“UNDERCOVER AFFAIRS”

 

Trying to hide the behind the scenes of a murky event disguised as an accident. How long can the fate of the crew of the ARA San Juan be hidden?

By Sir Charlattam

Winter is approaching the northern hemisphere and the afternoons are getting shorter, colder and with the restrictions due to the Coronavirus, there are few chances to make an interesting appointment, at least not in what is merely recreational. But undoubtedly this is not for the intrigue and that is why the flow of information and transcendent on topics of interest of what happens here and there in other parts of the globe has not stopped.

The issue of the submarine “ARA San Juan” that reminded us of a similar episode that occurred in August 2000 with the Russian “Kursk”, not only because of the tragedy itself, but also because of some circumstantial elements in which it occurred and one of they went, ours were there. Due to the information that has been arriving from Buenos Aires, there is much interest in closing the judicial investigations on the causes and responsibilities.

Beyond the Argentine publications that were talking about the prosecution of former President Mauricio Macri, his Defense Minister Oscar Aguad and his Navy staff for a possible cover-up (and espionage on family members) in the unclear matter of the submarine "ARA San Juan" that -according to the media account- disappeared on November 15, 2017 in the midst of circumstances never clarified and “reappeared” on November 17, 2018 in the same mysterious way in which it was said that he was not found .

It was inevitable, someone had to take responsibility and it was not us or the Americans. From what I was able to find out, the naval intelligence (Naval Intelligence Division) was aware of the movements of the Argentines and there was a special interest at that time not to be observed. A top secret event was taking place west of the submarine's route and its stealthy approach was a fatal mistake. The truth was that what happened to the submarine was part of that event and its sinking testified to the success of what was being rehearsed. Although Buenos Aires was not aware of it, they did learn the same day about the fate of its 44 men.

I don't think I need to say that we use the South Atlantic as a naval training ground not only for our navy but for NATO. We are sure that the Argentine military knows this very well, but its politicians are much more concerned with nonsense than with high national security issues. The same politicians like Macri and those who currently govern are conditioned by the Foreign Office, that is, they will not ask annoying questions and will attend to a saying such as “do not move beyond where they do not see you”, you know.

From the beginning, several very suspicious elements present in the area that day had been raised. The official version and when I say “official” I mean the one that the Argentine government and the media that make up the arc of propagators of truth adjusted to a certain interest, acted a masquerade to make public opinion believe that the submarine was simply He had vanished without his being able to launch any call for help. It is true that the state of your fleet is deplorable but we knew that the submarine had a good communications system.

From that moment on, events raged in a dizzying and even overactive way. Those who first volunteered and mobilized a search and rescue squad were none other than the “Royal Marines” (jollies) based in “Mount Pleasant” in the occupied Falkland Islands. The Macri government, following the masquerade, accepted this supposed aid based on the “solidarity of the sea” but that in reality was destined to nothing less than to have close control -with NID observers- and total control of the Argentine naval operations that were being carried out taking place at Cape Horn.

 

Why did the “jollies” arrive in such a hurry to the mainland? One of the reasons for such haste was the Russian offer of search and rescue technical assistance that would later arrive with the ship “Yantar”. Russian involvement in the South Atlantic was a nightmare come true for the Foreign Office. The implications on what happened with the submarine endangered the security of the submarine cable facilities that carry information from Mount Pleasant to Brussels, which interconnect with the Chilean bases in Magallanes and all NATO stations around the globe. At that point and as has been revealed, the naval command and subsequently the Minister of Defense and President Macri himself learned of the disaster through one of the most unusual but available means for an emergency: THE WHATSAPP from a cell phone on the submarine. What did those desperate calls communicate before the submarine went down? From there, other questions begin to be asked. Was it a structural failure of the ship or was it the result of an attack?

Although the formulation of these questions seems untrue, they put the Argentine government in serious trouble and a mistake in trying to argue an unconvincing story that covered up what had really happened could trigger an international incident. And if not, why was the event covered up and its 44 crew members abandoned?

Earlier audios and even internal reports from the Argentine Navy were leaked that gave an account of a very different version of what the government had. Apparently the surface units that came to the point from where the calls had been made had nothing to do and even the presence of oil and fuel in the water had been reported, attesting that the submarine had gone to the bottom. The audio of a report from one of the ships that attended the rescue had even been published by some capital media, making comments that seemed to describe the result of an attack. Of course, the government and the Navy categorically denied it, that audio disappeared and that track was never dealt with again.

Remember that on board the submarine its crew members had their cell phones and one of them was activated long before this event from where they wrote some text messages commenting that they were being followed by British and Chilean ships.What were the reasons for this surveillance? What could a small outdated diesel-powered submarine do that posed no threat if left to explore? This is a part of the “official” version in Argentina that does not want to be touched.

We have been hearing that the “investigators” and the lawyers of the crew members' relatives try to blame the Macri government for having sent the old submarine on a naval espionage mission, but they do not specify what the precise objectives of that mission were. Furthermore, it is highly doubtful that the apparatus was fit for a task like that. When I started talking to an old friend from S.B.S. and that just a few years ago he retired from active service, when I asked him if he believed that a submarine like this could have any degree of success for espionage tasks against the British fleet in the Malvinas, his answer was simple, brief and forceful: “No way ”.

The Argentine submariners had tested their capabilities not only in the 1982 war but also in several joint UNITAS exercises with the US Navy in which they were discreetly present, attachés of His Majesty's naval intelligence, showing that with few resources and great cunning could compete with the greats. But those were exercises. Many officers of the American fleet were humiliated to such an extent that insults such as “what the hell were you looking at Cunt or “asshole” could be heard over the intercoms. Certainly very hilarious.

If we accept that hypothesis, we would have to talk about a mission destined to fail or even to swallow the bait of a counterintelligence operation of our boys. But certainly that would not be a sufficient reason to attack the submarine. With only harassment and persecution maneuvers it would have been more than enough for them to run to the continent. The Royal Navy officers would also put their necks on the edge since such an unnecessary act would be unforgivable unless, it had been the only remedy. And then where did the hypothesis of an implosion come from? And if that was the cause, what originated it?

Look, for a similar effect to take place, the submarine must have broken its immersion capacity and by pressure caused a crushing of the walls, causing the entire structure to jump, but for this, there must have been a reason why it sank so fast. The quickest way I know of for such a process is to disable the ship or an impact so powerful that it would not have given the crew a chance to close the compartments. Whatever it was, it rendered the ship totally defenseless and could also boast, instantly eliminated the crew.

For it to have collapsed as one of the factors of that implosion, there must have been an immediate cause such as a collapse in the structure, the hole in the hull due to an impact being the most common and known, I must also say that no it's the only one.

Here too the researchers cannot explain the cause of that supposed implosion. If there was an implosion, why did the underwater microphones of the Vienna-based Commission for Comprehensive Control and Nuclear Tests record two explosions in the acoustic sonar of the Atlantic? If there were two of them, one would have been the impact of a weapon and the other the implosion when it sank.

So what could Argentines have discovered that cost them their lives? Perhaps the most disturbing question of this -and one that the Argentine and British governments do not want to answer- is where are the bodies of the 44? The convenient intervention of the oceanographic vessel “Ocean Infinity” was another pillar element to close the lie with this alleged find. And if the Argentine government knew from the first moment the fate of the submarine and that of these public servants, supposedly dead by the implosion of the hull that should have been reasoned, why did not a body come out?

 

 

 

 

 

 

“A HAUNTING CLUE”

Trump had planned to attack Iran before leaving the White House with the intention of remaining in power. With this revelation, what other things will he have done under his position? Could it be that several cases were not filed or were they deleted? The truth is out there

By Charles H. Slim

A cornered man can do anything to escape, but what could one do who, in addition to being desperate, was a psychopath with delusions of grandeur? This is what many of us have been wondering about Trump if he were to lose reelection.

With what has been seen since the beginning of the year until Trump ended up assimilating that he will have to move his butt out of the White House, suffering his deepest selfish fiber. It is clear that such a character could be a highly destabilizing and dangerous element highlighted by impulses aimed at creating problems that, with the intention of undermining the governance of Biden & Cia, end up sinking the US further.

Donald Trump is like a capricious child who, unhappy at not having what he wants, can end up destroying it so that no one can enjoy it. This is how he has managed his administration but he has not done it alone. For executive orders to be carried out and other decisions that imply an authorization that were signed, many are involved in putting them into effect. Do you think that the order to assassinate the Iranian General Soleimani and eight other people who accompanied him, is a light and unplanned decision? All that closed circle of obsequious, far from advising the impetuous president prudence, encouraged him to carry out this type of measures since they surely believed that they could push him to open new war fronts to which he had refused.

When China proved ineffective with trade measures and desperate attempts to stop its drive to spread beyond Asia, these same obscurantist sectors living off the war once again charged in to instigate the proud Trump. Does it seem very suggestive that a virus with a very strange structure appeared that is said to have originated in Wuhan China but that had spread a few months before in a military base in the United States? Who do you think has access to that kind of highly classified war material?

Remember how in times of the "cold war" there was talk of the "nuclear briefcase" that accompanied the president wherever he traveled and of the "key" that activated the strategic missile systems after a DEFCON warning in the case of a nuclear attack of the Soviet Union. For a few decades now, the use of chemical and biological agents has been a shouting secret that has been revealed in the humanity of the anonymous settlers and also of the American soldiers themselves in scenarios such as Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen. And what? has the WHO or the United Nations done to denounce or investigate these atrocities against humanity?

The engineers of these repulsive weapons -including many university academics- designed and manufactured them precisely for their quiet and unobtrusive effect. If Trump was powerless for not being able to stop the Chinese with his trade sanctions and attending to his crazy personality while signing the agreement with Representative Liu Hue at the White House, why could he not have given the green light to a leak of that SARS- VOCs that they already had in their war laboratories? For Trump, playing dirty in business is common and if so, who advised him? Even a petulant like him can't get into certain dark areas of the state; for this they must guide it. Remember that an outbreak had already been detected in Fort Detrick, Maryland in June that was reported by the media and the outbreak in Wuhan was declared at the end of 2019.

As a disruptive agent of North American politics, Trump has represented a global phenomenon, the personification of a reaction to popular disgust towards the “families and political elites” who long ago left their representation work for that of business managers for their own sectors. For the domestic life of Americans Trump had a clear impact and unlike his opponents, he did not shake his hand to impose tax barriers to imports (for the benefit of his producers) and a tight control of subsidies for the unemployed, but at the same time the push for restrictive immigration policies such as the construction of a wall (similar to the Israeli one) on the border with Mexico and the brutal treatment of immigrants who dare to jump over it.

When the street riots for "Black Matter" took place, things had gotten out of control and as one of the solutions proposed by the president was to take the Armed Forces to the streets to simply crush the demonstrations, some ended up understanding the mentality of the President. Despite his cold suggestion, this did not come to fruition, but the National Guard had to take to the streets to appease the demanes and recover public spaces. The advisers and especially the Secretary of Defense Mark Espert (former Lt. Col. and Raython's deputy) trembled at this whim and were soon able to make sense of the consequences -not the humanity of the protesters- for the external public image.

As we know just a week ago, Espert was fired by Trump for not agreeing with the latest whims of the president, one of them, trying to launch a war against Iran.

The streets of Washington had been taken over by furious protesters who destroyed everything in their path, sowing panic in the government, leading Trump and his staff to take refuge in the bunker under the White House. Did Trump deserve this reaction? Recall that many suspected that "someone" was taking advantage of these events to destabilize the administration and force a possible early exit from the White House, but this did not return to victim Trump.

Beyond the existing racial problem -although many claim to deny it- and structural in the US, popular anger seemed to be more guided by an impotence product of a pandemic that had slowed down the development of their daily lives than pure indignation at the brutal death of an African American citizen at the hands of the police.

Ultimately, and after becoming aware of having been defeated in the elections, Trump seems to have wanted to play hard and with the backing of his staunch Zionist advisers (and no doubt with the support of Bibi), he plotted to launch a war against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Do not forget that during 2019 Tel Aviv with the secret cooperation of some Gulf monarchies tried to create a Casus belli incident against Iran by sabotaging the Japanese oil tankers. Despite the effort, the deception did not work. A few days later the US Navy tries to create another episode with an MQ-4 “Triton” spy drone.

Once again the deception failed and the attempt to justify aggressive action on Iran had to be suspended until further notice. As soon as some sectors began to expose the inconsistencies of the Pentagon and the State Department trying to accuse the Iranian Navy, Washington frozen the matter.

The revelation of Trump's plans was not accidental or guided by "democratic" good faith. Nothing of that. The new tenants of the White House have wanted to give the obnoxious blonde the coup de grace and discredit him before the international public opinion. It is true that Trump has been the mastermind of several crimes (including those not known in the media) using state terrorism. But make no mistake, Biden and his administration are no better guys, and you have no doubt that they will carry on even worse without the slightest contemplation.

 

 

 

“PRESIDENTE VIEJO, ESTRATEGIAS VIEJAS”

Algunas reflexiones sobre lo que traería la administración globalista de Biden & Harris en la Casa Blanca

 

Por Charles H. Slim

Sin dudas que en los EEUU también se ansían los cambios en la representación política en la cual la juventud entusiasta, preparada y con una visión más amplia, tenga el lugar que se merece. Esto queda mucho más claro en un país que se halla en medio de una crisis de representación imposible de disimular y que para muchos podría desembocar en una guerra civil.

La elección de Joe Biden, un mandatario de 77 años de edad, que es parte de una “elite” protagonista de la política de los últimos cincuenta años (aunque se proclame liberal), no da muchas chances para vislumbrar cambios tangibles en la vida política de los estadounidenses y la de su país con el resto del mundo.

Aquí no discutimos de su capacidad mental o si Biden está o no senil. Eso es algo que los médicos de la Casa Blanca determinaran. Pero si podríamos dudar si éste mandatario, por su longevidad podrá sobrevivir a una reelección.  Lo que queremos dejar en claro que la transición que se dará en breve es de una visión egocentrista de un mandatario personalista a uno pragmático que retomará las antiguas ambiciones de convertir a los EEUU en el líder hegemónico global pero, no todo lo que brilla es oro.

El viejito simpático tiene una larga historia de inconsecuencias y complicidades en procesos nada democráticos y descaradamente agresivos contra la soberanía y los derechos humanos de otros pueblos.  Agregado a ello EEUU se maneja con una plaza bancaria fraudulenta que vive a expensas del dinero "fiat" y a costa de sus propios ciudadanos que terminan financiando a esta clase política. A la par de ello no olvidemos que muchos de los recursos y materias primas (petróleo) que hoy son monopolizadas por inversores en Wall Street, han sido robados a otras naciones. Biden ha sido parte de varios de los episodios más cruentos de la historia política de los EEUU y también de los más bochornosos. Para nada representa la moderación o una visión nueva de la política norteamericana; para nada. Las exclamaciones públicas realizadas a posterior de obtener la tan estrecha victoria, demostraron eso.

Y no solamente las exclamaciones y las declaraciones que han hecho Biden y Harris sobre cuales serán sus prioridades en política exterior, las que dejan en evidencia esta agenda. El regreso de personajes de aquella “rancia” crema innata de la elite de Washington demuestra que habrá más de lo viejo y con ello, la repetición de estrategias (nada exentas de violencia, embustes e injusticia) para recuperar la tan ansiada hegemonía global.

Nos referimos a nada menos que Hillary Clinton que gracias a las innegables influencias que la cubren, ha podido saltar varios procesos judiciales por temas tan escabrosos y tétricos como la conveniente muerte del entonces secretario del gobernador Clinton Vince Foster en Arkansas, el asunto de los correos electrónicos, sus inexplicadas aún implicancias en los asuntos sucios de la CIA en Libia entre los cuales se halla las relaciones con grupos como “Al Qaeda” y el por entonces “Estado Islámico de Iraq”  y el asesinato del embajador Steve Stevens en 2012.

La reedición de personajes como estos ahondan aún más el descrédito por la política norteamericana y fomenta el fraccionamiento de su identidad nacional que hoy por hoy poco les importa a los millones de desgraciados que no tienen trabajo, salud o un techo donde cobijarse.

Por su parte, el prontuario de Biden no tiene nada que envidiarle. En 1982 cuando la Argentina retomó de la ocupación británica las islas Malvinas y archipiélago del Atlántico sur, el joven senador demócrata Biden no solo apoyó la postura británica sino que además de desconocer el tratado de asistencia reciproca TIAR que estaba en vigencia y Washington debió cumplir, negó  cualquier derecho de soberanía en cabeza de la Argentina. Pese a que los “liberales” argentos (hoy autodenominados “republicanos”) han pretendido patear esto bajo la alfombra, no han podido más que rumiar alguna que otra excusa baladí que solo convence a su público de culto.

Otro es el asunto “Ucrania” donde la administración Obama y Biden orquestaron las revueltas en la Plaza “Maidan” y que termino con el gobierno de Yanukóvich. Pero Biden tenía una implicación más personal por un asunto que involucro a su hijo Hunter pero que en realidad puso en el centro de atención al mismo Joe Biden quien durante la presidencia de Obama habría aprovechado su posición en la Casa Blanca para establecer contactos y negocios con el corrupto y “títere” gobierno de Poroshenko.Cuando el abogado de Trump, Rudy Giulliani viajó a Ucrania para indagar sobre los negocios de Biden obtuvo material que los demócratas y parte de la inteligencia trataron de desacreditar alegando que las evidencias que el ex alcalde de New York había hallado, habían sido plantadas por la inteligencia rusa, muy conveniente ¿No lo cree usted?

También y como era previsible, Biden y Cia mantendrán y profundizaran su apoyo a Israel lo que se traduce en un rechazo a las reivindicaciones palestinas y el mantenimiento (injusto e ilegal) de Jerusalem como capital de estado judío, la continuidad en las apropiaciones territoriales de Tel Aviv y profundizar los esfuerzos por frenar las investigaciones de la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI) por crímenes de guerra y lesa humanidad que se han cometido y se cometen en ese proceso. En este sentido ello no despierta ninguna sorpresa ya que era sabido que los demócratas tienen la misma afinidad ideologica y complicidad de los republicanos con el influyente lobbie sionista local. Solo habría que ver si Biden va más allá que Trump y concede mayores favores –si es que ello es posible- a este sector de poder que realiza esfuerzos y gastos siderales por maquillar (ya que hoy díes es imposible ocultar)  las violaciones a los derechos humanos que comete el estado de Israel.

A la par de esto, Washington blanqueara su presencia en Siria (disfrazda por el enviado especial James Jeffrey durante el gobierno de Trump) y tratara de evitar que sean expulsados de Iraq donde el ánimo general no tolerará más tropas norteamericanas en su suelo. No hay que olvidar que aún está pendiente una profunda investigación judicial –ante una instancia internacional- sobre los crímenes que se cometieron a la sombra de la ocupación y la violencia fomentada con embustes como el “Estado Islámico”. Aquí también el papel de la CPI es fundamental para terminar con la obscena impunidad que solo crea frustración.

Sobre este tema, podríamos ser testigos de la búsqueda (obviamente secreta) por cambiar la funcionalidad de ésta instancia judicial tratando de cooptarla (financiera y políticamente) quitándole el sustento que recibe de la Unión Europea y con ello, resolver  o archivar situaciones embarazosas como las que actualmente se plantea ante este foro.

Otro objetivo ineludible será reestablecer la integridad operativa de la OTAN dejando bien en claro que sus aliados europeos son meros integrantes liderados por EEUU. Esto al mismo tiempo hará que Eurasia y en particular la Federación rusa ajusten sus estrategias en previsión de una amplificación de las operaciones aéreas, terrestres y navales occidentales en el hemisferio oriental.

Otro escenario que podría recrudecer se ubica en el Mar Meridional de la China donde EEUU desde hace años ha estado tratando de establecer alianzas estratégicas con los vecinos de la república popular para establecer bases y llevar adelante operaciones de control sobre las aguas y los islotes que se hallan en disputa. En ese sentido Washington se han dado cuenta que sin la estructura de la OTAN y la participación de sus aliados (Francia, Australia etc) se le complica establecer una superioridad marítima en esa región.  Al respecto el Pentágono había venido trabajando sin pausa para establecer nuevas estrategias y la renovación de materiales y sistemas de armamento para los despliegues de su infantería de marina en escenarios como los del indo-pacifico.  

Como podrá deducirse de todos estos antecedentes y los planes en danza, no habrá consultas ni deliberaciones previas, ni pedidos de permiso y mucho menos explicaciones que, en la teoría, hacen a la tan mencionada y sermoneada por Washington “democracia”.

 

 

 

 

 

“TACTO Y ASTUCIA”

El cese al fuego del 10 de noviembre entre Armenia y Azerbaiyán tendrá consecuencias a mediano y largo plazo ¿A quiénes beneficia y a quiénes no les beneficia el final de esta guerra?

 

Por Dany Smith

Mientras los medios masivos de información occidentales copaban el aire y los sitios de internet con los vaivenes de la elección presidencial en los EEUU, en el sur del Cáucaso la guerra entre Armenia y Azerbaiyán tomaba un curso definitivo. Lo que estaba por ocurrir explicaba el silencio de los medios occidentales, particularmente los angloestadounidenses y en especial los británicos.

Apenas estalló la primera bomba en aquel anónimo ataque del 27 de septiembre contra los blindados azeríes, muchos comenzaron a especular quién había sido el primero en disparar o si en realidad, ambos bandos fueron manipulados por una tercera fuerza para que comenzara la escalada. Tan pronto comenzó el conflicto, tanto el canciller ruso Serguei Lavrov como el mismo presidente Vladimir Putin, comenzaron los contactos confidenciales con ambos gobiernos para escuchar explicaciones y al mismo tiempo, detener lo que podría ser una guerra sanguinaria e inecesaria.

Las sospechas de una posible implicancia de una tercera potencia en la creación del incidente, comenzaría a tomar fuerza cuando algunos expertos como el polaco Matheus Piskorski, señalaron la participación del “MI-6” dirigido por el ex diplomático y experto en asuntos turcos Richard Moore, en la creación del incidente para desatar una escalada en la región. Para la agencia británica el terreno caucásico no era desconocido dado que ya en épocas de la guerra de Chechenia, desatada entre 1994/1996, supieron prestar apoyo clandestino de diversa índole (tráfico de armas, explosivos e información) a los independentistas chechenos.

En la presente crisis el objetivo no era ayudar a los armenios ni a mucho menos a los azeries. Algunas especulaciones sobre estas implicancias apuntan a que se trató de un cebo para meter de cabeza a Turquía, en particular para comprometer al gobierno de Ankara y con ello, fabricar la excusa perfecta para acabar de una buena vez con el problemático Erdogan tal como lo hizo Washington con Saddam Hussein tras manipularle para alentarlo a invadir Kuwait en agosto de 1990.

Otra lectura apunta a un objetivo mucho más ambicioso y nada novedoso como es crear el caos en las fronteras de Rusia. Estaba claro que desestabilizar la región traería muchos problemas a Rusia y en especial al presidente Putin quien en los últimos meses viene pasando por una severa crisis política interna beneficiando con ello, los objetivos geopolíticos que EEUU tiene en mira (Conforme a los estudios de la Corporación RAND).

Precisamente sobre lo que han evaluado esos estudios, plasmados en un informe puesto a disposición de la CIA y el Pentágono, entre sus capítulos menciona como objetivos prioritarios “aprovechar las tensiones en el sur del Cáucaso” con lo cual muy bien podríamos preguntar ¿No parece curioso que tras estas evaluaciones de la Corporación RAND se produjeran los incidentes que escalaron en septiembre? Igualmente, por el resultado visto, sus objetivos no se consiguieron e incluso podemos asegurar que fueron contraproducentes para sus intereses y obviamente a costa de los intereses armenios.

Lo cierto es que fueron 44 día de feroces combates en los que las tropas azeries avanzaron sobre los territorios que Armenia había ocupado en la guerra de 1994  recuperando como principal objetivo de las reivindicaciones de Azerbaiyán, los altos de Nagorno Karabaj. Pero ¿Por qué se silenciaron las armas? Primero que todo aclaremos que no fue gracias a EEUU, Francia ni cualquiera de sus socios de la OTAN. Tampoco lo fue por la participación de Turquía (Patito feo atlantista) ni del subterráneo involucramiento de Israel con Bakú que hizo un formidable negocio con la venta de armamento a dos bandas; no. Una vez más, fueron las gestiones diplomáticas apoyadas por el realismo y la audacia que requiere una política exitosa y no de meros discursos vacíos como podemos ver en países que tienen disputas territoriales similares y que no pueden respaldar esas palabras con planes concretos en el terreno.   

Pero volviendo a lo que ocurre en el Cáucaso, vemos que algunos malintensionados pretenden darle al conflicto el tenor religioso y mostrar a los armenios como los pobres cristianos ortodoxos rodeados de los malvados musulmanes. Ese discurso sucio y mitológico ya se conoce a donde apunta y ha sido muy trillado en Palestina con el cual Israel y sus partidarios alrededor del mundo –y utilizando espacios como Hollywood-  han tratado de disfrazar sus ambiciones colonialistas que se ven materializadas con las continuas usurpaciones de tierras árabes y lo peor de todo, ocultar sus incontables crímenes de guerra que cometen en ese proceso.

En el caso de la disputa por los altos de Nagorno Karabaj y varios territorios azeríes, su situación en el terreno había cambiado por acciones invasivas. Todos ellos habían sido conquistados por la fuerza y ocupados por los armenios en momentos que la URSS se desmembraba. Desde ese entonces, los armenios fundaron la república de “Artzaj” que nunca fue reconocida internacionalmente estableciéndose un estado de paz precaria y de mutua desconfianza que fue roto esporádicamente por continuos duelos de artillería y disparos de francotiradores.

Para finales de octubre los combates en rededor de Nagorno Karabaj se volvieron intensos y varios pueblos cercanos con habitantes armenios comenzaron su evacuación hacia Armenia. El caso de la localidad de Stepanakert es descriptivo de lo que sucedía días antes de que se lograra detener los combates. A pesar de la guerra de desinformación que se llevaba a cabo en "Twitter", la realidad en terreno evidenció que los pobladores armenios comenzaron a evacuar sus hogares y salir presurosos en sus vehículos hacia Erevan.

El 10 de noviembre y tras intensas gestiones del presidente Vladimir Putin y su equipo de asesores exteriores, se puso en vigencia un cese al fuego y el envio de una fuerza de paz rusa para desplegar rápidamente en la región. Ello pudo lograrse tras la realización de intensas  conversaciones con el primer ministro armenio Nikol Pashinyan, su homologo azerí Iham Aliyev y con el primer ministro turco Recept Tiyip Erdogan, éste ultimo con inquietantes y nada secretas ambiciones regionales direccionadas a monopolizar el comercio del gas en la región.

Para los armenios represento una inaceptable derrota y las consecuencias de esta frustración no se hicieron esperar sobre el gobierno de Pashinyan. En horas de la noche del 11 de noviembre una orda de cientos de enfurecidos armenios asaltó el Parlamento donde lincharon al vocero parlamentario Ararat Mirzoyan, al mismo primer ministro Pashinyan y a otros de sus funcionarios. Las escenas que se recogieron por cámaras de teléfonos celulares revelaron los efectos de la ira popular y el comienzo de una etapa peligrosa para Armenia.

El papel de Turquía en este conflicto en nada contribuyó a la paz, aunque cierto es que, su mandatario se encargo de explicitar su apoyo decidido e incondicional a sus hermanos chiitas del Cáucaso. Más allá de la solidaridad que Erdogan pretendía mostrar por las ocupaciones de territorios azeries, sin duda especulaba con establecer un protagonismo geopolítico en la región que ha quedado truncado por la rápida y eficaz intervención de Moscú. Son dudas y más allá de la sangre derramada Rusia logro frenar una tragedia mucho mayor.

Al mismo tiempo le hizo un favor a Turquía. Con su retorica y comprobada implicancia belicista, Erdogan se estaba poniendo la soga al cuello sin advertir que sus colegas de la OTAN (en especial EEUU y Gran Bretaña) estaban por abrir la trampera bajo sus pies para ahorcarle. Tal vez Erdogan debiera darle las gracias a Putin por salvarle el cuello, aunque ello le cueste abandonar sus ambiciones.