüenza ajena o más bien para no ser tan obvios les hayan llamado a moderar su babeo pro-anglosionista.

Estos sujetos son convencidos partidarios del hegemonismo angloestadounidense al cual le aderezan esa condición representativa y seudo-moralista de “judeo-cristiano” para distinguir y apartar a todo aquel que no entra en ese universo creado bajo ese odioso relativismo. En concreto, son férreos defensores del unilateralismo político que emana de Washington, sostenido militarmente por la OTAN ante un multilateralismo que les agobia de solo pensarlo.

Si eres un ciudadano extranjero viviendo o paseando en Buenos Aires y escucharas los medios para enterarte de lo que está sucediendo en el mundo, mejor apaga el radio y escucha música por FM. Realmente podrías quedar más confundido de lo que imaginas. Hay tanta operación en estos medios como exponentes tienen un micrófono delante pero con una particularidad, la mayoría a favor del relato anti-oriental y particularmente islamófobo, rusófobo y sinófobo.

Hay que hacer una aclaración. Son los medios capitalinos los que están más comprometidos con este relato y no tanto los del interior pertenecientes a otras 24 jurisdicciones ¿La razón? Es en Buenos Aires donde está el dinero y las oficinas extranjeras.

Pero no todos los medios capitalinos venden toxicidad. Son los más vinculados al Establecimiento los que mienten o repiten las mentiras de sus colegas del norte. Por ejemplo, una de las últimas invenciones de los medios europeos fue la de un supuesto ataque ucraniano sobre un edificio en Mariupol que habría matado a unos 600 soldados rusos muertos ¿Así? Cuando se hizo un chequeo del supuesto ataque, nadie reporto algo semejante ni siquiera una explosión con lo cual el engaño estaba dirigido a la opinión pública occidental. Hasta el edificio supuestamente demolido por el ataque que decía la fuente, no existía.

Pero el encubrimiento es más amplio y abarca desde las causas hasta los efectos de lo que originó la guerra. Los medios argentinos además de repetir a pie juntillas lo que el Servicio Global de la BBC y otras agencias que ofician como parte de la propaganda atlantista pecan de un gran amateurismo para no decir que no saben nada de lo que realmente ocurre.

Aquí para ser sinceros, la influencia de ese “ministerio de la verdad” angloestadounidense solo abarca a medios y presentadores que hoy cuentan con muy poca credibilidad tanto, que hoy han sido reemplazados por plataformas como Twitter.

---

[1] https://www.es.amnesty.org/actua/acciones/eeuu-assange-libertad-feb20/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serena_Shim

[3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/11/shireen-abu-akleh-israeli-forces-kill-al-jazeera-journalist 

[4] Presentado durante años como un prócer del medio británico fue considerado como “depredador sexual”: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile

 

THE DARK SIDE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

Why does the support the US and its Atlanticist partners give to Kiev have nothing to do with a struggle for democracy?

 

By Sidney Hey

After the total seizure of the city of Artemosvk, we saw how the Kiev regime was exposed as being in a very difficult situation. Almost immediately, and as a way of covering up the disastrous failure, the CIA and its collaborators launched direct actions on Russian territory using mercenary groups equipped with NATO weapons and vehicles.

The desperation did not stop there and they soon showed how far they could go to try to reverse a situation that the Americans themselves knew was irreversible. Not many hours passed before the head of Ukrainian military intelligence Vadim Skibitski publicly acknowledged that his area has as targets to assassinate the head of the PMC Wagner Yevgeny Prigozhin and President Vladimir Putin himself, confirming (despite the silence of the Western media) that they have been behind all the attacks and assassinations carried out inside Russia.

In the light of this confession one has to ask where is international law?

But we know that these terrorist actions cannot be carried out without Washington's approval and even less without the coordination of its executive tool, the CIA. From the very beginning of Operation Special Military Operation we saw the CIA, special forces groups and their British colleagues manoeuvring in Ukraine.  Using proxy groups employing terror tactics, they are trying to extend the field of action to Russian territory.

The latest attacks on Russian territory in Belgorod using equipment, M1224 (MRAP) vehicles, Humvees and US man-portable weapons are evidence of this surreptitious cooperation.

As can be seen, we are faced with a discursive contradiction of the self-proclaimed “democratic” political administration of the USA, which clashes head-on with a sinister contemporary policy by means of which it invaded, destroyed countries, kidnapped, tortured and murdered tens of thousands of people under the argument of the “fight against terrorism” and in “defence of democracy”. 

It was in those dark years that all those actions were carried out that a fascist force can undertake against those it considers its enemies, degrading them to subhumanity. If we were to list just the Iraqi families who were killed and/or decimated by the Anglo-American “liberators” and their hired thugs, we would need thousands of pages and just as many pages to write those killed by the “Islamic State” hoax.

The worst of all this is the role of international justice, which seems to be a mute mimic of this power and which, because of this subjection, has not given a response to all these crimes against humanity. This is where the International Criminal Court's proclaimed and much publicised arrest warrants for the Russian president and his closest officials become not only illegitimate, but an overacted parody.

Skibistki's statements are a confession of crimes that do not seem to have moved the biased Western media or to have been heard by the ICC prosecutor.

What the CIA carried out on Russian territory and what we are seeing lately in Belgorod is nothing more than executing terrorist operations using Slavic assets and Russian opponents who have no scruples about killing civilians and the more they kill the better. Where have we seen this before? Ah yes. After those bizarre attacks of September 11, 2001, the federal government, controlled by a neo-conservative-Zionist clique, had the convenient path open -under the excuse of terrorism- to cancel the guarantees and freedoms of all.

Amusingly, the then administration bloated the budget through the roof by multiplying the intelligence bureaucracy by creating a dozen agencies and with them, thousands of jobs, and with them, thousands of black budgets to pay panderers and other unreliable sources of information.

We immediately saw the same foul play in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, using black budgets to pay irregular groups like those operating for Kiev today, only changing the origin of the human resources. Thus it was that with the use of criminals, Arab mercenaries and CIA assets from old secret programmes like “Al Qaeda”, the US breathed chaos into the Middle East and North Africa and today is trying to direct them against Russia and Belarus.

All that bloodshed and chaos not only served geopolitical purposes but also drove big business and stock market movements that ultimately enriched a few corporate firms and the public officials who made this whole scam possible, involving an endless chain of individuals (from the suppliers of toilet paper to the military to the psychiatrists who supervised the torture in Abu Graib, Bagram and Guantánamo) who, paid to serve this enterprise, have now been discarded from the system that used them.

The same interests also exist in Ukraine, which is why the same strategy is being replicated with similar tactics.

The latest declarations by Kiev's intelligence officer show that beyond the danger to the security of the Russian Federation, there is an evident connivance between Washington and London, which, together with the increase in arms that they are sending to the Ukrainians and the undeniable alliance they have forged with neo-Nazis throughout the region, sustain terrorist actions on Russian territory. In light of the evidence and despite Western media censorship, Washington's vaunted democracy is being called into question.

Many are asking, is the US seeking Russia's overreaction?