BUMER WA`ER DEEPER STAMER

Will the election of Labour's Keir Stamer as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom make any difference to the situation of ordinary Britons and the relationship of conflict in foreign policy?

 

By Sir Charlattam 

The day after the election the streets of London did not change at all and the apathy of the public remained as it had been since the day before. Why should we Britons change our faces over the election of a new bureaucrat who is as conservative, if not more so, than the banker Sunak?

So when I sat down in my favourite pub in Piccadilly Circus for breakfast, the look on the face of the girl who came to serve me said it all. 

It didn't end there. When I bumped into my old friend and running buddy "Joe" who lives on the east side of London, as soon as he looked at me he said with his characteristic sarcasm "Bumer, wa`er, deeper the better man has won and it's Stamer" or something like that. He wasn't really celebrating, he was just trying to tease me with his lousy cockney sense of humour to see how I would react, as he knows very well who the new PM is.

Keir Stamer, a lawyer who took over the leadership of the Labour Party made it to 10 Downing Street for one reason: Britain was going anywhere and someone had to be put in. Some see him as a centre-right Labour and pro-Israel sympathiser who will continue to protect the Israeli position, others see him as a centrist who will seek balance without such extreme tendencies, and others see him as a true Labour man with the pragmatism that goes with it.

As a lawyer and human rights specialist, it would be quite difficult to argue that he should continue to endorse the massacres and genocide in Palestine which is internationally recognised. Although he has already shown his complacency with local Zionist sectors, appealing to anti-Semitism to try to justify silence about what Israel is committing is a very weak argument for a lawyer of his ilk.

If the new Prime Minister were a staunch friend of the IFC that should not interfere with his functional loyalty to the British people as he has been elected to represent their interests and those of the whole realm. Humanity does not go one way and I think no one should have to tell him that. From what is known of his sober personality we should not expect ridiculous stridencies of populism like those of the clownish Johnson or the "airhead" Truss who helped a lot in the so-called "Tory" disgrace.

Although Stamer tries to validate his sympathy for Israel by talking about how he secretly hated Corbyn for his support for the Palestinian cause, that should not be a licence to carry on with the same script as the CFI-friendly Tories.

There is much to get back on track and Stamer knows he does not have the time, let alone the public mood, to splurge. Either all Britons are listened to and served equally, or only those who go to synagogue and contribute the millions to fund local politicians. Halting the plummeting domestic socio-economic-political situation left by Rishi Sunak and fifteen years of conservative policies with a foreign policy wedded to Washington's guidelines is too much to change in one fell swoop.

Stamer appears sober and serious, character traits that suit him well for leading a country. Some might even say he looks more like a typical Conservative than Labour. But these particularities will help him as he will find a structure in the state (especially in MI6) with many Conservative subjects and especially in the foreign policy of the Foreign Office, a nest of pro-Israeli followers who will not want to spill their sympathies with the Jewish people but rather their political loyalty to Netanyahu and his gang of Kosher criminals who, with the Conservatives, showed their tough faces.

He has said "country first, party second", which sounds very gentlemanly and even credible, but the vested interests that exist after so many years of being pushed by the Americans into other people's backyards like Libya, Ukraine, the Red Sea and all that is happening in the Gaza Strip, it is very difficult for him to extricate himself and the country from these dark compromises left by the Conservatives. 

Britain needs to return to balance and, if you like, apply the BREXIT doctrine in a good sense. That would be that the decisions made in London are for the benefit of and for the British people and not for cliques operating in parliament that in turn respond to orders from Washington that at the same time bring with them corporations and private subjects linked especially to arms deals and developments that will only benefit them.

Two essential issues he already has to resolve are the fall in employment, the rise in the cost of living which in large part stem from the exit from the pandemic and the subjection to US geopolitics over Ukraine which ended in a war that has only brought more calamity for all European citizens, including of course the British.

In reference to the odious comparisons that some have already been making with former PM Tony Blair, beyond the notorious personality differences that anyone can see between a dour Stamer and that charlatan from Edinburgh, let's hope that for the good of the British and the rest of the EU he does not end up being similar. It was Blair, behind that sinister smile, who, having taken umbrage at the findings of weapons inspector David Kelly who refuted arguments about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, reportedly ordered measures to silence him. And what happened? Kelly turned up in July 2003 dead in his garden staging a suicide.

We must not forget that Blair, in order to ingratiate himself with the US neo-conservatives who were encouraged by AIPAC and others, got the country into two calamitous wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, where, in addition to the lies that underpinned them, horrendous human rights violations, trampling on international law, were proven, as reflected in the "Chilcot report". 

Let us just hope that the new PM does not mess up as his predecessors did.   

 

PERSPECTIVAS PARA UNA NUEVA ADMINISTRACIÓN DE TRUMP

Con la evidencia de la inocultable incapacidad de Joe Biden de incluso poder terminar su mandato y la asombrosa exoneración al candidato Trump por parte de la Corte Suprema todo indica que será este último el próximo inquilino de La Casa Blanca ¿Qué podemos esperar de este regreso?

 

Por Charles H. Slim

Es un hecho que los demócratas la embarraron en grande durante los cuatro años que estuvieron en el poder y Joe Biden en particular ayudo mucho en ello. Desde sus distópicas y demagógicas políticas domésticas hasta las imperdonables torpezas en política exterior (Afganistán, Ucrania e Israel), especialmente en los últimos dos casos que han puesto al mundo al borde de la tercera guerra, han llevado a los EEUU por un camino de incertidumbre dejando muy claro que ha perdido el rumbo que alguna vez fijaron sus fundadores.

Si recordamos que George Washington dijo y quedo plasmado en su discurso de despedida, que los principales intereses de la Unión con respecto a otras naciones extranjeras eran ampliar las relaciones comerciales sin mezclarlas con las relaciones políticas o hacerlo de la menor manera posible, intuimos que algo no calza con la realidad contemporánea. Esta breve referencia informa sobre como las administraciones posteriores -incluido en cierta medida a Trump- hasta llegar al presente han deformado el espíritu político original que tenía EEUU, llevándola a un enredo geopolítico actual imposible de deshacer.

En resumen, los padres fundadores diferenciándose de sus colonizadores británicos, habían sentado las bases de una política exterior no intervencionista.

La OTAN es el epítome de esta situación. Creada en 1949 para contra restar la temida influencia política de la URSS que seis años después y por razón de aquella creo su contrapartida PAC VAR, hace tiempo que dejó de tener ese propósito ¿Por qué? Porque hace ya 33 años que dicha amenaza desapareció. Entonces ¿Por qué sigue en pie?

La respuesta más general y a grandes rasgos que se puede dar es que, es un negocio muy lucrativo para cerrarlo.

Como este es un hecho imposible de negar, los imaginativos cerebros del partido de la guerra compuesto por neoconservadores (demócratas y republicanos) y socios interesados como son los Lobbies pro-Israel y todo el arco de sionistas que les sirven (judíos y no judíos) han superpuesto a aquellos intereses mencionados por Washington y Jefferson la idea de una “obligación moral” de que EEUU vaya por el mundo esparciendo la democracia y la libertad, que en realidad son excusas para concretar objetivos políticos-negociales ligados a sus propios intereses.  

Esto ha conformado la base de grandes calamidades contemporáneas detrás de las cuales se hallan grandes negociados y fraudes de estos sectores para beneficio propio a costa de la Unión y que han llevado a verse involucrado en cuanta guerra le convenga a esos intereses. Biden ha hecho una gran contribución en esta corruptela y Ucrania será una herencia pesada para quien lo suceda.

El cambio de polaridad es notorio. Del no intervencionismo de los padres fundadores que respeta la autonomía política de las otras naciones al feroz y descarnado intervencionismo que ha llegado a niveles extremadamente obscenos ¿Retomaría Trump estos principios fundacionales?

Cuando Donald Trump entro a La Casa Blanca en 2016, lo hizo de la mano de una imagen contraria a esta situación denunciando a la corrupta elite política y financiera como los beneficiarios de esto. Es cierto y en concordancia con ello ataco a la adhesión de EEUU a la OTAN involucrando a los “fellows americans” en guerra ajenas haciendo centro en la desigualdad en los aportes que prestan cada uno de los miembros. Los estadounidenses llevan la mayor parte de la carga para el sostenimiento de esta organización y ello hace a costa de los contribuyentes. Esa es la visión de Trump sobre la injerencia en política exterior que solo pasa por lo estrictamente económico, pero ¿Qué sucedería si esas cargas económicas se equipararan?, ¿Trump seguiría siendo un opositor a mantener al país en la OTAN?

Adelanto que ello no cambiaría su posición. Trump no es el aislacionista que muchos hablan y mucho menos, que surja de los fundamentos de los padres fundadores. Como buen empresario y hombre de negocios, el interés hace a la medida de sus acciones y si la gratificación es interesante que no queden dudas que hará lo mismo que sus predecesores.

Pero más allá de esta peculiaridad personal, Trump demostró durante su administración que su aislacionismo no lo era tanto. Durante su administración suministró misiles “Javelin” y otros equipos a los neonazis de Kiev que fueron usados contra los pobladores del Donbás.  Su reprobable reconocimiento de Jerusalen como capital del estado de Israel, dio prueba de que podía ir tan lejos como cualquiera de los serviles del “estado profundo” que él criticaba. Otra fue, su enconada oposición a negociar en buenos términos con China y su fracaso de llegar a un entendimiento con Corea del Norte, marcando de forma indirecta el acatamiento a la agenda de los neoconservadores del Partido de la guerra. La única diferencia con agenda de estos último es su respeto y cierta admiración hacia el mandatario ruso algo que parte de aquellos no le toleran.

Pero también, hubo otras señales controvertidas y más cruentas que echan por tierra ese supuesto aislacionismo. Recordemos como su autorización para que la CIA (con la implicancia israelí) asesinara en enero del 2020 al comandante iraní Qassem Soleimani en momentos que salía del aeropuerto de Bagdad, (además de las inmediatas consecuencias) marco otra señal de apoyo a la geopolítica de Israel que veía con temor el despliegue iraní en Quneitra, Siria.

En conclusión, podemos ver que Donald Trump no es el outsider que los medios establecidos habían vendido y que como cualquier político de la elite en Washington es tan pragmático como su conveniencia se lo indique, haciendo todo lo que el estado profundo le ordene. Incluso si llegase a tratar de esquivar esos intereses impulsado por su impredecible personalidad, correrá serio riesgo de ser removido de La Casa Blanca.

Es por eso que olvídense que hará algo por detener la guerra en Ucrania -salvo que tome enserio los aprestos de la Federación Rusa- y mucho menos en ponerle límites al pequeño y sanguinario estado de Israel.

 

 

 

SIGNALLING

SIGNALS

How can the shooting down of a US spy drone over the Black Sea be interpreted and what are the immediate political consequences?

 

By Sidney Hey

I don't remember who it was who said that human beings are the only animals that trip over the same stone twice, but it is a truism. I think I would rephrase that saying with one of my own that says "the only human beings who do the same stupid things twice are the Anglo-Saxons" in the light of recent events in both Ukraine and the USA.

While I was resting peacefully in Horbat, one of my contacts who is up to date on what is happening in Ukraine sent me the news of the terrorist attack on the Crimean beaches committed by the Ukrainians of Zelensky, in which two children were killed. What's new about that, you tell me? What was revealing, though not so revealing, was that a US-made ATACMS missile caused this and Washington is playing the sore-eyed.

It is true that the US and its Atlanticist partners have been intervening in Ukraine since the beginning of the war and that their weapons have killed many Russian civilians including those in the Donbas. Even the CIA trying to create internal commotion and discredit against Putin has committed terrorist attacks in Moscow itself and they have refined this tactic by employing their Islamist assets as we saw in Crocus Hall and most recently in Dagestan.

I am sure that the Russian public already knows all this. There are also signs that Putin has said enough is enough, beyond the return bombing of critical Ukrainian infrastructure, and has begun to implement more effective measures to prevent these terrorist actions from being carried out with impunity.

The first loud and clear signal was the shooting down more than eight days ago of a US Navy "MQ9-Reaper" drone operating over the Black Sea. While Washington has denied this episode -a blow to Yankee pride- the fact is that the flights of these aircraft were unexpectedly suspended until further notice. No one in Washington or Langley has said a word.

Those familiar with the subject know that such aircraft are used by the Americans (and NATO) as one of their ISR assets for reconnaissance, surveillance and marking of targets to be attacked by their patrons. In short, they are part of the electronic intelligence assets that the Americans collect and then provide to Ukrainian far-right battalions to carry out their terrorist attacks. There is no doubt that the ATACMS missiles that fell and caused the massacre on the Crimean beach were guided by information provided by this intelligence source.

But beyond the countermeasures that Russia seems to be successfully implementing to end this strategic cooperation on terror, there is a very complex scenario at the moment in both the US and the EU that does not favour plans to continue the war.

In the case of the US, we saw this with the hilarious show staged to promote the presidential candidacies between Donald Trump and incumbent Joe Biden and candidate of the war party. After such a demonstration of absence and lack of intellectual coordination by the current president, Americans who maintained some degree of credibility in his administration began to question whether it wasn't really true about his inability to govern, including his decisions to continue solving other people's wars.

There is no doubt that Donald Trump lent a hand to this reflex. In addition to exposing the senile condition of his adversary, he put on the table his view of what he would do if he gets to the White House, and that would be to end the war.

As far as the EU is concerned, the tectonic (not to say cataclysmic) changes in the domestic politics of its main members are already causing panic among Washington's subjects such as Ursula Von Der Leyen, the brand new NATO Secretary Mark Rutte and the entire staff of subordinates that make up the Union. In particular the situation in France, with the landslide victory of Marine Le Pen's right wing, which will undoubtedly bring about serious changes for French institutions and citizens that could mean, in addition to a redirection of foreign policy, reforms in the country's status as a member of the EU or, if that were more convenient for France, simply its exit from the bloc.

This in turn would be compounded by the change that is already underway in Britain with Labour's return to power, which seems to have been listening to the cries of ordinary Britons and their needs, issues so neglected by Rishi Sunak and the Conservative camp as a whole. 

Beyond these extraordinary circumstances, Vladimir Putin has already begun to structure a new multipolar security system that does not necessarily resemble NATO but aims to be more effective and efficient in building a security framework against the malicious interference of the collective West, extending to all states that agree with the principles of the BRICS+ to guarantee autonomous development, free from subtle interference and detached from Washington's extortionist hegemonism.

 

 

 

 

ESTRATEGIA DEL DIA DESPÙES

¿Cómo y Por qué el gabinete de Netanyahu pretendería dar un golpe de efecto para tratar de revertir la pésima situación de su campaña bélica en la Franja de Gaza y el deterioro del frente norte?

Por Charles H. Slim

La presión sobre la administración supremacista de Netanyahu se ha vuelto insoportable y eso la vuelve mucho más peligrosa al momento de tomar decisiones. La guerra de exterminio en Gaza no va nada bien y lo único que las FDI saben ejecutar son indiscriminadas masacres contra la población. Ello a su vez ha retroalimentado a la resistencia árabe-islámica que desde el día uno, intensificó sus operaciones desde el sur del Líbano pero también sumándose la que “Ansar Allah” y las fuerzas regulares yemeníes ejecutan sobre el Mar Rojo.

Cuando algunos miembros del gabinete de supremacistas judíos sugirieron usar armas nucleares para exterminar a toda la población palestina de la Franja de Gaza, a “Bibi” Netanyahu y compañía la idea no les molesto por lo cruenta y bestial de la propuesta sino, porque se había filtrado al conocimiento público. Incluso, esta idea es entusiastamente compartida por rabinos y evangelistas neosionistas estadounidenses, comprometidos con esa teología mesiánica que justifica masacrar a los gentiles ya que no tiene castigo.

Hoy ante la crítica situación y el desafío que representa Hezbolá en el frente norte, los funcionarios más extremistas del gabinete de Netanyahu parecen estar considerando como cartas bajo la manga el uso de ojivas nucleares tácticas, dispositivos que seguramente cuentan en una buena cantidad los secretos arsenales israelíes y que han podido desarrollarse por un programa nuclear que ya tiene más de seis décadas propiciado por la colaboración francesa y estadounidense y (por supuesto) nunca inspeccionado por la AIEA.

Aunque muchos analistas en occidente -particularmente los pro-israelies- van a tratar de ridiculizar esta posibilidad, lo cierto es que las FDI hace años que entrena en el desierto del Negev donde cuenta con un polígono dedicado a esta materia. Las fuerzas israelíes cuentan con su propio protocolo Químico, Biológico y Nuclear “QBN” y sus hombres (además de sus vehículos acorazados) están equipados para operar bajo una contingencia como sería un campo de batalla radiado. El uso de dispositivos nucleares tácticos hace tiempo que dejaron de ser una teoría. Durante la invasión de Arabia Saudita al Yemen en 2015, la aviación saudí lanzo de forma indiscriminada y en varias oportunidades, bombas con esta clase de ojivas sin que Naciones Unidas y su agencia de control de armas prohibidas hubiera realizado una investigación profunda y comprometida sobre el proceder de esos artefactos.

Recordemos que en esos momentos se encontraba Barack Obama en La Casa Blanca y más allá de las supuestas desinteligencias con Tel Aviv y los lobbies pro-israelies estadounidenses como AIPAC, habría permitido que de forma secreta y bajo supervisión del Pentágono, los israelíes le facilitaran estos dispositivos tácticos para montarlos en los aviones F-15 de la Real Fuerza Aérea Saudí. Para ello fue necesario que asesores israelíes y estadounidenses viajaran a Riad para trabajar secretamente en los detalles técnicos de su montaje y obviamente en impartir instrucción a los pilotos que iban a realizar los ataques.

Pero más allá de esta experiencia de la cual Tel Aviv utilizó para comprobar el funcionamiento de estos dispositivos en un campo de batalla real, la situación en lo que respecta al sur del Líbano y en particular a las fuerzas de la resistencia árabe-islámica liderada por Hezbolá no son la misma. Por supuesto que estas armas asegurarían una destrucción devastadora y hasta en cierto sentido una ventaja táctica superlativa, pero las consecuencias para los propios israelíes serían impredecibles.

Incluso, los mismos generales israelíes saben que ello no sería suficiente para quebrar la operatividad de Hezbolá y muy posiblemente pueda ocasionar un escenario mucho peor para la supervivencia del propio estado. Incluso el efecto disuasorio que algunos buscan, tampoco se podría garantizar, si tomamos en cuenta la misteriosa explosión en el puerto de Beirut en agosto del 2020. Con eso en consideración algún comandante de las FDI se estaría preguntando ¿Cuánto tiempo podríamos mantener a nuestros hombres en el terreno? Y una vez respondida esa cuestión ¿Bastarían nuestras tropas para una operación semejante? Sin dudas que en esta última cuestión, entraría la posible intervención estadounidense con lo cual, implicaría para Washington saltar a una nueva guerra por Israel.

Eso en lo militar. En lo que hace a lo político, la intensión de un estado de utilizar esta clase de armamento estaría rompiendo (no cruzando) todas las líneas rojas que el derecho internacional y el sentido común pueden tolerar. A diferencia de años anteriores en los cuales Israel escondía sus juegos sucios bajo la alfombra y maquillaba esas situaciones ante la opinión pública con la complicidad de los medios angloestadounidenses, la reiteración de nuevas masacres contra poblaciones civiles y el ya comprobado uso de armas químicas sobre centros urbanos como Gaza y localidades de Cizjordania, pondría al estado de Israel en una posición insostenible.

Tampoco hay que fiarse de las supuestas gestiones de buena voluntad del enviado de Washington al Líbano ya que, al igual que el Secretario de Estado norteamericano Anthony Blinken y del ala de neoconservadores que han estado detrás de Biden, es un sionista incondicional y por ello responde al único interés de los planes de Netanyahu y cía.

No olvidemos que tras los ataques iraníes del 13 y 14 de abril pasado, Tel Aviv habría intentado vengarse mediante la incursión furtiva de un F-35 armado con un artefacto nuclear para detonarlo en la estratosfera iraní buscando causar un apagón total. Ello no habría ocurrido gracias a que ese avión fue derribado sobre los cielos jordanos sin precisarse quien fue el que lo derribo.

Sabemos que Netanyahu y sus funcionarios en especial su ministro de defensa Yoav Gallant pronto saldrían a esgrimir el “derecho a la defensa” que solo es receptado por un público adepto y todo un rosario de excusas que a estas alturas nadie por fuera del sionismo se traga. Incluso, si Tel Aviv lanzara esta clase de armas sobre el Líbano, Naciones Unidas y en especial su Consejo de Seguridad deberían intervenir de forma ineludible ya que ello podría propiciar a que cualquier país con capacidad nuclear se vea tácitamente justificado a usar estas armas.

Y por último, un factor ineludible y que ni el mismo Netanyahu puede obviar es, las elecciones estadounidenses en noviembre. Sabe que un mal cálculo podría costarle su ya derruida carrera. 

A BOLIVIAN HOAX?

What could be the real implications behind the military attempt against the government of Luis Arce?

By Danny Smith

The surprising and disorganized military movement in Bolivia on June 26th, beyond the press gazettes and the versions that would be installed after the arrest of the rebels, nothing was clear and there are many suspicions that both the government of Luis Arce and the rebels of General Juan Jose Zuñiga have been deceived.

As we always say, let us step back a little and look at the context to understand who from the outside could have taken advantage of the internal vicissitudes that the country has been going through. The Bolivian political elite, both on the right and on the left, are deeply divided, a regional and even global phenomenon that we also see in Argentina, making it impossible to reach a reasonable consensus. With this in consideration and taking into account the contemporary political background in La Paz, who from the outside would have an interest in weakening the chances of a return of MAS to power under the leadership of Evo Morales?

It would be a very easy answer to say that the Bolivian elite, always in tune with the US State Department, would be very interested in this, not because it is not so, but because it is simply a truism. The crux of the matter is to unveil who are the others interested in the destabilization of this region and could take advantage of the occasion to carry out their own operation.

There is a well-known aversion of some external actors to the relations that Bolivia has been deepening during the last decade. Without further ado, those sectors are the pro-Israelis who under the cover of the embassies in the region (especially in Buenos Aires) have been in charge for years of sowing false news and suspicions about La Paz's relations with Teheran, a topic much played by the Zionists in Buenos Aires to attack in particular former President Morales.

Once again, no one should be fooled that by not seeing these moves in the media, they do not happen. Washington always looks to the region.

That is why while the US will always treat the region as its backyard, it will let its little partner Israel play when it sees fit and that is an undeniable reality. And as for the military relations between the Bolivian and Iranian Armed Forces, there is no doubt that it is more than convenient and of special interest for Tel Aviv to sow discord.

During the administration of Evo Morales, when Israel carried out several massacres against the population of Gaza, both from Caracas and La Paz were hard and direct in condemning Tel Aviv and even taking strong diplomatic measures such as the expulsion of Israeli diplomats from Bolivia and even breaking relations in 2009 and 2023.

As expected, the Zionists of the region and in agreement with the embassies, especially the one in Buenos Aires, did not take long to crow about the alleged anti-Semitism of Morales, Chávez and then Maduro, a meaningless argument to use against indigenist leaders. As this argument was not enough to discredit them, the Argentinean media and journalists (and I mean those from the capital), by means of their usual meta-narratives, began to sow doubts, feed fears and suspicions about the fruitful relations that were being woven between these countries and the Islamic Republic of Iran.  As can be seen, the Islamophobia of these sectors -clearly racist- is something that the media refrains from showing.

Let us remember that the Argentine Zionists, under the insistent and never proven argument (despite the judicial drawing of the argentine Criminal Cassation) that Iran had something to do with the bombings in Buenos Aires, are trying to build a political power base to influence the political decisions of the Argentine state, just as their AIPAC partners in Washington do.

Today, with an openly Zionist government in Buenos Aires, the doors are wide open for these sectors to prosper and with them, their plans.

With this situation in the region, the options multiply and it is there where these sectors that respond to the interests of Israel, very interested for a long time in achieving penetration in the institutionality of the region not only for its own benefit but also to displace its geopolitical enemies such as Iran. Regarding the latter, the danger involved in these plans deepens with the one denounced by the leader of “Hesbollah” Hassan Nasrallah, referring to the close and secret cooperation of Saudi Arabia and Qatar with Tel Aviv.

The Bolivian armed forces would not be the first to be manipulated in order to achieve objectives outside their country. The revealed opposition of Zuñiga and other generals to the candidacy of Evo Morales for a new term of government is a fissure within the military structure that U.S. intelligence agencies and their Israeli colleagues could have been working on for months, taking advantage of the economic crisis the country is going through.

In conclusion, and beyond what the conventional media in Bolivia and their Rio de la Plata colleagues report, this attempt could not be the only one and could even be the tip of a long line of possible moves as part of a strategy planned and dictated from the North with the close Israeli cooperation.