LAISSEZ FAIRE

¿Por qué el peligro de una escalada nuclear de alcance global se vuelve más real?

 

Por Charles H. Slim

Si bien esta expresión en francés se aplica a la economía de libre mercado, la misma es perfecta para describir el lamentable y opaco papel de las organizaciones internacionales como Naciones Unidas y la AIEA en la escalada paulatina que por impulso de la OTAN se esta produciendo en Eurasia.

La Federación de Rusia ha probado con creces la participación de la OTAN en el conflicto e incluso hace poco hizo una exposición en el Parque de la Victoria en Moscú, de una variedad de vehículos y material bélico de diferentes países atlantistas capturado a los ucranianos ¿Acaso llegaron sin el permiso de Washington?, Se suponía que estaban al margen ¿Qué pasó con el artículo 4º del Tratado de la OTAN? Los continuos atentados contra las instalaciones nucleares de Zaporiya y los ataques con Drones lanzados sobre Moscú semanas pasadas, han pasado sin penas ni gloria para estas organizaciones. Hasta donde sabemos, ni el insulso director de la AIEA, ni el secretario general o el Consejo de seguridad de Naciones Unidas han dicho algo al respecto.

Sobre esto no hay dudas de que cada uno de estos episodios se tratan de claros casos de agresión contra la soberanía de otro estado y en el actual escenario, una profundización del peligro para la paz global, entonces ¿Acaso la Carta de Naciones Unidas no prevé en su famoso artículo 51 del Capítulo VII el caso de agresión? O tal vez, ¿No hay valor para aplicarlo sobre Washington?

No nos asombra la opacidad de Naciones Unidas. Su historial de inconsecuencias habla por si mismo poniendo de manifiesto que este capítulo solo se aplica a pequeños países sin chances de oponerse o adversarios geopolíticos de los intereses de…EEUU e Israel ¿Casualidad?  Con ello, el descredito por el funcionamiento de este organismo no puede ser una sorpresa.

Esta situación hoy se magnifica con las acciones terroristas que el régimen de Kiev está llevando a cabo contra las poblaciones rusas y que amenazan con llevar el conflicto a otro nivel.

“Dejar hacer, dejar pasar” es la mejor manera de describir la inmovilidad o tal vez más bien la impotencia de las organizaciones internacionales como Naciones Unidas por poner límites al empleo del terrorismo ucraniano. Pero no sería posible este despliegue impune de terror sin los medios y la permisión para ello. El armamento de largo alcance que occidente le proporciona a Kiev esta siendo utilizado no para propósitos estrictamente militares sino, para generar terror entre la población rusa y en Washington son conscientes de ello.

Este arbitrario relativismo en la aplicación de la Carta orgánica y de la ley internacional en general es ciertamente insultante para la inteligencia de todos los que habitamos el globo. Ya hemos sido testigos de la muy discutida actuación de la Corte Penal Internacional y del Tribunal de la Haya por los crímenes de lesa humanidad en Palestina.  Si permitimos que estas cosas sigan ocurriendo tal vez debamos preguntarnos ¿Hay un terrorismo bueno y un terrorismo malo?

Si vemos los hechos pareciera que existe esta sesgada disquisición y en ese sentido, EEUU y los atlantistas proporcionan los medios para ese “terrorismo bueno”.

A estas alturas y con la casuística acumulada de dos años de guerra, es innegable el patrocinio y apoyo de la OTAN a estas tácticas criminales. Los últimos ataques terroristas con misiles de largo alcance y cohetes del sistema “Vampiro” sobre Belgorod son una prueba más de ello.

Esto vuelve a poner en evidencia la desesperación que existe en Washington DC por tratar de remontar una guerra que pagan con su sangre y bienes los ucranianos y que Biden y su camada demócrata tratan de revertir para usarla como un trofeo para beneficiar a Kamala Harris en las elecciones de noviembre. Pese a ello, la realidad se impone y de persistir en buscar la escalada, deberían saber que el mundo es mucho más pequeño de lo que estos burócratas creen.

Desde el inicio de la Operación Militar Especial en febrero de 2022, la OTAN ha venido actuando tras bambalinas y en tal sentido, ha ido aumentando su injerencia en las acciones sobre el terreno. Pero esta política no es meramente voluntarista, se halla sujeta a la dirección de las decisiones que se toman en Washington DC y que son parte de un extenso y antiguo plan por extender la hegemonía total sobre Eurasia y más allá.

Ya lo advirtió el martes 27 de agosto el ministro de relaciones exteriores ruso Serguei Lavrov diciendo que si la guerra escala no se limitara a Europa, dejándole en claro al Establecimiento norteamericano que por estar del otro lado del atlántico no van a estar a salvo de sus consecuencias. Las palabras de Lavrov no son una fanfarronada. La Federación de Rusia cuenta con los medios para hacer realidad esta advertencia y en Washington DC lo saben.

En Moscú ya se han hartado de los discursos cínicos y las jugarretas de La Casa Blanca, en especial las que se grafican con ese dicho que tienen los políticos norteamericanos que reza “lo que hace la mano izquierda no lo sabe la derecha”. Así mientras el Secretario de Prensa del Departamento de Defensa John Kirby expone en rueda de prensa su actuada “preocupación” por los peligros de una escalada, por detrás del decorado le entregan a Kiev misiles crucero de largo alcance, asesoramiento y la autorización a usarlos contra territorio ruso con eminentes fines de aterrorizar a la población rusa.

Igualmente y pese a las advertencias de Lavrov, hay entre la propia población rusa y también la global un conocimiento bastante amplio de cómo opera EEUU y sus socios de la OTAN en torno a Ucrania con lo cual, hay una diferencia sustancial con otras épocas en las que los medios masivos occidentales podían ocultar descaradamente o simplemente deformar la realidad de los hechos. Desde la aparición de los medios digitales y la multiplicación de las plataformas de redes sociales para conocer en tiempo real lo que sucede, aquella manipulación ha quedado diluida.

“Dejar hacer dejar pasar” no parece la mejor opción para aplicarla a política y mucho menos para la geopolítica.

 

 

 

 

STRIKING IN BANGLADESH

Were the popular uprisings that forced Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina into exile spontaneous?

 

Sir Charlattam

Some readers may not know why we are going to talk about Bangladesh? Or where it is on the map and its regional importance, but in just a few minutes you will know why we are talking about it.

Just a few weeks ago, a sudden popular uprising that originated in university circles swept the Islamic-majority country, forcing its president Sheikh Hasina to flee to neighbouring India. Behind the demands (for quotas for public posts) and the claims of Islamist groups that led the mobilisations and subsequent clashes with the security forces in Dhaka, there are other actors who have other interests and who are the real stakeholders in creating this.

First and foremost, what has happened comes amid heightened tensions between Beijing and Washington that have been fomenting unrest across the Indo-Pacific riverine belt. Given this regional backdrop, one cannot help but be suspicious about the supposed ‘spontaneity’ of these mobilisations. If you are already suspecting who the puppet masters behind this revolt are, you have certainly got it right... the CIA.

Washington has an extensive record of subversive actions of all kinds and intensity against the political sovereignties of other nations, and Bangladesh was to be no exception. Since the end of the Second Great War in 1945, every continent has known in some form the undemocratic and highly damaging methodologies of influencing the internal affairs of countries.

Bangladesh is strategically sandwiched between India and Myanmar (currently in an internal crisis) with an exit to the Bay of Bengal providing a position from where the US can monitor China's continental activities. That is why they would have been strongly suggesting that it cede St. Martin's Island for a naval air base.

It's like a bad habit, an ugly, bad habit that the US is unable to curb. Like the drug addict or the compulsive gambler the State Department bureaucrats, their conspirators at Langley and their colleagues in the 16 secret agencies that populate the monstrous state of the Union, cannot restrain themselves when someone resists not obeying American ‘democracy’. One who is already well known for managing these ‘regime changes’ in the region is Under Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Donald Lu, targeted in this case as the messenger for Hasina to pave the way for handing over St. Martin Island for the purpose of installing a military base.

It was this same messenger (and not of democracy) who pressured the then Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan to allow new military bases to be installed in Pakistan with a view to making inroads into Afghanistan, otherwise things would become very difficult for him. The Khan government's refusal was immediate and not only that, it began to forge ties with Russia that certainly infuriated Washington. Before long Khan was the subject of massive demonstrations, a no-confidence motion in his parliament and his subsequent dismissal. Certainly not.

When we talk about coups and colour revolutions, the inevitable citation is Washington DC.

Predictably, Washington was there even before Bangladesh existed as an independent state. But long before that, Britain was laying the minefield to keep India in the picture. Precisely in the aftermath of a bloody war between Pakistan and an uprising in the east of Pakistan in 1971, the then PM Sir Edward Richard George Heath and Richard Nixon were in close contact about the situation in which Henry Kissinger had much to do with the genocide that was to follow. This war took place in the shadow of the Cold War and it was for this reason that Washington nurtured the secession of East Bengal from a USSR-backed Pakistan while preventing India from escalating against Islamabad. But in a political twist just a few years later, Pakistan and Washington further tightened their intelligence relations between the ISI and the CIA that would result in the creation of the Taliban.  

Sheikh Hasina's case seems to be a carbon copy and her refusal to the continued US pressure to cede territory that will undoubtedly be used to harass the People's Republic of China, has given her a high profile and will no doubt further enhance her political career and strengthen her reputation both in India and with her Chinese counterparts.

Washington's pressures come as no surprise since, despite its relations with the countries of the region, it has tried to impose its own anti-China agenda on them by dabbling in trade sanctions and diplomatic pressure to dissuade them from buying Russian goods, keeping a safe distance from China and engaging them in security arrangements like India with the QUAD, which can nonetheless deal with US pressures.

What happened with Hasina and Khan is not new. The history of how Washington DC tries to condition governments to follow its policy guidelines of the moment is a long one. Its methods and ends are as reprobate as they are varied and have nothing to do with democracy, moral values, respect for international law, let alone freedom.

Hasina was already receiving signals that she had to comply with Washington's demands in the Indo-Pacific. A photo with Joe Biden at the G20 summit in New Delhi on 9 September 2023, she realises today from exile, meant nothing.

 

 

PROPAGANDA

VS

REALISMO

¿Cuánto tiempo más la OTAN y su aparato de propaganda representado por los Mass Media podrán seguir engañando al mundo de lo que realmente pasa en Ucrania?

 

Por Charles H. Slim

Nadie puede convencerte ni con el mejor relato fantástico de algo si realmente lo has vivido o presenciado en persona. Este razonamiento es el que muchos ucranianos y en especial para los kievitas como Dimitri W. de quien mantenemos el anonimato por obvias razones de su seguridad, es el que se aplica a su cotidiana realidad. Él es uno de muchos ciudadanos que ante la insoportable situación a la que se ven sometidos por una junta militar neonazi que se resiste a negociar la paz y abandonar el poder, viven el calvario de una vida llena de privaciones, incertidumbre y sumida bajo una severa represión interior y los feroces ataques rusos.

Desde las usinas de medios en occidente se habla de “democracia”, pero al terror que impera entre los ciudadanos a expresar el descontento, se agrega el cansancio a soportar un régimen de facto.

Este hastío es algo que los medios del occidente colectivo no muestran y ello es entendible, dado su velado papel de propagandistas de las políticas de Washington y Bruselas, se deben a estos amos; además, no pueden fallarles dado que son quienes financian sus actividades. A estas alturas nadie, en especial los periodistas y empresarios de medios de este hemisferio puede sentirse ofendido por esta afirmación, mucho menos cuando han perdido la credibilidad entre sus propios habitantes.

Los últimos ataques rusos sobre puntos específicos y altamente sensibles para la vida social de los kievistas les han puesto en autos sobre la cruda realidad a la que podrían verse obligados a soportar en el invierno que se acerca si Zelensky y sus nazis continúan detentando el poder y enviando al matadero en Kursk a los pocos jóvenes que puedan quedar. A propósito de esto, las expectativas de analistas militares como el mayor retirado del ejército ucraniano Igor Lapin son contundentes: Nadie aún sabe que propósito estratégico tiene añadir otros 300 kilómetros de frente de espaldas al frente en Donbass. Si los estrategas atlantistas esperaban que Rusia distrajera tropas del frente en Donetsk para acudir a Kursk, se equivocaron y hoy las tropas ucranianas están pagando por esa mala decisión.

Es un dato más que obvio que la operación para penetrar sobre Kursk fue facilitada -entre otros recursos- por la inteligencia satelital de EEUU en cooperación con sus colegas británicos y polacos e igual así, al presente su avance ha sido detenido y no tiene posibilidades de sostenerse sin abastecimientos ya que es cuestión de tiempo para que la línea logística sea cortada. Agregado a esto, la participación de mercenarios estadounidenses bajo contrato de empresas privadas -que a su vez están vinculadas con el Pentágono- como la Forward Observations Group ha ratificado el estatus de agresor de EEUU con lo cual, aún no estamos viendo a donde podrá desembocar esto.

Igualmente, pese a estas participaciones atlantistas en el terreno y las ventajas estratégicas iniciales, ello no ha representado para las Fuerzas Armadas rusas un escollo insalvable e incluso, no ha evitado que sean abatidos como cualquier agresor. Al mismo tiempo y por efecto de buscar sostener esta incursión las fuerzas ucranianas en Donbass han tenido que abandonar varias aldeas y localidades acelerando con ello el avance ruso. Así las fuerzas armadas rusas han reconquistado en los últimos días dos importantes localidades como son Chasavyar y Kamyshevka de la República Popular de Donetsk.

Contrario a esto, los medios como CNN, la BBC, la DW y las ornamentadas editoriales neoconservadoras como Foreign Policy, siguen matizando a sus lectores con relatos de una realidad paralela.

Pero mientras estas editoriales piensan como argumentar este desastre, la realidad les pasa por encima. Tan solo unas horas atrás -sin que haya sido difundido con amplitud en occidente- , los ucranianos se han retirado en masa de Pakrovsk y Memryk allanándole el camino a las brigadas rusas que con la bandera roja de la “Victoria” van consolidando terreno con cada una de las recapturas.

De estas conclusiones se espera de un momento a otro una catástrofe para las tropas que aún queden en Kursk.

A eso, sumémosle los letales ataques con misiles hipersónicos y drones contra instalaciones eléctricas que desde el 6 de agosto se han ido incrementando de forma escalar hasta dejar sin luz por horas a toda la capital. Lo mismo en Odessa y los almacenes con equipos militares de la OTAN. Pero eso no es todo. Los puntuales y muy certeros bombardeos sobre algunos edificios (como el Hotel Krivoy Rog) e instalaciones de empresas privadas que albergaban tropas y personal de la OTAN han empeorado la psicosis en el régimen acusando a grupos de traidores que estarían marcando los blancos desde adentro.

Entre tanto y en las producciones occidentales de noticias maravillosas y triunfalistas, Ucrania esta logrando grandes objetivos en el campo de batalla que se resumirían en el ya conocido “vamos ganando”, pero los mismos ucranianos que solo buscan sobrevivir se preguntan ¿realmente vamos ganando?

 

 

THE CHINESE AFFAIR

Why will the US elections in November not be a solution to resolve the instability between Washington and Beijing?

 

By Sidney Hey 

In the midst of the financial tremors that are shaking the whole world and which are most likely controlled by the same centres of power that are affected, the Chinese giant continues to do what it knows how to do, work patiently and quietly.

This Asian power is the great protagonist of this century and its rivals in Washington and Brussels know it and do not like it at all. Its most feared potential is commercial and technological, even more so than military, given that the Anglo-Saxons have been doing everything they can to try to co-opt Asian markets or, at worst, destroy them even at the risk of military friction in the South Sea.

While the Western media distract the public with the latest news about the Ukrainian (NATO) incursion into the Russian Oblast of Kursk and the terrorist drone attacks on Moscow, the brains at the CIA, the Pentagon and the top strategists in Brussels are closely and intently following the unrest and changes in the Indo-Pacific countries. Obviously because of their interest in the outcome they expect.

Certainly, the Russian Federation is one of the indisputable geopolitical rivals and a thorn in the side of the hegemonic ambitions of the decadent Anglo-American potential that is trying to break Moscow with the proxy war in Ukraine, but the People's Republic of China is the jewel in the crown of these same ambitions, although much more difficult to conquer. To this end, Washington disguises these intentions under the guise of the much-vaunted ‘national security’ or, more recently, a supposed concern for ‘international security’, to which it has done a disservice with its shenanigans (colour revolutions, false flags and black operations) and military interventions to change regimes. All the turmoil around South Asia and, coincidentally, in the countries bordering the South Sea are nothing more than the product of CIA dirty operations.

For the Americans, China is a powerful rival that has a very different global vision and is therefore counterproductive to the geopolitical interests of the collective West. Even within that mindset, they suspect the Chinese of seeking to wrest global leadership from them. Those who think this do not seem to realise that it has been their own governments (especially the US) over the years that have undermined that leadership through their own inconsistencies. The values that are often claimed from the White House have then been trampled underfoot, so who can speak of values and their credibility in their invocation? It has nothing to do with whether one is a so-called democracy and the other a so-called autocracy, and who is qualified to make such disquisitions on morality? The underlying dilemma is (as it has always been) economic profit and its financial clout.

For the US establishment, the question that gnaws at its brains and evidences this fear of competition is: How long will China continue to grow?

The fear of the US Establishment (the true holder of power) is to control and take over everything, a vision diametrically opposed to that of its Asian adversary, which engages in relations with partners from all latitudes on the same level. While the US philosophy is to destroy the adversary, China's is to compete for the benefit of all. China, on the other hand, seeks competition based on hard work, cooperation and a win-win relationship between states. It is in this opposing vision that the US sees an enemy that endangers its financial system centred on the dollar as the currency of exchange, which, it should be noted, seems to be crumbling day by day and which, with the option of the growing BRICS+, becomes more possible.

One of the fears of the US elite is losing the technology race -as in the case of semiconductors- which, like it or not, is two steps behind its Asian rival. Just mentioning developments in digital communications and artificial intelligence already leaves bureaucrats in Washington who did not expect such a leap in technological development pale in comparison. It is in this matter that the State Department has positioned Taiwan -while putting the island at risk of war- as one of its pins in the region as a factor and a gateway for US policies to be deployed against Chinese interests. The reverse is not the case, i.e. China is not using Mexico or Canada to deploy covert actions aimed at creating subversion on its territory in order to take away its markets or steal its technological advances. Because not only does it not need to, but there is nothing to take.

The fear felt by the US elite is such that they even speculate (not to say wish) on the impact of China's falling birth rate as a consolation that would force a decline in its potential.

But deep down they know that this is a vain hope. Their efforts to destabilise China are outsourced (as they do in Ukraine against Russia) by using regional actors. For these purposes, the CIA pulls its strings and recruits useful elements from among the dregs of these societies to use them when it suits them best. In this case, two of the strategic actors best suited for this purpose are undoubtedly Singapore and Australia. The former lends its cooperation in communications, logistical support and human intelligence (humint) to operate in places such as Malaysia, the Philippines, Bangladesh (where the US wants to take over St. Martin's Island) and Myanmar (where it operates on two sides). Australia's role is strategically important in two ways: its geographic location as a platform for projecting NATO operations on the Chinese mainland and the importance of its fleet, which is central to providing strategic naval intelligence for NATO. 

The bottom line is that China is a real boogeyman for the Anglo-American elite, and not because it is an autocracy or has a one-party system of government. All this nonsense that the media repeat like parrots is only for idiots. The problem is that it is a model that works and that, to make matters worse, will eventually displace the US. That is why Washington will try to do the only thing it has been able to do for the last thirty years, and that is to attack what it fears and destroy what does not suit it.

 

ARBITRARINESS IN PARIS

Who ordered the arrest and confinement in France of the young French-Russian businessman Pavel Durov and why?

 

By Sidney Hey

As someone once told me, in politics ‘there is no black and white, only greys’ as a way of explaining to me why some situations in life are not what they seem, let alone what they say. The best example of this came this week with the sudden arrest of the successful entrepreneur Pavel Durov, creator of the Telegram social network that causes so much pain in the ass to the powers in the West, including Israel.

After arriving in his private plane at Paris's Le Bourget airfield in France, he no doubt did not expect what would happen when he opened the escort door. As soon as he was about to leave the airport he was intercepted by a police escort, who without further ado and with total disdain arrested him. Quite rightly Durov must have thought, ‘What the hell is going on here?

Apparently, desperation is driving the hierarchs of the political elite of the collective West, i.e. the Atlanticists, crazy, since Telegram is the only digital channel through which information can be exchanged (especially in situations that are not at all convenient for Washington) without the NATO intelligence agencies, led by the CIA and the NSA, sticking their noses in to check what you are thinking and identify its users.

Seeing this, one can intuit that Telegram is really a democratic digital medium, differentiating itself from its competitors from Elon Musk's X (openly supportive of Trump and the neocons and of course pro-Israel) or Marc Zuckerberg's Whatsapp and Facebook, the latter already known for cooperating with the CIA and other federal agencies to generate collective manipulation operations (such as those orchestrated in the ‘Arab Spring’, allowing jihadist pages in Syria and Iraq) and the collection of data from its users of this platform, among other clandestine actions. Perhaps this is why its network has gone unnoticed by the paedophile and child pornography groups that operate unchallenged.

If we were to swallow all this talk of ‘democracy’, ‘the free world’ and France as part of it, anyone would be shocked by the bizarre situation represented by the arrest of Durov whose only fault is... not spying, not censoring sensitive information for the US and its partners, defending the privacy of its users. Or do you believe the accusations of alleged crimes committed by Durov have appeared out of nowhere? With this, anyone who makes their thoughts public on the networks and especially on Telegram should seriously consider whether it is safe to have a coffee in a public place in Paris, let alone in Washington or London.

Of course, just in case, I will take every precaution before I sit down to read my networks in one of the cafes opposite Burley Griffin in Canberra.

This reveals how Western intelligence agencies (including ASIS) snoop and pry into the social networks of all citizens of the globe and if you're too annoying, you're flagged. But as Telegram (similar to the Chinese case of Huawei) has not revealed a backdoor through which the CIA and its colleagues often enter to spy on the rest of the digital platforms.

There is no doubt that this is a symptom of panic in NATO and even more so in Washington DC that stems from the unfortunate and not very encouraging development of the current circumstances both in the war in Ukraine and in what is happening in the Middle East with its ally Israel. On the latter, let us recall that Benjamin Netanyahu, the butcher of Tel Aviv, claiming that secret information had been trafficked through his network, had unsuccessfully called on Durov to retrieve it, so surely the Mossad is also involved in this theatrical opera.

The whole thing stinks. No one with a brain could explain the competence of the French Municipal Police to arrest a citizen without a credible warrant for a pending case, unless of course it is fabricated. And who have, or rather, use these dirty methods to intimidate and put pressure? The DGSI, internal intelligence guys are the dirty methods of their colleagues in the foreign service who, in turn, have the CIA as their superiors.

But was it Macron who ordered the DGSI to proceed with Durov's arrest? Or rather, was it his idea?

Even my 92-year-old grandmother, who has her picture of De Gaulle on her kitchen wall, realises that this is a fascist course of action. And precisely as an admirer of the ‘asparagus’ (as I used to call him), she knows very clearly who the intellectual authors of all this are. You don't have to be very clever to know that it is the Americans who have been whipping up Macron, and that Macron, a mere pawn of Washington DC's foreign policy, is not going to argue with what is being imposed on him.

What has been done with Durov is very similar to the case of Julian Assange who, after his courageous leaks in 2007 (provided by US military personnel) about the atrocious US crimes in Iraq, was accused of false charges, persecuted and after risking his life, managed to gain asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London until he was taken out of there and arrested as a simple criminal spending the last years in a dirty and damp cell in Great Britain.

It seems that the script is very similar and Washington's aim is to get Telegram to shut down its platform or, alternatively, to hand over hidden access so that it can intervene in conversations.

With this, Macron has put his foot in his mouth and put himself at the centre of the discussion, for if he is subordinate to the agendas of other powers, how secure can his own citizens be in the face of arbitrariness such as that committed against Pavel Durov?