ARGENTINA AL BRICS

¿Cómo, por qué y quién le abrió la puerta a la Argentina a éste bloque económico?

 

Por Javier B. Dal

Son tiempos de cambio y eso abarca a todo el mundo. Precisamente somos testigos de un cambio progresivo de paradigma a nivel global que afectara las relaciones entre las naciones y dentro de esta oleada va la Argentina. Justamente, es un momento crítico para el país sudamericano dado que se halla caminando (una vez más) sobre la cuerda floja de una economía paralizada con un laberintico sistema tributario, rehén de un sistema cambiario anárquico que ha destruido su moneda y como si eso no fuera suficiente, seriamente comprometidos por su deuda con el FMI.

No ha sido una guerra, una invasión o una catástrofe natural la causa de esta situación. Las sucesivas y malas administraciones gubernamentales e indistintamente de ideologías y colores políticos han aportado sus respectivas cuotas de responsabilidad para llegar a la actual situación. 

Para quien lo ve de afuera, la Argentina pareciera un estado fallido y vaciado de importancia institucional. La crisis político-institucional abarca sin dudas a todos los países, pero en cada uno de ellos, hay realidades políticas diferentes y en los desarrollados si bien esos problemas llegan a ser muy graves al menos conservan una potencialidad estatal intacta.

Argentina por el contrario, producto de la esquizofrenia de la dirigencia política (y de la cual son responsables sus ciudadanos) esa potencialidad no existe. Lo que no se ha vendido (privatizado) se abandonó. Pero ¿Cómo se entiende esto cuando el actual gobierno suele hablar del “estado presente”? No lo es en el sentido funcional sino, en el sentido asistencial y prebendario. Esto lo hace poco confiable y nada competitivo y es por ello que no hay acuerdos y no funciona el Mercosur.

En estas circunstancias, este estado se ve compelido a cumplir con sus deudas las cuales se le está haciendo muy difícil de honrar obligando a mendigar ayudas generando así una nueva deuda.

Pareciera que se han acabado los trucos al ministro Massa y aunque tiene algunos padrinos en Washington, ello no basta para remitir la deuda. Sumado a esto, su controvertida personalidad y su devaluada palabra pone en mayor discusión la sustancialidad y seriedad del estado para tenerlo como confiable. Esto se ve más complicado por la bipolaridad política que se ha advertido constantemente en el continuo y sobreactuado intento de quedar bien tanto con Washington como con Beijing. Brasil y en particular las gestiones del presidente Lula han sido determinantes para acercar la oportunidad de ingreso. Pero el factor que le ha dado oxigeno a esta situación desesperante ha sido el apoyo de China (Confirmado por el embajador chino Wang Yi) quien además de concederle un SWAP en yuanes, ha promovido el ingreso de la Argentina al BRICS.

La oportunidad de ingresar al BRICS ya es una realidad que durante años fue despreciada por el gobierno de CFK ¿las razones? No molestar en el ánimo a Washington y a los llamados “buitres” de Wall Street dejando en claro la ideología artificiosa de ese gobierno. Hoy ante una realidad infranqueable y el callejón sin salida en el que el país se halla, la noticia de haber sido aceptado en el bloque no es poco. A partir de ahora será tarea del nuevo gobierno argentino poner a tono su infraestructura logística, literalmente derruida por el abandono, la corrupción político-sindical (que vació de materiales y recursos financieros) y una ausencia por décadas de planificaciones estratégicas.

Un país que solo tiene como logística más importante al camión, está dejando en evidencia una imperdonable desconexión con la realidad. Incluso tras la desconexión del sistema ferroviario en la era menemista, aquel es el medio que monopoliza el transporte pesado de cargas. El comercio exterior necesita de otras vías terrestres más baratas y acuáticas para trascender el mero localismo y aportar elementos estratégicos para un comercio más amplio y en mercados más alejados. Se sabe que ello beneficia a un sindicato prebendario, algo que debería ser resuelto por el nuevo gobierno si quiere ser tomado en serio por el BRICS.

La reconstrucción de toda su infraestructura logística, especialmente la naval (condicionada desde 1982 y sellada con los Tratados de Madrid 1990) lo que incluye la modernización de los puertos y capacitación de su personal es fundamental para llevar adelante y de forma competitiva, el tan anhelado desarrollo comercial a base de exportación de ultramar.

Pero antes de todo, tiene que haber una reconstrucción del estado con metas claras y ajustadas a sus necesidades estratégicas y para ello, se requiere de decisión política.

Sin conducción política decidida a romper estas limitaciones, liderada por dirigentes conscientes del atraso estructural existente, con una planificación coherente y ejecutable de forma constante en el tiempo no hay esperanzas de progreso para el país.

Ante todo, la Argentina debe reconocer en el lugar que se halla parada dejando pretensiones y el divismo de lado. Si está realmente interesada en ingresar al bloque deberá ir al paso de sus socios y no ellos al suyo. Deberá tener espalda política para sostenerse ante las jugadas no limpias de una competencia que mezcla la geopolítica y asuntos internos de otros países para alterar el comercio. Es una aclaración que no pareciera necesaria de hacer pero que en el caso argentino es muy pertinente. A esto, hay que agregar las pretensiones y presiones que sectores sindicales como precisamente los vinculados al transporte han dejado entrever ya están intoxicando las relaciones con el bloque por considerar que sus condiciones de trabajo no le son favorables.

El BRICS es sin dudas un espacio auspicioso y benéfico para la Argentina. Eso no significa abandonar al Mercosur o algo semejante. Es la oportunidad de ampliar y diversificar el destino de sus productos a mercados euroasiáticos muy interesados en adquirirlos. Pero antes deberá reconstruir su estado, recuperar su vigor en la infraestructura, modificar el asfixiante sistema impositivo y su administración política mantener una coherencia en el tiempo para tener bien clara su política exterior y evitar interferencias de otros estados o bloques que tratan de fastidiar por cuestiones geopolíticas al BRICS.

 

MARKED FOR DEATH

Why is there speculation about the possible elimination of Volodymyr Zelensky, who would really benefit from it?

By Sidney Hey

The rumours we have been hearing about the line of succession if the current Ukrainian president were to be removed would not be in the genuine interest of protecting the 'institutionality' of a pro-Nazi regime masquerading in the Western media as "Ukrainian democracy".

As we have pointed out on several occasions, the comic actor who lent himself to turning his country into a NATO battleground could end in tragedy. Although the Western media claim that Zelensky was the target of several attacks against him, this is very difficult to prove. And it would not be the Russians who would take him out of circulation because, as things stand, their calamitous management of the war is more functional to the Kremlin than anyone in Washington would like to admit.

But what is the determining factor in whether or not Zelensky remains in power? As has been the case in the past, those who have been sustained by scaffolding provided by Washington and its allies sooner or later end badly. They are dispensable elements and as such are discarded at will.

The Zelensky character is an Anglo-American creation, and as with trademarks, its intellectual authors can dispose of it at their convenience. But why would the White House suddenly terminate his contract?

In fairness, we should first ask ourselves, is Zelensky to blame for the catastrophic situation of his troops on the battlefield? If we take it in the purely political sense, no doubt. But when it comes to the strictly military, the responsibilities are clearly shared. This real calamity seems not to have been taken into consideration by Pentagon and NATO strategists. Something seems to have escaped them and they did not realise that this could happen; and that begs another question: did the White House (Joe Biden) and NATO underestimate Russia's war-fighting capabilities? This, in turn, involves decidedly political aspects that determined the military and intelligence aspects.

If we look at it from the first aspect, we would see Joe Biden as the main responsible for pushing the comedian Zelensky's idea that he could (somehow) deal with Russia's forces and take back the whole of Donbass. Thus, Zelensky, confident of this support (don't forget), began to harass the Donetsk and Lugansk republics with greater intensity and continuity. These provocations led Russia to intervene and at the same time Biden and NATO assured Zelensky that he would have no shortage of weapons and financial resources to sustain the enterprise. Today it is clear that this was a terrible mistake.

That mistake has already been quantified, and although the collective Western media conglomerate is trying to disguise it, it is impossible to hide it from global public opinion. If we are only talking about strictly military matters, the failure of a counteroffensive that not only left the Kiev regime in a very uncomfortable position, but also annoyed its sponsors, especially the Americans and the British, who are very active in providing assistance of all kinds, would suffice.

Just considering the count of Ukrainian military hardware lost on the battlefield, it is safe to say that Russia has destroyed two and a half times the Ukrainian Armed Forces. A single figure in support of this is the whopping figure of more than 11,000 battle tanks annihilated, which at the same time reports more than 40,000 men of those crews committed.

It appears from the Vilnius summit that NATO partners have said "no more" to demands for more armaments and financial assistance. Despite Biden's insistence on continuing to support Ukrainian efforts, he no longer has the solidity he could find at the beginning of the Russian Special Military Operation. And it is not a lack of mystique (if there ever was such a thing) but an undeniable reality check that may well ruin Biden's political career and that of his supporters. Not only is Donald Trump a drag on US institutionality (because of the serious charges of obstruction and conspiracy he is accused of), but also everything he has implied in trying to destabilise Russia (including terrorism) without regard for the consequences not only for the economy of his allies but for the entire globe.

There is no doubt about it. Biden knows it, Blinken knows it, Sullivan is well aware of the adverse situation for the annoyingly pretentious Zelensky, and his advisers keep telling him..., "elections in a year" and that means they are just around the corner.

Failure in Ukraine would be the end of the line for Biden. He knows that as soon as he crosses the threshold of the Oval Office they will be waiting for him at the Federal Commission of Inquiry to be grilled on his foreign policy to find answers to questions about what happened in Afghanistan. Add to that the collapse of the Kiev regime and the disintegration of Ukraine, and it would be too much for a president with obvious senility problems.

No one is in any doubt that Biden is currently considering what to do about Zelensky. The pressure is on and officials like Kirby and Sullivan must be suggesting to their commander-in-chief that the ballast must be lifted or he will go down with it. The one with the most influence and proposals for a solution to the problem is CIA chief Joseph Burns, who has the manpower within the Kiev regime and, most importantly, in Zelensky's entourage.

Surely Ukraine will survive, perhaps not with the territorial make-up it had before the war and under suffocating economic-financial constraints that its inhabitants will have to endure for decades to come, but will Volodymyr Zelensky survive, and would his replacement change anything?

 

 

REACCIÓN EN CADENA

La voz de África también importa ¿Por qué la Cumbre “Rusia-África” en San Petersburgo tiene un carácter trascendental para hallar una salida pacífica a la guerra en Ucrania?

Por Charles H. Slim

Durante todo el siglo XIX y gran parte del XX, África fue un continente huérfano de justicia sometido bajo los contantes atropellos de las metrópolis que la colonizaron y despojaron de sus riquezas. Nada nuevo para quienes conocemos la historia de saqueos, estafas y robos a mano armada de la autoproclamada “civilización occidental”.

Continente con grandes e incalculables riquezas naturales, tiene también grandes dramas humanitarios que no deberían existir si esas riquezas se explotaran y se aprovecharan por los mismos africanos. Pero la gran trampa que dejaron los europeos tras su paso por allí es la misma que dejaron en Latinoamérica y en Asia, esa que se ve en el mosaico de nacionalidades a manos de grupúsculos de serviles (Cipayos y alcahuetes anglófilos) que rompió tejidos tribales tratando de mantenerles sumisa de forma artificiosa y maquiavélicamente deliberada.

El color de piel y las creencias de los pueblos africanos no son condición para explicar el atraso y la pobreza como lo han tratado argumentar los “civilizados” del occidente. La estafa y el latrocinio ha sido la marca registrada de las relaciones de occidente con esa parte del sur global.

Esto va camino a cambiar y la Cumbre ruso-africana en San Petersburgo de la semana pasada es la prueba de ello.

Sin dudas que la muestra de unidad en los representantes africanos dejo entrever un panafricanismo vigoroso y dispuesto a cortar con la histórica relación abusiva y de explotación de las metrópolis europeas que les colonizaron. Los métodos de control y chantaje han cambiado, pero esa relación tóxica continua a nuestros días.

Si bien el intervencionismo militar ha sido una constante en el continente, el principal medio para presionar y condicionar a los gobiernos que se rebelan a los centros de poder son las sanciones económico-financiero-comerciales. Esto ha sido en los últimos treinta años hasta hoy el factor extorsivo condicionante más utilizado para escarmentar y mantener sumidos a sus jóvenes estados.

Libia fue un ejemplo aleccionador de como la Unión Europea y EEUU, usando todas las herramientas disponibles (OTAN), aplastaron a un estado árabe que era el faro del socialismo no solo del norte de África sino de todo el continente.

No nos olvidemos que desde que la OTAN con sus mercenarios, sus grupos proxies disfrazados de “yihadistas” y pagados por las petromonarquías del golfo, deshicieron una sociedad laica y avanzada como era la libia, se instauró el caos, la criminalidad y detestables prácticas como el tráfico humano y el esclavismo como lo habían hecho los franceses, los ingleses y esos simpáticos belgas.  

Las nuevas generaciones de africanos han crecido con estas sangrientas y dolorosas lecciones y siempre han estado trabajando para mejorar. No se han contentado con ese insufrible refrán “el mundo es un lugar cruel e injusto” para que los hombres de buena voluntad bajen sus brazos. Las palabras en la cumbre del presidente de Eritrea Isaias Afwerki, de Burkina Faso Ibrahim Traoré y el ugandés Yoweri Museveni son un testimonio de esa nueva y férrea voluntad, aunque ello incomode a los pragmáticos de Sudáfrica (miembro del BRICS). Los países más pobres del continente son conscientes del desprecio y del relegamiento histórico que han sufrido por su color de piel y por la dependencia creada desde las metrópolis europeas.

Hoy en las actuales circunstancias, contrario a lo que cualquiera de los gobiernos del “occidente colectivo” o más precisamente del angloamericano creen, África no solo tiene mucho para decir sobre su destino, sino que también mucho para aportar en temas trascendentes para su supervivencia y para la geopolítica y eso es lo que se vio en la Cumbre de San Petersburgo, Rusia.

¿Por qué creen ustedes que los representantes africanos presentes concurrieron con entusiasmo a esa Cumbre? Más allá de los lazos históricos que se extienden a las épocas de la URSS, esta muy claro de que lo hicieron sabiendo de que iban a ser escuchados y lo más importante, de que sus palabras serían anotadas y tomadas en cuenta para ofrecer una solución definitiva a una guerra que ya ha perdido toda explicación estratégica (salvo claro, para quienes usufructúan con ella).

¿Habrían ido a Washington, a Londres o quién sabe, a Bruselas si una cumbre similar se hubiera convocado? Sin dudas que lo habrían hecho, pero con la consciencia de que estarían tratando con un Status Quo repleto de prejuicios y una acendrada mentalidad colonialista que los europeos llevan en sus genes y que los estadounidenses replican con su “imperialismo democrático” que ya sabemos que significa.

Paradojalmente mientras los personeros de la Unión Europea y sus guionistas en Washington se desgañitan clamando por los medios sobre el respeto de los derechos humanos, la soberanía de las naciones y la legalidad internacional, siguen siendo en su comportamiento y trato absolutamente racistas y prueba de ello es el trato que se da a la Turquía musulmana, inventando cuantas excusas y argumentos políticos sean posible para que pueda ingresar al bloque.

Si esto lo trasladamos al caso africano, que casualmente en su mayoría de los miembros de la comitiva son de confesión islámica, había lugar a plantearse muchas dudas de la viabilidad que habría existido para ser tomados en consideración. La realidad de islamofobia y racismo de Europa lo precede y solo basta recordar como en algunos de lugares de “este jardín” como algunos lo llaman quemar El Sagrado Corán y perseguir a los musulmanes es una actividad recreativa.

Somos testigos de una nueva era para el protagonismo de África no ya como la víctima del colonialismo anglo-europeo del cual quedan solo estertores con ambiciones neocoloniales sino, de su potencialidad para el desarrollo genuino y pacifico y es por ello que Rusia ve mucho interés en participar.

 

 

PEACE IS DESIRABLE

Have Zelensky and his backers come to their senses about the imperative need for peace, or is this a ploy?

By Sir Charlattam

“We can't stop establishing contacts with the Kremlin for peace talks,” commented one of Volodymyr Zelensky's close aides as the ground shook from the fall of Russian missiles when they met in the armoured bunker beneath the Ministry of the Interior in Kiev in mid-December 2022.

The answer to that advice came a few weeks later when that official died in a mysterious accident. It would be very easy to accuse the Ukrainian leader of ordering this "accident" (which could be very likely) but there are other factors involved that point more accurately to the origin. It is true that this suggestion did not please Zelensky at all and even transfigured his face, but there were others in his cabinet who were not amused and surely took it as a sign of betrayal and would have acted accordingly.

But who were also present were the British and American advisers who would have been dismayed and thus would have been the masterminds of this covert execution. Whatever the case, the Americans and the British were empowering a Zelensky in doubt and worried that he would not be able to fulfil the role that the White House had scripted for him and that President Joe Biden himself had entrusted to him.

At that time peace was the last thing to be talked about, and that was not debatable. That mandate came straight down from the White House and was relayed in person by Pentagon advisers. This is how American democracy and that of its British partners works: they tell you one thing in public and do something else on the quiet. Why do they think the US signs agreements that it then rides roughshod over?

The duel between the story elaborated and disseminated by the not very credible Western media such as the BBC, CNN, The Economist and the crude reality already has a winner and it is... reality. Joe Biden and his entire Atlanticist club -in their fevered minds- were counting on the fact that they could continue to deceive people and the public around the world if they managed to strike a blow against Russia. In short, (for them) it was a matter of time to degrade the Russian economy, create widespread discontent in society, turn Russian citizens to the streets against Vladimir Putin and his government and Voila!!, as the jovial Macron would say... Toute la Russie à nos pieds!

Coincidentally and to Macron's chagrin, the Nigerians have decided that they will no longer be exploited and from now on, if France wants the mineral resources it will have to pay for them.

The reality has been harsher and crueler than NATO's brains had expected. To be more comprehensive in these considerations, we must make it clear that this reality has hit Biden, Sunak, Borrell and their minions repeatedly and in different parts of their faces and that NATO is in a virtual technical knockout and before Zelensky hits the canvas, the towel must be called in.

The latest reports of Kiev's interest in talks with Moscow on the basis of a proposal that the African representatives have put forward to Vladimir Putin on a number of points are confirmation that things have turned out worse than one might have imagined. The comedian may be dressed in khaki at the lavish meetings of his sponsors, but the real bleeders on the front line are the simple men who have had enough of this.

The blockade of grain and fertiliser supplies to the African continent and the global south in general is endangering the humanitarian conditions of its inhabitants, and not because of Russia's whim. Recall that Kiev violated the grain agreement by using it for the secret transport of weapons. At the same time, the US and NATO have been putting all kinds of obstacles in the way of Russian cargo ships, preventing the supply of grain and fertilisers free of charge.

Faced with this suspension of the agreement, the Kremlin promised free delivery of Russian grain to African countries, a proposal that choked the CEOs of corporations such as Cargill, Bunge, Midland and Dreyfus and several of the financial (futures) speculators on the Wall Street stock exchange. For these corporations that control 80 percent of the grain trade, crises and war are in their interests and the idea of being run out of business is not something they will tolerate. What matters least to them is so-called “Food Security”.

That is why a UN employee came out to snub Putin's impertinence. You will not hear such measures from the White House, 10 Downing Street and even less from the bureaucrats in Brussels, given that in addition to their colonialist past and making a business out of war, they care little about the needs and human rights of Africans.

On the contrary, the Russian government and Putin himself have shown that the African continent is on their radar, and in addition to offering free grain and fertiliser donations, they have announced their political commitment to supply military equipment to 40 African countries, thereby reducing dependence and indebtedness to the Western war industry.

So much did this offer resonate that there was no shortage of second-rate lackeys and bootlickers trying to discredit the offer. Predictably, the UN secretariat and Gutiérrez himself sided with Washington, refusing to allow Russia to implement the cost-free grain donation to Africa.

The summit in St. Petersburg between African representatives and Russian President Vladimir Putin provided a glimmer of light. China's neutral involvement in bringing the parties together was also very important.

Undoubtedly very bad news for those corporations, but even more so for Biden and his coterie of neoconservative war mongers, who could see the hostilities come to an end. The last summit, while it served to bend Erdogan's arm to stop denying Swedish entry, was not at all successful in terms of Zelensky's aspirations to raise more aid.

For the senile old man, the concern is the approaching elections and with a war encouraged by his administration, to which billions of dollars have been pumped and which, to make matters worse, has served only to line the pockets of a few cocaine addicts of the regime and its neo-Nazi officers in Azov, he can only arouse a resounding rejection from the public.

That, too, is bad news for the subjects of the European Union, but especially for Prime Minister Sunak and his bishop Ben Wallace, who most likely has no intention of keeping the NATO Secretary General's chair at this point. When the war is over, who will want to be there?

Biden is now cornered and the dirty tricks they have been trying to implement against Russia with proxy cells carrying out terrorist attacks run by the CIA, MI6 and their SBU cronies will not change the outcome. If Biden leaves the Oval Office there will be many questions coming from the House Committees of Inquiry and from the catastrophe in Afghanistan, the questions are undoubtedly countless.

 BLACKROCK

DO I BUY UKRAINE?

Why is it not in the interest of the White House, its NATO partners or Zelensky to end the war

 

By Danny Smith

One of the interests that has mobilized and continues to mobilize Volodymyr Zelensky and his supporters is money and for that he will not hesitate to sell his soul to the devil if necessary.

War is undoubtedly a calamity for ordinary citizens but a fabulous business for those who profit from it. Zelensky himself once said that he wanted to turn Ukraine into the “Israel of Europe” and not because of some fantastic theological reformulation fabricated by the Zionists who support him or because of the promise of a divinity who verbally granted them a real estate title.

The war in Ukraine has become a center of opportunity for private investors, but not for just anyone. Here too, democracy has nothing to do with it, nor is the free market a respected guideline. Only those who have the financial solvency and political clout to put themselves ahead of any other bidder can intervene.

As we have also seen, neither the White House nor its EU subjects are interested in peace. We see clearly how after the setbacks of the so-called counteroffensive they are betting on escalating the conflict and obviously not because of some insane pathology but because of very well calculated financial interests.

For Zelensky, the Russian bombings are very useful as they are serving to prepare the ground for new financial investments from the West. As is done with old buildings, demolishing them is the first step for developers of new ventures. Here, the Kiev mafia is rubbing its hands with every missile and Kamikaze Drone that destroys the country's infrastructure, as it is the condition without which the capital of those investors would not come.

The September 2022 video-conference meeting between Volodymyr Zelensky and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, presented as a deal to bring in public and private investments, was in fact the beginning of other deals that have been going on for a deal for BlackRock to take over the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Neither BlackRock is doing this for free nor Zelensky and company are working for the future of a country that is on the verge of disintegration. Tens of thousands of men have been sacrificed in the failed counteroffensive and thousands of civilians are affected by a war that the West and the Kiev mafia do not want to stop, but that has a sinister functionality for the interests behind the scenes that are linked to Washington and London.

All the money that Joe Biden has given to Zelensky seems to have evaporated, or at least that is what can be sensed with the continuous claims of the insatiable actor. You don't have to be too smart to figure out that we are dealing with a con man who is part of a big scam and that as a junior partner in this business, he surely does not realize that his termination clause is dated.

Another issue that is not being said is who will be the financiers of this financial corporation's benevolent participation. Taking out that Ukraine has become a sewer of all kinds of dirty business and where the most ruthless mafias operate, the black money from the proceeds of these businesses is not enough to whitewash the face and intentions of Fink and his executive retinue of bloodsuckers.

To cut a long story short, a substantial part of the money that will resolve this detail comes from American and European taxpayers. That's right, it will be ordinary citizens themselves who will be giving their tax money to this mega-corporation to do business with the ultra-right-wing mafia in Kiev. As we can see, this is just a handrail of money that will have no payoff for their despised interests.

Just by analyzing what those billions of dollars, pounds sterling and euros have supposedly been invested in, one cannot explain with reasonable evidence what they have actually been spent on and by whom. The evidence on the battlefield says something quite different from that investment to assist the Ukrainian counter-offensive.

Thus we saw how a few hundred old German “Leopard” tanks, as many “Gepards”, a handful of “Bradley” tanks with missing parts, mechanical defects and an assortment of armored vehicles donated by the British, Americans, Swedes, Poles and Romanians do not explain the sidereal figures that have gone precisely to finance “the war effort”. The same goes for light armor and anti-tank systems and manpads. According to several sources on the front, they speak of shortages and defective material.

From the Western media front it is very difficult to disguise the reality and their imaginative editors no longer have any scruples about being exposed with such blatant lies and fabricating stories with twisted arguments that are summarized in an alleged unexpected delay in the results of this counteroffensive.

At the same time, they seek to continue demonizing the Russian government and especially Vladimir Putin by trying to create internal discord among the population, although Russians do not need external psychological agitation or Hollywood super productions (if we can speak of such a thing today) to know who is who and who is the worst in this whole story.

One does not have to be very perceptive to realize that while the civilian population is giving their children's lives, especially those of all men between 18 and 60 years old, and their own blood to sustain a philonazi regime, the leadership of this Status Quo, with the operational support of NATO intelligence agencies, is indulging its vices, doing shady business and diverting those funds to hide them in European banks in the hope of using them at the end of the war.

Surely Hunter Biden's business partners or those of his father, will make a place for Zelensky and his cronies in some condo in California, Miami or perhaps in Washington DC itself or who knows, maybe in Tel Aviv where several financial and sex criminals wanted in other countries take refuge.

The billions of dollars that Biden has given to Volodymyr Zelensky in accounting cash (separate from weaponry and ammunition) in a good part of all that money will be to finance the "disinterested" intervention of these financial labradors and thus closes a big package with a bow that will strangle for generations the ordinary Ukrainians