“NO STUPIDITY”

Why is the war in Ukraine not a sightseeing tour?

By Sidney Hey

Many were quick to open their big mouths and prejudge the capabilities of Russian troops and the intensity they would face in the war with Ukraine. Only politicians and tabloid journalists masquerading as intellectuals can support a war like the one that is being waged today in Europe itself.

It is always important to remember that the start of Special Operation Z (Victory) was made inevitable by the plans of Kiev and its NATO partners to launch in March 2022 a massive offensive on the Donbass which, besides causing a massacre against the Russian-speaking Ukrainian population, would have hindered an intervention as launched on 24 February of the same year.

It is Zelensky and his cohorts, working under the blatant directive of the Pentagon and with the unveiled support of NATO, who are mainly responsible for the disaster in Ukraine today and the risk of the war setting the whole EU on fire, so what will Joe Biden and his Pentagon generals do to alleviate all the pain that this would bring? Let's not forget the consequences of the Nord Stream pipeline explosions. Was this a blunder by the Navy Seals and the S.B.S.? The energy crisis is a reality and they have made Europeans dependent on expensive US LNG, victims of product shortages and price increases. Are they trying to make Europeans dependent on their food and drinking water as well? 

Washington is doing fabulous business at the expense of the Europeans and the politicians have their mouths shut, surely with the banknotes printed by the Treasury Department.

The lies peddled by the pathetic media propaganda of this side are not only unbelievable but also insulting. When we were in Iraq our enemies had no waistcoats, no Kevlar helmets and thanks to the arms boycott to supply them, they barely carried their AK-47 and an RPG-7 shooter as the mainstay of their attack groups to ambush us. Their ingenuity and persistence got the better of them and we saw that in the Bradleys, the wrecked Abrams and the thousands of wounded who came home. We had the firepower and political power to justify the unjustifiable. And despite that, we couldn't bend their morale and even though it was like throwing a duck, the bastards wouldn't give up.

Look at what is happening in Ukraine today. While Washington, Brussels and London play blind man's buffoonery and don't even bat an eyelid at the presence of task forces operating on the ground with the Ukrainians, we have seen how several “Rambo” have fallen as soon as they got off the truck or the BTR-4 that was transporting them. Because the imbeciles thought they were dealing with improvisers and amateurs; terrible mistake my friend, this is not a tourist war.

The reality of this theatre of operations is very complex. Trench lines are non-linear, covering large stretches of plain, and are often located at nodes on main routes where once there were pine groves that after bombardment are now only scattered splinters.

Even their highly imaginative networks of trenches and foxholes do not escape accurate artillery bombardment, and UAVs are the key to this.

The tactics of assaulting these positions is not classic and it is there that the Russians and in particular the “Wagner” types using novel tactics have broken the backbone of Kiev's defence, most notably the advance into Donetsk Oblast liberating several Russophone settlements, to Soledar and soon to fully seize Bakhmut.

Panic has spread through the corridors of the White House and from there to the Pentagon from where they are pushing the Germans very hard to deliver “Leopard” battle tanks to Kiev, which would mean a declaration of war on Russia. As for the Germans, BND intelligence has been reporting that the level of daily Ukrainian casualties (reaching three figures) will crucially affect the sustaining of the front and this fear is seen on the streets of Kiev and other Ukrainian towns where men are practically being “hunted” to be taken to the front.

It seems that the Americans have once again outsourced their participation under the mask of private security companies like BLACKWATER, which caused so much damage to Iraqi and Afghan civilians. Now a collection of these same guys under the name of MOZART, a security services company based in Suriname (Latin America), probably under the direction of the CIA, composed of mercenaries wearing blue ribbon uniforms and Ukrainian equipment are trying to counter WAGNER's Russian counterpart. 

But as the Americans seem to be no match for these Russian colleagues, the bureaucrats in Washington are trying to give them a helping hand by seeking to freeze the Russian company's funds by placing it on the list of irregular armed organisations. As an old friend would say “Come on man, open mince pies and throw butcher hook, inni” What about American and British mercenary task forces?

The Americans can no longer hide their involvement on the ground. There is no way. Their casualties disguised in Varan uniforms with Ukrainian waistcoats and badges are also scattered in several of the liberated settlements in Donetsk and what does The White House say about that?

All this is made worse by the huge material losses the FSU suffers every day, which are ignored by the BBC, DW and the French media. What does the Institute for War Studies in Washington have to say? Although it tries to blame the latest failures on the Ukrainians themselves, everything else is pure science fiction. I'd like to see them actually step on the ground and feel the hardness of the clay and the slipperiness of the mud that clogs the trucks. I think these guys, who have their asses comfortably perched on a retractable chair staring at an LED screen in a well-appointed office in Washington, are way out of touch with reality. They would have to be told that the colourful aerial shots of the fields collected by the UAVs do not reflect the real danger and brutality on display on the ground.

I would tell them that they have no idea what this war is about and that if they are hoping to throw the boys of the 101st Airborne Division marauding Poland and Romania, they had better think carefully about what they are going to do, this is tougher than they imagine.

  

“EFECTISMO GEOPOLITICO”

¿Qué efecto tendrá la charada mediática montada por los liberales anglófilos contra el presidente Maduro en vísperas de la Cumbre de la CELAC?

 

Por Charles H. Slim

No ha sido una novedad que la militancia pro-estadounidense de la política argentina, tomara curso de acción contra algunos de los principales referentes latinoamericanos que llegarán al país en el marco de la cumbre de la CELAC. Haciendo uso de una batería argumentativa calcada del Departamento de Estado norteamericano, sectores opositores de Juntos por el Cambio (en particular el PRO) y ONG´s ideológicamente cercanas a su posición lanzaron una campaña mediática, en particular contra la llegada del presidente venezolano Nicolás Maduro Moros orientada a demostrar su obsecuencia con el “líder de la democracia”.

¿Cuál es el verdadero motivo que hay detrás de estas operaciones? Claramente, el intento de escarmentar a una revolución que no se ha dejado cooptar. Recordemos que fue el presidente y fundador de la Revolución Bolivariana Hugo César Chávez quien se planto de frente y sin dobleces contra las arbitrariedades estadounidenses y la de su aliado Israel, en momentos que todo el arco político (entre ellos los liberales republicanos argentos) de la región guardaba silencio. Maduro continuo esa política y fruto de ello Venezuela viene siendo objeto de los más variados intentos de desestabilización con los cuales colaboran desde adentro, personajes como Juan Guaildo y Cia.

En este último sentido no hay que olvidar que Venezuela viene siendo comercialmente sancionada y bloqueada por Washington en el marco de una guerra económica ilegal (dado que no hay bases legales para esas facultades) tal como lo han intentado hacer con Rusia y China.

Bajo la misma táctica de usar los derechos humanos y la comisión de supuestos delitos de lesa humanidad, este sector de la política argentina -ideológicamente ligada al occidente anglosajón- trataría de lograr la detención del presidente Nicolás Maduro intentando dar un golpe de efecto geopolítico que obviamente, agradaría a Washington.

A la vista de los incautos y de ciudadanos que poco saben de la actualidad política, este sector del liberalismo político (que agrupa anglófilos y sionistas) se preocupa por la violación de los derechos humanos invocando la “universalidad” de dichos crímenes para intentar que un juez federal ordene la detención de Maduro apenas toque Ezeiza. Como saben que ello no prosperaría, la inefable ex ministra de seguridad Patricia Bullrich (muy cercana a Tel Aviv y Washington) pedirá a la DEA (que puso un precio a la cabeza de Maduro) que intervenga para agregar a toda la batería de acusaciones, la de narcotráfico.

La pregunta que debe hacerse la gente de a pie es ¿Qué legitimidad tiene la DEA para operar en otra jurisdicción? El intento de validar la extraterritorialidad solo funciona con los demás países pero, no con EEUU y sus socios israelíes, una inteligencia no muy democrática!

A pesar de la grandilocuencia y la puntillosa cobertura de los medios adeptos a esos polos de poder global, el margen para esa maniobra es muy escaza. Además, estos mismos ya vienen de un fallido intento de criminalizar a Venezuela con aquel aparatoso y vergonzante asunto del avión de CANVIASA que -discurso islamófobo mediante- dejó al descubierto cómo el sionismo local y obviamente la embajada de EEUU en Buenos Aires (bajo una cobertura mediática insultante) movilizaron todas las argucias judiciales posibles para intentar apresar a sus tripulantes iraníes y confiscar el avión. Aquello fue una gran estafa que prontamente los medios guardaron bajo la alfombra y que hoy ni mencionan.

Por otra parte, Maduro no puede esperar que el gobierno argentino lo proteja y mucho menos uno con total ausencia de autoridad como el actual. Cualquier promesa de Alberto Fernández es tan poco fiable como la nada misma. Queda claro que su seguridad evaluará como se halla el terreno y recién allí resolverá si viaja a Buenos Aires.

Esta supuesta preocupación por las aberraciones humanitarias es claramente selectiva. Cuando uno de los criminales más prolíficos como Benjamín Netanyahu, quien dirige un estado con un prontuario de violaciones y crímenes asombroso vino en 2017 a visitar a su amigo Mauricio Macri, ninguno de estos cacareadores dijo nada e incluso, se alejaron lo más posible de los medios para no comprometerse ante posibles cuestionamientos ante tal visita.  Por el contrario y fuera de la vista del público, los agentes israelíes (muchos de los cuales tienen las manos ensangrentadas) tomaron posesión de parte de la ciudad y valiéndose de las fuerzas locales, protegieron al visitante.

Es por estas notorias contradicciones y las reveladas complicidades ideológicas que vemos en quienes se venden como la “civilidad” y protectores de la “democracia”, que hoy estamos ante una encrucijada histórica que excede a la justicia argentina y a sus meros asuntos periféricos.

El problema aquí es bien claro y se refiere a quien controla la justicia para sus fines políticos. Lo que antes se dirimía en acciones bélicas a cielo abierto o guerras secretas entre agencias de inteligencia hoy se ha llevado a los estrados de la justicia donde estos mismos actores trataran de validar sus argumentos buscando los mismos fines, eliminar al contendiente pero sin sacarle la vida.

Este problema ya es global y no solo de la Argentina. Lamentablemente la esperanza de una instancia internacional neutral e imparcial hace tiempo que ha caído en saco roto. Hasta ahora hemos visto como el Tribunal Internacional de la ONU y la Corte Penal Internacional se han convertido en meros operadores de los intereses de Washington y Bruselas, procesando con mucha diligencia a nacionalistas y opositores africanos pero dilatando sin término el llamado a declarar a criminales de fuste que administran aparatos represivos de estados con incontables crímenes en su haber. En este sentido se espera que el Tribunal Internacional resuelva lo solicitado el 30 de diciembre del 2022 sobre la ocupación israelí sobre Palestina.

Desde el escándalo del ex fiscal Moreno Ocampo en la invasión a Libia en 2011 (apoyando a la OTAN) hasta las últimas informaciones sobre el asunto de las cementeras francesas “Lafarge” en las que las pesquisas judiciales solo llegaron a imponer una multa por haber apoyado al “ISIS” sin ahondar en las incumbencias que tuvo París, el DGSE y el mismo Francois Hollande (sin mencionar a EEUU y socios árabes) en toda aquella actividad, hace cuando menos poco creíble que la justicia de esta instancia tenga un ápice de credibilidad.  

A la luz de todas estas inconsecuencias, pocas son las posibilidades de que este sector anglófilo capitalino logre su propósito, máxime cuando el único sustento que tienen para impulsar estas acciones son algunos casos que (como ya lo han hecho contra Irán, Iraq, Siria, Rusia etc,etc) son magnificados por los medios, los mismos que deberían también ir a entrevistar a las familias de aquellos que fueron torturados y asesinados por los gobiernos que estos sectores tienen estrecha relación y que de llegar al gobierno, revitalizaran para el espanto de quienes realmente saben lo que es la violación de los derechos humanos.  

Para quienes con justa razón desconfíen de estos argumentos la invitación es clara: “La verdad esta ahí afuera, salga a buscarla”. 

 

 

“COVERING TRACES”

Why is there a serious risk that Zelensky will be taken out of the picture in Ukraine, and not by Russia?

Por Sidney Hey

When I was a child my grandfather used to scare me with tales of ghosts and intrigue and once told me that whoever makes a pact with the devil will pay with his soul. The experience I gained during my service life put it in my face that what my grandfather used to tell me as children's stories were rather, analogies of reality so as not to ruin your life.

In contemporary politics, especially in the last thirty years, examples of this have become part of history. The most important events in geopolitics have taken place in the course of this period, each of them marking the path towards the crossroads where we are today.

As soon as the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the United States and its NATO partners began to modify but not cancel their agenda. John Major was undoubtedly aware, not of everything but of the essentials. It was never in Washington's plans to dissolve NATO. With the implosion of the USSR in 1991, plans to consolidate unipolar hegemony began to wane from the very day on 11 September 1991 when George H. Bush declared before Congress the beginning of the "New World Order".

In that plan, Washington had already begun a cleansing of the shelves of collaborators and regimes that for a time were useful to its plans. In 1989, CIA asset Manuel Noriega was removed from the presidency of Panama by his old friend and recruiter George Bush Senior in an invasion. Noriega was conveniently removed from the scene and silenced from the affairs he shared with Bush

In 1990, the Bush administration itself launched a deception operation in the Persian Gulf aimed at ending the partnership with Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime. To this end, the CIA, with the help of the Saudis, would manipulate the border dispute with Kuwait over control of the “Al Rumailah” oil wells by pushing Hussein (making him believe that the US would not intervene) into executing the invasion of Kuwait. The result was the landing of Americans on the Arabian Peninsula and the weakening of his long-time collaborator, Saddam Hussein. The implementation of trade sanctions was only a sinister strategy to weaken Iraq and, when the time came, to finish it off. It was only after the 2003 invasion that Washington managed to remove him from the scene and along with him, all the dirty business in which the US was involved.

Similar fates befell the likes of Osama Bin Laden, Abu Muzab Al Zarqawi, Aiman Al Zawahiri and the so-called “prince of the believers” agent Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi.

All these examples are relevant to the fate of the current puppet of the Anglo-Saxon West, the Ukrainian Volodymyr Zelensky.

All those who were seduced by Washington's policies and CIA solutions ended badly. It is not only the above examples that bear witness to this. In Latin America, the military dictatorships that were instigated and supported by Langley all ended in total disrepute and in some cases, their commanders were brought to justice. In these cases the CIA was removed from its responsibilities (in the framework of Operation Condor) simply because the new civilian governments and their politicians did not want to complicate their existence and to some extent owed their access to power to the State Department.

A year ago, Ukrainian President Zelensky changed all his electoral promises for a peaceful settlement of the Donbass by one hundred and eighty degrees to become the most obedient and stubborn supporter of an all-out war against his people and against Russia. Nothing new under the sun in the behaviour of an ambitious politician, but in this case who convinced him to launch Kiev into an all-out war?  It seems that researcher and writer Finian Cunningham has hit the nail on the head with the real causes of this change.

The CIA chief's visit to Zelensky himself a few weeks before the start of the Russian operations was crucial in changing those promises. According to an interesting article on the Strategic-Culture.com website, Burns' visit focused on warning Zelensky that he could be assassinated, but not by Russia. It was a persuasive visit in which Burns made an offer that Zelensky could not refuse. No one knows what Burns brought to illustrate that persuasion, but it is clear that it was necessary to meet his host in person to get the message across.

Western media have tried to argue that Burns travelled to warn Zelensky that he could be killed by Russia, but the facts do not support this speculation. If that had been the case, they would have been killed long ago. What the head of the CIA was telling him was that if he went off the rails, they themselves would finish him off, and their reputation for doing so precedes them. Zelensky was (if you like) convinced to play Washington's game that you can't walk away from.

As we know, it is not Zelensky who gives orders and designs state policy in Kiev. There is a military leadership that is tightly controlled by the Americans and the British that is the real administration of what is left of the country. It is this same structure, with the no longer secret help of NATO, that carries out the strategy and tactical deployment of Ukrainian troops. In this context, Zelensky is only a public relations face and nothing more, leaving the rest of the officials as mere cogs to be replaced at the regime's discretion.

Burns' warning has already been exemplified in reality. Any dissent to the costs the war is inflicting on Ukrainians is quickly suppressed and the slightest whisper of talks with Russia is eliminated. Arrests, deaths and disappearances among officials of the same regime document this. Communications and the internet are under total NATO control, so that the content and information of its citizens is under close scrutiny as to what they can express. All this, supported and controlled by the Anglo-Saxon "democracies".

One of the latest episodes revealing this was the alleged plane crash in which 14 members of Zelensky's government died, including his interior minister Denis Monastyrsky, who had been questioning the very raids being carried out in Kiev and other cities to arrest alleged Russian “sympathisers”. In these extra-judicial raids, squads are taking part, including right-wing extremists from “Pradvi Sektor” among others.

These raids are supposed to be judicially sanctioned. It is also not credible that there is any jurisdictional control over these acts, since in addition to martial law, these judges cannot step out of the mould without consequences. This whole mechanism of terror is well known to the CIA and its special groups, which operated with impunity and with the same objectives in Baghdad throughout the occupation.

The lightning visit to Kiev by Burns himself just 24 hours ago seems to be a reminder of that other meeting perhaps, warning that there are indications that Zelensky intends to throw in the towel.

Finally, given the adverse circumstances on the battlefield that (as the Pentagon has already warned) compromise US and Atlanticist partners' investment and involvement, it is quite possible that when it all falls apart Zelensky will be killed by a lone gunman (or one of his bodyguards), a car bomb in one of his transfers or blown up where he is by a supposed Russian missile strike. The rest will be done by the Anglo-Saxon media.

 

“MASKING”

In the slapping game Who will bleed first?

 

By Sir Charlattam

It was back in 2005 when an open-air market in Sadr City, Baghdad was targeted by a car bomb that the Western media blamed on the “Al Qaeda-Iraq” hoax. Almost simultaneously, but on the other side of the city, a Sunni mosque was shot at by alleged Shiite extremists, for US media such as CNN and FOX NEWS the preferred perpetrators were followers of Moqtadr Al Sadr, thus setting up the argument of terrorism and sectarian warfare.

All this was going on under the noses of the Anglo-American occupiers and the Iraqis themselves suspected that they were behind this sinister game. Time would prove them right.

The same strategy (with the complicity of the Saudis and Emiratis) would be replicated in Libya, then in Syria and with a complex plot, re-established in Iraq (with the participation of Turkey) with the pseudo-Islamic farce of the “Islamic State” in 2014. It was all part of a hybrid war ploy in which terrorism was the main tactic.

The terrorist actions of the CIA -called sabotage- and its partners inside Russia that Washington has tried to justify under the cover of the Russian Special Operation launched on 24 February 2022 were already planned in advance demonstrating the premeditation in generating such acts.

The alleged revelations of the investigator Jack Murphy, in which he claims to be the mastermind behind these acts, had overlooked the fact that these plans had been under consideration since before 2014 and were only authorised by President Barack Obama in 2017.

This gives another dimension to what the Anglo-American media call sabotage and highlights the immorality and inconsistency with which Washington manipulated not only its citizens but the whole world with its military interventions under the pretext of the so-called “fight against terrorism”.

Obviously the legal advisors of the State Department and the CIA, with the invaluable help of the Media Corporation try to disassociate these criminal actions with the term terrorism, but despite these attempts, the use of reasoning and common sense, no citizen anywhere in this world believes that there is any difference since the results are so obvious.

According to Murphy the agency's “agents” were not American and only since 2017 (after Obama's pre-emptive authorisation) started planting explosives in different buildings and industrial targets in Russia and Belarus. In doing so, it removes from the scene (and from criminal responsibility) the governments that passed through the White House, authorisers of the launch and execution of attacks that would not only destroy building infrastructure, but would cause the death of many people.

But if we look at the time span in which this entire network of attackers was assembled, their entry, cover and stay inside these countries was financed, the reception of the explosives, hiding them in secret hideouts and moving them to place them in the targets, the numbers do not add up.

It is also suspicious to claim that no US citizens have been involved. Perhaps the opposite is true.

As we well know, Russian troops launched the operations on 24 February last year, so the justification for the CIA's (US) implementation of terrorist actions against targets inside two sovereign nations like Russia and Belarus would not have existed up to that point. If we give any credence to Murphy's version and validate terrorism as another NATO tactic, the degree of American reaction was staggering. Still, why did the US mount such a network of attackers if it was not a party to the conflict? Don't forget that it was a guarantor of the Minsk agreements. A small detail that neither Washington nor Murphy could answer.

If Obama's 2017 “forecast” is to be believed, the numbers don't add up. The alleged Slavic associates who made up the attack network within the Russian Federation did not come out of the air or show up at a CIA recruiting office (like in those stupid Hollywood movies) or were recruited at European universities, especially in Britain, France or Germany. Suppose they did, how long did it take to recruit them?

Perhaps if, as Murphy says, the CIA used another agency in a regional country to infiltrate Russian society, i.e. professional manpower, the problems of how to get hold of the explosives, move them, access the designated sites to blow them up and mine them remain unexplained. If we buy that story for a minute and accept that how did they determine that the explosives they planted so far in advance would not be discovered by security or their mechanism jammed by the passage of time?

This tactic works if there is a well-determined and predicted time to set off the explosives. This was seen in the attack on the Dinamo stadium in Grozny in May 2004 where the then pro-Russian leader Aimad Kadyrov and several of his aides were killed by the explosion of a bomb placed in the concrete structure built earlier. Chechen separatists who were supported by MI6 had placed explosives inside the structure and then filled it with cement.

The intrigue-loving MI6 boys and their yellow loudspeakers on the MI5 payroll would have liked to put the rumour that they had infiltrators in the SVR and the FSB, but even the inventor of that story would not buy it. Cold War experiences of such exploits ended in terrible failures and a lot of headaches for the Foreign Office.

Playing dirty with Arabs and Islamists went on for a while. Today we see them trying to forget the “Islamic State” (Daesh) issue and the members who are now imprisoned. But to do so with the Russian Federation is quite another matter and that is playing with fire. As the RAND Corporation's reports to bureaucrats in Washington and, why not, in London have already warned, it is only a matter of time before they return kindnesses in their respective territories or even in Europe.