“INTRIGUE, BISCUITS AND BETRAYAL”

Save Ukraine or save the system headed by Zelensky? That is the question for Washington and Brussels

By Sir Charlattam

Like every Tuesday evening it is a special day for me as it is the day I meet up with my old friend and contact “Joe” for a drink and an update on current affairs. This meeting was special as I had just returned from a trip a few days ago. Obviously, what is happening in Ukraine is the most important thing, especially what is going on under cover, as there is another war that the public does not see and will not see.

So it was and at the agreed time we met at our usual place and this time I must say I was surprised by the news he brought me with documents that could bring down the Parliament and “10 Downing Street” itself, taking away the poor vote of confidence given to monkey cheeks Johnson.

Joe has a source inside Kiev who gives him a pretty accurate and enlightening picture of what is going on around Volodymyr Zelensky himself and his close relations with Warsaw and..., London. At one point I stopped him and said “what a novelty, my friend”. But he immediately shut me up by saying “our people are so involved that they are the ones running the party there”. I waited a few seconds dumbfounded and said “What?”

I'm not surprised that MI6 is there but, according to this friend there is much more than one agency in charge. As far as he has been able to learn, Zelensky would be following a road map drawn up by the Foreign Office to the letter without having to inform Washington, which would be watching from the sidelines. Surprising, isn't it? The White House has put the British in charge of managing this disaster and the worst thing is that our politicians, with “monkey cheeks” at the helm, are happy to go along with it.

This at the same time has sparked several controversies within the military ranks of the already devastated Ukrainian regular army (UAF). Because let's make the distinction, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are not the same as the neo-Nazi Battalions (loyal to the Nazi doctrine of Stephan Bandera) that are being assisted by NATO and of course, by our SAS and SBS boys, so who really runs Ukraine?

According to a contact within a circle of middle-ranking officers, there is disagreement about how Zelensky is running the war, to which I replied, "Is he running the war? Joe, nonchalantly and sipping his drink, said “of course he is, but he's doing it with advisors on the side and they're all NATO”. Actually, what he was telling me did not surprise me since it was proven that French, Canadians and our own were caught by Russian troops. He also assured me that the presence of Polish foreign intelligence in Lviv and western locations is detectable without much effort. To a veteran eye there are things that do not escape notice.

According to his sources the Chechens on the eastern front are being hit hard and daily casualties are counted at an average of a hundred and that is not counting the desertions of groups of volunteer mercenaries, many of them Americans, overwhelmed by Russian firepower, inventing defects in their weapons or wounds in order to be evacuated. In Mariupol Kadirov's Chechens wiped out an ambush attempt and the scenario was horrific and very frustrating for Zelensky's military commanders. What do you think the unwary volunteers who thought they were in for a ride must have thought? 

I was also told that NATO is providing resources to produce audio-visual propaganda to boost the morale of the people in Kiev, most of which consists of colourful and witty music videos, but which are basically evidence of the desperation of Zelensky's backers and his neo-Nazi clique. This remains an issue and even if Tel Aviv wants to play it down under ridiculous slogans, their countryman is supported by a neo-Nazi organisation that itself was and still is financed by Jewish oligarchs. There is a moral dilemma for the European Union in this, though not for its Tory politicians, and certainly not for “monkey cheeks Johnson” and his minions in Downing Street who live off those very interests.

Another issue of great concern to the Ukrainian generals is where is all the war materiel that Washington has been promising with great fanfare, not counting of course the shipments that have been destroyed by Russian missiles, which are an indication of the good intelligence they have on the ground.

But this massive arms shipment has unleashed another business, and that is black market arms. But of course, not just any weapons. Tons of portable weapons, many of them highly sophisticated, could be lost in midstream and diverted to international mafias or simply to other theatres of war in Africa and Asia (Afghanistan). This is no longer a secret and the head of Interpol himself has put out an alert for this and of course the bureaucrats in Washington and even less so those in London who tried to summon him to press him to investigate alleged Russian war crimes did not like it.

What the West is also silent about is the humanitarian aid that the Russians are deploying without asking for a Russian identity card or being Russian-speaking in the controlled regions. Beyond an attempt to disguise the military action and its consequences, Russian troops have launched an aid campaign delivering food, water, medical care and security to civilian citizens. Plans for reconstruction are already underway in Mariupol and Kherson where battles have ceased and neo-Nazis have been surrendered or eliminated.

In the midst of all this turmoil Zelensky does not seem to be in control of the whole situation. There is discomfort within his inner circle and this is fuelling rumours of an internal coup by those who suspect that his policies are more in line with NATO's plans than those of the Ukrainian population who cannot cope with the situation. Added to this is Poland's growing influence within the territory and in all its decisions.

I think after all that we have discussed that Washington will continue to use its comic actor as the protagonist of this tragedy but it is quite possible that he will soon be given his cancellation notice.

 

 

 

 

“THE MIRAGE OF SINAI”

Perhaps many people in the West have forgotten what ISIS is. Have the Arab rulers and especially the Egyptians forgotten?

 

By Yossi Tevi

After the end of the last Arab-Israeli war in the 1970s, a geographical and visible separation between Egypt and Israel was established (with the 1978 Peace Treaty) to prevent a new attempt by either side to launch a surprise attack. Sinai became consecrated to be a space of separation between both actors under the observation of the United Nations. The passing of the years and the decades have turned it into something more than a demilitarized zone and both for some and for others, it has become anything else.

At this point and given the new dirty war tactics that are used to try to degrade the enemy, Sinai's function as a demilitarized space to guarantee non-aggression has only contributed to offering a paradise for the recruitment, training and commissioning of Islamist groups with non-Islamic directors.

The sudden appearance of ISIS in 2014 has played a fundamental role in the growth of insecurity and violence in the peninsula that curiously only affects Egyptians. This was functional for Israel who, with a multimillion-dollar budget and almost unlimited military technological resources (sent from the US), forced Egypt to cooperate in a common security plan for the entire Peninsula. But it is known that while the Israelis show an empty palm of their hands in the other there is a dagger ready to attack. The concerns of Israeli intelligence and their CIA colleagues with these “pseudo-Islamist” cells (especially operating in Syria) give no assurance of sincere concern.

This was by no means accidental. Those in the West who relate the “phenomenon” of “Daesh” do so artificially and do not say that it arose within the framework of the campaign of aggression against Syria and in which France, the United Kingdom (through the White Helmets) and the United States (through the tireless Hillary Clinton's efforts to finance the Syrian opposition) had a capital involvement in it. Nor do they mention that the so-called “Caliph” Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi was a mercenary (imposing the role of an Iraqi doctor manufactured by the Americans and who never existed) who, along with other leaders of armed gangs supported from Washington, met with Senator John Mc Cain in 2013 on the occasion of his visit to encourage his fight against Damascus.

This reminder preface is essential to understand why the resurgence of terrorism in Sinai has a very suspicious smell.

Even if it seems to you that this has nothing to do with what is happening in Ukraine, believe me, you are wrong. First of all, the Middle East and in particular Syria and Iraq owe it to Russia for having intervened in September 2015 to stop the advance and subsequent defeat of ISIS. Since 2012, Moscow had already been cooperating with Damascus to combat the terrorist groups of Wahabi and Takfir affiliation. Those who put together the pseudo-Islamist deception (linked to the Five Eyes) did not forget this and only waited for the opportunity to return courtesies to Moscow. The first blow to Moscow's withdrawal was undoubtedly the shooting down of the Metrojet on October 31, 2015 over Sinai. Despite this bloody message, Moscow was not frightened and, on the contrary, struck hard at these gangs and their sponsors.

That had an indirect effect on the structure of this organization that was also exposed as a fraud in Afghanistan (ISIS-Khorasan), from where the Anglo-Americans in September 2021 ran away.

Vladimir Putin's decision to end the ISIS enclaves in Syria (especially Palmyra) was decisive for the Iraqis and Iranians to be able to recapture Mosul in 2017. With this it is clear that the US was not the one who achieved this achievement (claimed by Donald Trump) recalling his shady role on the ground. There are still many embarrassing issues for the Americans and their NATO allies that have not come to light in large part because of the corrupt gang (CIA-linked) in power in Baghdad. Do you even know where the commanders of this farce? Likewise, that does not hide the suspicion that resources are being injected to reissue a return of ISIS.

What makes you suspect that they are seeking to revive the psychosis of ISIS Islamist terrorism near Israel? If there is a threat, there are excuses to increase and extend surveillance over a territory with the most important sea crossings for commercial traffic. Don't you think it's convenient?

The increase in the actions of gangs that identify themselves with ISIS in Sinai is the bloodiest and most concrete indication that leads to these suspicions. So far in May, attacks against Egyptian military posts have intensified, killing many army personnel. The last one carried out on May 8 in “Bear Al Abd” to the west of the peninsula where eleven Egyptian soldiers were killed. On the contrary (and as has happened before) the Israelis have not received any attacks. Luck or fix? Perhaps you forget the connections between the “Al Nusrah” gang (affiliate of Al Qaeda) in Quneitra with the Israeli military intelligence. Or the video montages and the infiltrations paid by the Mossad in Gaza to create a “Daesh” branch that would rival "Hamas" and it didn't work. Why? There are not enough Shiites there to blame them. It was a frustration for “Bibi” and the entourage of extremists who supported him, but especially for his liar spokesman Yigal Palmor who with his tangled arguments wanted to explain the inexplicable. And worse still for the unpleasant Avigdor Lieberman who prayed to “Yahweh” that the sea swallow the Gaza Strip.

When the farce of the Caliphate was installed in Iraq back in June 2014, no one in the Anglo-American media noticed that in the portentous processions in which the brand new ISIS mobile units paraded there were artillery pieces, armored vehicles and Saudi supplies of American origin, certainly curious, don't you think so? Even many of the commanders of the Iraqi Revolutionary Military Committees (which were part of the resistance) who fell for the deception, could see that these weapons and equipment had not come from the captured bases in the north, but the desire to get rid of the puppets in Baghdad beat them.

What happened in Iraq with ISIS was undoubtedly a lesson for all Arab and Islamic countries, but also for Israel, which has been a party to this and believes that by outsourcing its creations it will escape its consequences. The trick of blowing up sectarianism can backfire. Today it seems that Egypt can become the center of action of this hoax for the purpose of distraction due to what is happening in Ukraine. If President Adelfatah Al Sisi and his rulers do not pay attention to the dynamics of this threat, they could fall into the same trap that the Mesopotamians fell into.

 

 

“BEYOND SPEECH”

Throughout the last century, nationalism has been demonized by being equated with distortions such as Nazism and fascism, but other such deviations have been silenced. This seeks to strip the identity of the states that suit Washington and London and maintain that of their allies.

 

By Danny Smith

The 20th century was the protagonist of the birth and establishment of an ideological antagonism born by the European intellectualism of the 19th century that ended in two great world wars and that was continued by the rest of the countries of the globe. Liberalism, nationalism and communism as central axes of this, led in turn to the creation of currents of interpretation that would end up demonstrating a similar nature.

The conception of the left and right, materialized in extreme currents such as Nazism, fascism and communism, provided a framework for the ideological and warlike conflict that (used by the Anglo-Saxon liberals) brought as a consequence the most horrendous and shameful calamities against the humanity that, despite such a lesson, would continue until the end of the century.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the USSR in 1991 marked a historical hinge that, in theory, would end this confrontation, but that did not happen. In the Western media story, the death of communism and even the end of ideologies were raised. But that wasn't so true. The atomization of the USSR triggered the revival of nationalism and even its most ultramontane exacerbations. Then. Although communism lay inert on a ditch in history, its usual rival (nationalism), on the contrary, was reborn, adulterated and raging with the power of a bloodthirsty zombie. What happened?

The answer is clear: He was secretly revived and nurtured for use when the occasion called for it. This, as expected, was convenient for Washington and London for certain cases and many of these exacerbated feelings had been fed throughout the cold war to undermine the political stability of Moscow. But with the Soviet Union gone, those resources would be available for new strategies.

This is how, for decades, the CIA and MI6 worked with ethnic minorities and political dissidence in the Caucasus, in Eastern Europe and even in the regions and countries bordering China (Nepal and Tibet) seeking to foment subversion, discontent social and disobedience against communist governments and even territorial secessions.

But it was not enough that the Soviet era ended. NATO never stopped its expansion plans.

Thus we saw how the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1991 represented the fragmentation of the state into three ethnic religious blocs that for decades lived in harmony and suddenly collided in a brutal way, recreating scenes that had only been seen in Beirut during the civil war. that? From a distance and with the current situation in Ukraine, NATO's responsibilities became clear, creating and putting into operation new armed groups that would later be used in the Caucasus and the Middle East. Created chaos and without an opponent such as the USSR (with an absent UN), promoting insecurity to offer its “Security System” did not represent any problem and it was in this way that the Atlantists brains were able to establish strategic points in Albania and Kosovo.

It was very useful for Washington and Brussels to revive the monster of nationalism, exacerbated by religion and the fear of uncertainty in countries that for seventy years were under a regime that had disappeared. Throughout the cold war, the CIA and its namesake partners worked with extremist groups and cells as assets to use against the USSR.

When that Status Quo disappears, those assets will continue to exist and began to be used for other purposes and in other scenarios. The existence of private armies (Stay Behind) under the direction of NATO, such as GLADIO and the Muslim Legion (linked to Al Qaeda and Daesh), was a secret that was kept for a long time, long enough to carry out several of the actions bloodier on European soil that were foisted on others (extremists of the European left and the Libyan Arabs).

With this it is clear that the phenomenon of terrorism was never such and much less only used by Arabs and Muslims. Terrorism is one more tactical tool in the arsenals. Long before the Second World War began, Zionist cells in Palestine (made up of European Jews) were already operating against the Arab population and the British protectorate, using terrorism as one of their most common tactics.

In this sense, let us remember that Zionism was conceived on the basis of Jewish nationalism, that is, a homeland for and only for the Jews regardless of whose land it was. This branch of nationalism was and continues to be enthusiastically supported by London and Washington and that is how the Zionists with Ben Gurion at the head managed to settle in Palestine.

Along with this situation in Palestine, when it suited the West, I do not hesitate to discretionally support Arab nationalism to consolidate its own interests in the region. Just as it has maintained its oil business ties with the Saudi royal family “Al Saud”, on the other side of the Gulf, the US (through the CIA) after overthrowing Mohamad Mossadegh in 1953 rose and forged excellent relations with the royalty of Persia. When the puppet and Shah of Persia Reza Palevi had to flee for the 1979 Revolution as part of his campaign against the Iranian revolution, Washington powerless to reverse the situation, instigated and supported the Iraqi national socialist "Baath" party led by Saddam Hussein to they bled to death in an eight-year war and then, after inducing it to the crisis with Kuwait in 1990, get rid of this Arab ally.

When George W. Bush said that one of the threats to democracy was nationalism and Islamist extremism, he was simply contradicting what the US had been secretly instigating for decades. To cover up this inconsistency, the media played -as usual- a fundamental role. Despite the fact that it was rhetoric for public consumption, his Israeli colleague Benjamin Netanyahu did not hesitate to establish very good relations with the most controversial far-right governments in Eastern Europe, including those that became Ukraine after the 2014 coup, especially with the current Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky who received him with a neo-Nazi ceremony in August 2019.

The latter should not surprise anyone since there are currently in Ukraine groups of Kurdish mercenaries financed and directed by Israeli agents who, in addition to carrying out terrorist acts against Iraq and Iran, work and cooperate with the Nazi “Azov” battalions. Washington has been at the forefront of this and if we don't remember the roles of Secretary of State John Kerry, his deputy Victoria Nuland and later that of John McCain who, as he did in Syria, in 2016 visited the neo-Nazi extremists in kyiv.

All this shows that beyond the trite media propaganda (to which the film industry is added) and the extensive literature that separates the right and the left as antagonists, trying to superimpose on this scheme supposed democracies and supposed autocracies in a game of good guys and bad guys, reality makes it clear that this was never the case and that beyond ideologies, Western governments respond to conveniences and interests.

 

 

 

“ESTADO DISOLVENTE”

En la lucha meramente partidista de una clase política abyecta y corrupta se han perdido los objetivos estratégicos del estado argentino ¿A quiénes beneficia esto?

Por Javier B. Dal

Muchas veces hemos preguntado ¿Qué es el estado argentino? Parece una cuestión sin sentido si la formulamos de esta manera. Tal vez la forma correcta sería ¿Qué es el estado para los políticos argentinos? Ya que son ellos quienes aspiran a ocupar cargos en este ente que nació para la administración de la cosa pública de una población dentro de un territorio determinado. Parece algo simple, pero ¿Por qué el caso argentino es atípico?

No vamos a citar las diferentes teorías del estado ni a sus autores. El problema argentino pasa por otro lado y se vincula más bien con su propia idiosincrasia y particularidades del carácter.

La Argentina es un estado federal con un extenso territorio dividido en 24 provincias que reservan para si todas las materias que no hayan delegado al primero. De esta forma conforman una unidad que es gobernada desde la ciudad de Buenos Aires que tiene un estatus muy peculiar y que se asemeja a otra provincia. Hasta allí todo muy lindo pero, desde su nacimiento y podemos asegurar que hasta no hace mucho, la visión política y estratégica de los políticos era tan yerma como la de un burro en una pradera.

La pérdida de la vocación representativa y la corrupción ha ganado lugar dentro de esta “casta” social privilegiada que se autopercibe como indispensable.

El estado es parte de la realidad política, necesaria y funcional para administrar los asuntos que hacen a su competencia y es por ello que retraerle de sus funciones es algo inconcebible si se busca el desarrollo del país.

La historia del estado argentino es la de un estado quebrado o más bien, resquebrajado. Al comienzo lo fue económicamente, luego política e ideológicamente pero hoy a todo eso se le agrega la quiebra moral y ética que lo reduce a una mera administración de almacén de barrio.

Los últimos 40 años de su historia son el reflejo de una decadencia sin pausa. Cada una de las administraciones que pasaron por la Rosada pusieron su cuota de inconsecuencia y discordancia con los intereses del estado y obviamente con los de su población. Radicales, peronistas (en todas sus variopintas presentaciones) y socialdemócratas malograron las finalidades del estado sirviéndose a discreción y conveniencia de las arcas del erario público. De esa forma el estado se volvió una caja para financiar los estilos de vida de una prolífica y creciente clase de vividores a costa de la cosa pública.

Cada uno de estos gobiernos fue olvidando y dejando de lado los objetivos estratégicos bajo la pueril excusa de un pretendido interés social superior. Curiosamente, con la llegada de la “democracia” en 1983 comenzaría el germen del empobrecimiento paulatino y no solo económico, sino de valores que amplificado por medios ideologizados y obsecuentes tiñeron todo de gris presentando una realidad carente de matices. Así a la ya abúlica sociedad argenta le sumamos una pobreza en valores (fomentado en parte por la dañina y falsa concepción igualitarista del Kirchnerismo) facilita el dominio y la ignorancia.

La creciente masa de pobres paso a ser la mercancía de los partidos políticos y con ello el clientelismo y el punterismo partidocrático. Esta oscura funcionalidad daba réditos y entonces los pobres pasaron a ser otro resorte en la política partidaria. Bajo este “buenismo” -sustentado por un pulpo impositivo- se estructuro todo un sistema paralelo de asistencia social que terminaría siendo un asistencialismo crónico que, además de la falta de incentivos para trabajar ha llevado al actual descalabro social y productivo. Así se llegó al eslogan “el estado presente” que en realidad no significa otra cosa que un eufemismo para disfrazar más asistencialismo y clientelismo convirtiendo al estado nación en un “estado partidario”.

Bajo semejante concepción ¿A dónde pretendería llegar este estado?

Ello supone el abandono del estado en el área de la producción y la ausencia del control sobre sus recursos naturales, un verdadero despropósito estratégico que no grafica en nada esa pretendida presencialidad del estado. Por el contrario, el estado se ha replegado de forma crítica de los altos asuntos de la seguridad y la defensa a niveles inaceptables para que pueda desarrollarse con sanidad un país. La desarticulación de las Fuerzas Armadas y de la inteligencia (AFI) ha sido uno de los pilares de esta situación y sus responsables son los mismos que tras fomentar ese desguace, hoy (ocupando algunas de estas carteras) pretenden recobrar un peso regional que ya hace décadas se ha perdido.

Esto comenzó como una revancha ideológica de los sectores que apoyaron a los grupos guerrilleros setentistas pero que, tras el final de la guerra de Malvinas en 1982, fue potenciado desde Londres. No hay dudas que esos sectores, algunos escudados tras agrupaciones de derechos humanos, tal vez inconscientemente o tal vez adrede, sentaron las bases para esta desestructuración. Con la firma de los acuerdos de rendición en Madrid 1989 y 1990, Carlos Saúl Menem institucionalizo esto y sentenció el final de cualquier aspiración nacional e independiente a recomponer sus Fuerzas Armadas. Toda el área quedaría (como aún se halla) bajo el control y arbitrio británico.

Bajo este paraguas invisible, no debe progresar el nacionalismo ni ideas que tiendan a reivindicar un cuestionamiento a esta dependencia. Para esto, el estado debe mantenerse flácido y sin músculos para poder moldearlo a gusto de esos intereses. Mucho menos, exponer un pensamiento crítico sobre las acciones y políticas de las denominadas “democracias” anglosajonas y sus socios, repletas de inconsecuencias con esa presentación (Haciendo de la conspiración y la guerra motores de sus economías). En este plan, los medios y los llamados intelectuales liberales, haciendo algunos de ellos alarde de sus títulos académicos y rebosante intelectualidad, jugaron y siguen jugando el papel de denostadores del nacionalismo apelando a reduccionismos infantiles que cierran con una falsa perogrullada diciendo que aquella se riñe con la democracia. Ello no es más que su confirmada obsecuencia y funcionalidad con la política exterior que radian las embajadas norteamericana y británica en Buenos Aires.

El actual gobierno y la corriente política que lo acompaña autodenominada “nacional y popular” no han demostrado ninguna señal para sanear el estado y mucho menos su reestructuración para que cumpla con sus objetivos estratégicos que claramente son opuestos a las expectativas de aquellas naciones. Alberto Fernández a contrario de lo que simulo antes de subir al cargo, es la continuación y sin dudas el final del Kirchnerismo que por veinte años ha desfasado las incumbencias del estado y ha hundido su potencialidad al abismo de la incertidumbre ¿A dónde puede dirigirse el estado bajo esta conducción?

Tampoco hay que dejarse engañar por los oportunistas reciclados y los arribistas que ayer eran de un color y hoy lo visten de otro. En esta categoría se inscriben los liberales tras el pomposo calificativo de “republicanos” pretenden engañar solamente a los incautos ¿Qué es lo que se podría esperar de candidatos liberales como Javier Milei quien ha dejado en claro que su modelo de país se refleja en EEUU e Israel? éste último considerado por la militancia sionista en los medios como “un milagro” por el éxito económico que consagró tras vencer la hiperinflación de los ochentas.

La aparición de estos “libertarios” que se oponen a la existencia del estado, nos lleva al otro extremo de esta tragedia pero ambos, oficialismo y oposición llevan al mismo resultado: La dominación externa.