jueves, 22 de marzo de 2018

Ayuda memoria

Lo que sigue es el texto del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de la Federación Rusa en torno al denominado "Caso Skripal" el día de ayer. Lo tomamos del sitio web OffGuardian:

Título: “Aide-memoire” from the Russian Foreign Ministry “to clarify the state of affairs” in the ‘Skripal case’

Epígrafe: This is the text of an “aide-memoire” on the Skripal case, issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 21 March 2018. It’s a reasonable summary of the state of play thus far, and helps us to understand the Russian perspective on


1. On 12 March 2018, Prime Minister of Great Britain Theresa May, addressing the House of Commons, said it was “highly likely” that the Russian Federation was responsible for the poisoning of former GRU colonel, double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal on 4 March 2018 in Salisbury, with a nerve agent identified according to British classification as A-234.

The United Kingdom has publicly raised a question about Russia’s “concealing” and “using” part of its chemical arsenal, thus alleging that Russia has “violated” its obligations under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (CWC) – one of the most effective multilateral treaties in the disarmament and non-proliferation field, which was initiated, among others, by our country.

Thus, the United Kingdom has come out against Russia as well as against the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) itself and the tremendous work that has been done within this organization during the last two decades, including with participation of the United Kingdom.

Pursuant to the requirements of Article III of the CWC, the Russian Federation submitted a full and complete declaration of all its chemical weapons stockpiles. That data was thoroughly checked and verified by the inspection teams of the OPCW Technical Secretariat. The fact of the full elimination of Russia’s chemical arsenal has been officially confirmed by the authorized international institution – the OPCW.

2. On 12 March 2018, given the gravity of the accusations brought against our country, the Russian Embassy in London sent a note verbale to the Foreign Office of Great Britain requesting access to the investigation materials, including samples of the chemical agent that British investigators were referring to, so that it could be tested by our experts in the framework of joint investigation.

Thus, we proposed to act in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article IX of the CWC. It stipulates that States Parties to the Convention should first make every effort to clarify and resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves, any matter which may cause doubt about compliance with the CWC. Under the provisions of that Article, Russia would be ready to respond to the United Kingdom’s request within 10 days.

Unfortunately, the British side rejected that option and, instead of following the existing norms of international law, chose to unscrupulously politicize the issue.

3. British Prime Minister Theresa May suggested that a special Security Council meeting to discuss the matter be held on 14 March 2018. Suspecting that London would play dirty, Russia insisted on making the Security Council’s meeting open.

It is incomprehensible what the British side was trying to achieve by bringing the issue to the UNSC. This matter by no means falls within the mandate of the UNSC. It is quite obvious that all discussions are pointless until the OPCW gives its assessment of the Salisbury incident (it is important to know whether a nerve agent was actually used; if it was, how the likely origin of the chemicals was determined; what, and on what basis, actions were taken with regard to the victims, etc.).

4. On 14 March 2018, British Prime Minister Theresa May, apparently having come to senses, finally sent a letter to Director-General of the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW Ahmet Üzümcü (circulated to all OPCW Executive Council Member States on 15 March 2018) inviting the OPCW Technical Secretariat “to independently verify the analysis” of the British investigation into the Salisbury incident.

As indicated in the press release by the British Foreign Office of 18 March 2018, following the letter by Ms Theresa May, the UK’s Permanent Representative to the OPCW invited experts of the OPCW Technical Secretariat to visit the United Kingdom to carry out an independent analysis of the findings of the British Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down in connection with the Salisbury incident. On 19 March 2018, OPCW experts arrived in the United Kingdom.

Russia expects the OPCW to make an official detailed account of developments around the ‘Skripal case’. We proceed from the understanding that the OPCW Technical Secretariat shall conduct a full-fledged independent investigation in accordance with all relevant provisions of the CWC.

5. Russia has more and more questions both in legal and practical terms. And we intend to seek answers through the OPCW.

Russia states that it has not used chemical weapons against Great Britain. We suppose that the attack on the Skripals with toxic chemicals shall be deemed a terrorist act. As Yulia Skripal, a Russian citizen, is among the victims to the incident, we propose cooperation with the British Side under Article IX of the CWC.

We would like to ascertain the following issues.

Where, how, and by whom were the samples collected from Sergei and Yulia Skripal? How was it all documented? Who can certify that the data is credible? Was the chain of custody up to all the OPCW requirements when evidence was collected?

Which methods (spectral analysis and others) were used by the British side to identify, within such a remarkably short period of time, the type of the substance used (“Novichok” according to the western classification)? As far as we know, to do that, they must have had a standard sample of such agent at their disposal.

And how do these hasty actions correlate with Scotland Yard’s official statements that “the investigation is highly likely to take weeks or even months” to arrive at conclusions?

What information and medical effects led to a hasty decision to administer antidotes to the aggrieved Skripals and the British policeman? Could that hastiness lead to grave complications and further deterioration of their health status?

Which antidotes exactly were administered? What tests had been conducted to make the decision to use these drugs?

How can the delayed action of the nerve agent be explained, given that it is a fast-acting substance by nature? The victims were allegedly poisoned in a pizzeria (in a car, at the airport, at home, according to other accounts). So what really happened? How come they were found in some unidentified time on a bench in the street?

We need an explanation why it is Russia who was accused on the ‘Skripal case’ without any grounds whatsoever, while works to develop the agent codenamed “Novichok” in the West had been carried out by the United Kingdom, the USA, Sweden and the Czech Republic. There are more than 200 open sources publications in the NATO countries, highlighting the results that those countries achieved in the development of new toxic agents of this type.

6. Even from purely humanitarian perspective London’s action appears simply barbaric. On 4 March 2018 (as British authorities themselves claim) a nerve agent attack against Russian citizen Yulia Skripal was committed in the territory of the United Kingdom.

Russian Federation has demanded exhaustive information on the course of investigation into the Salisbury incident involving a Russian citizen (the Russian Embassy in London sent the relevant note verbale on 12 March 2018).

The United Kingdom is breaching elementary rules of inter-State relations and is still denying, without any explanation, Russian officials’ consular access to Yulia Skripal envisaged by the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. For more than two weeks now, we have not been able to credibly ascertain what happened to our citizen and what condition she is actually in.

On 16 March, the Main Directorate for High-Priority Cases of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation initiated a criminal investigation into the attempted willful murder of Russian citizen Yulia Skripal committed by dangerous means in the territory of the United Kingdom.

The investigation will be conducted in accordance with the Russian legislation and the norms of international law. Highly qualified experts will contribute to the investigation.

The investigators stand ready to work together with the competent authorities of the United Kingdom. We expect a cooperative approach of the British side.

7. In the UN Security Council as well as in the OPCW and at other international fora, the Russian Federation has been a consistent and insistent proponent of thorough, comprehensive and professional investigation of all crimes involving toxic chemicals, and of bringing perpetrators to justice.

We are ready to engage in full-scale and open cooperation with the United Kingdom in order to address any concerns whether in bilateral format or within the OPCW and other international instruments, working within the purview of international law.

As a responsible member of the international community and a bona fide State Party to the CWC Russia will never speak the language of ultimatums or answer informal and word-of-mouth questions.

The Western countries’ action on the fabricated ‘Skripal case’ contravenes the norms of international law and the general practice of inter-State relations, as well as the common sense itself. Naturally, we run a detailed record of all that, and when time comes, those guilty will inevitably be brought to justice.

Las vueltas de la vida

La leyenda de la foto de arriba dice: "Saif al Islam, hijo de Muammar Gaddafi, saluda a sus partidarios en Trípoli, el 23 de agosto de 2011". La nota que sigue es de RT en español:

Título: El hijo de Gaddafi puede "unir a los libios sobre la base de los intereses nacionales"

Texto: Uno de los vástagos del expresidente libio, asesinado en octubre de 2011, cuenta con un amplio apoyo entre "la gente común", afirmó su abogado a RT.  El hijo de Gaddafi puede "unir a los libios sobre la base de los intereses nacionales"

Saif al Islam, uno de los hijos del asesinado Muammar Gaddafi, quien se postula para las elecciones presidenciales libias de este año, "tiene muchos partidarios, que son la gente común", afirmó su abogado, Khaled Al-Ghwail, a RT. Incluso "quienes han estado comprometidos [con la primavera árabe] ahora apoyan su visión integral", prosiguió su letrado.

El jurista confirmó en la entrevista la candidatura de Gaddafi hijo para las elecciones y aseguró que tiene muchas posibilidades de ganar. A su juicio, Saif al Islam "tiene la capacidad de unir a los libios a su alrededor sobre la base de los intereses nacionales y las decisiones que tomarán los propios libios". "Este es un proyecto de reforma que debería llevar a Libia a un puerto tranquilo", agregó Al-Ghwail.

Saif al Islam, hijo del exlíder libio Muammar Gaddafi¿Habrá un nuevo Gaddafi en el 'trono' de Libia?

En 2015, el hijo de Gaddafi fue condenado a muerte por un tribunal en Trípoli por crímenes cometidos durante los días de la revolución del 17 de febrero de 2011. Sin embargo, en junio  de 2017 fue puesto en libertad. En estos momentos su paradero se desconoce.

Al-Ghwail indicó que su paradero actual "no se ha revelado por razones de seguridad". "Si Saif al Islam sale a la luz pública hoy, seguramente será asesinado", sostuvo. Sin embargo, cuando llegue el momento "adecuado" el hijo de Gaddafi se dirigirá a la nación libia por televisión, avanzó.

La "palabra decisiva" la tendrán los propios libios, recalcó el letrado. "Es el pueblo libio el que debe formar, sobre la base de su constitución, un sistema estatal y el poder estatal que considere más apropiado para él mismo", subrayó.

Desde que el líder libio Muammar Gaddafi fuera asesinado el 20 de octubre de 2011 a manos de los rebeldes, que actuaron con el apoyo de las tropas de la OTAN, Libia vive inmersa en una guerra civil, y la cuestión de la unidad nacional sigue siendo vital. Según el abogado, la agenda política principal de Saif Al-Islam es unir el país y expulsar a los extremistas.

martes, 20 de marzo de 2018

Cuatro días de Marzo

Bueno, ahora que van calmándose las aguas en torno al "Affair Salisbury", ahora que Vladimiro el Grande ganó en Rusia con casi el 77% de los votos (parece que la genial movida de Theresa May le sumó entre 4 y 6% de los votos, ¡vamos, Theresa!), ahora que "T. Rex" Tillerson tiene ¡por fin! tiempo para los nietos, ahora que los británicos deben volver a ocuparse de un país en bancarrota y dejarse de planear pavadas en Medio Oriente, ahora que el ejército sirio termina de exterminar a los chicos malos en la Guta Oriental, ahora que la histeria mediática occidental gira abruptamente de tema para ocuparse de los triunfos del Barça o de la extinción de los pejerreyes, ahora es tiempo de mirar las cosas como son, no como deberían ser según los operadores de los "estados profundos" del Imperio y sus vasallos, en primer lugar los países de la NATO.  La siguiente nota es de Thierry Meyssan para Red Voltaire y parece salida de una novela de espionaje:

Título: Cuatro días para declarar una guerra fría

Epígrafe: La semana pasada fue extraordinariamente rica en acontecimientos. Pero ningún medio de difusión fue capaz de reportarlos porque todos escondieron deliberadamente ciertos hechos para proteger la narración que su gobierno hacía de ellos. Londres trató de provocar un conflicto de gran envergadura. Pero perdió ante Rusia, Trump y Siria.

Texto: El gobierno británico y algunos de sus aliados, como el secretario de Estado Rex Tillerson, trataron de desatar una guerra fría contra Rusia. El plan era, por una parte, montar un atentado contra un ex agente doble en Salisbury y, por otro lado, orquestar un ataque químico contra los «rebeldes moderados» en la Ghouta. Los conspiradores pretendían aprovecharse del esfuerzo de Siria por liberar los alrededores de su capital y la desorganización que la elección presidencial provocaría en Rusia. Como resultado de esas manipulaciones, el Reino Unido empujaría a Estados Unidos a bombardear Damasco, incluyendo el palacio presidencial, y exigiría a la Asamblea General de la ONU que excluyera a Rusia del Consejo de Seguridad.

Pero los servicios de inteligencia de Siria y Rusia recibieron información de lo que se tramaba. Y adquirieron la certeza de que los agentes estadounidenses que estaban preparando, en la Ghouta, un ataque químico contra la propia Ghouta no dependían del Pentágono sino de otra agencia estadounidense.

En Damasco, el viceministro sirio de Exteriores, Faysal Meqdad, convocó con carácter urgente, el 10 de marzo de 2018, una conferencia de prensa para alertar a sus conciudadanos. Por su parte, Moscú trató primeramente de dirigirse a Washington por vía diplomática. Pero, consciente de que el embajador estadounidense en Rusia, Jon Huntsman Jr., es miembro del consejo de administración de Caterpillar, firma estadounidense que proporcionó a los yihadistas el equipamiento especial para la construcción de los túneles necesarios para sus fortificaciones, optó después por evitar los canales diplomáticos normales.

Veamos cómo fueron encadenándose los acontecimientos:

12 de marzo de 2018

El Ejército Árabe Sirio ocupa en la Ghouta dos laboratorios de armas químicas –el primero, el 12 de marzo, en la localidad de Aftris y el segundo, al día siguiente, en Chifonya. Mientras tanto, la diplomacia rusa trata de que la Organización para la Prohibición de las Armas Químicas (OPAQ) se implique en la investigación criminalística sobre el incidente de Salisbury.

En Londres, ante la Cámara de los Comunes, la primera ministra británica, Theresa May, acusa violentamente a Rusia de haber ordenado el atentado de Salisbury. La señora May afirma que el ex doble agente Serguei Skripal y su hija Yulia fueron envenenados con una sustancia militar neurotóxica «desarrollada por Rusia» bajo el nombre de «novichok». Dando por sentado que el Kremlin ve a los rusos desertores como blancos legítimos, la señora May declara que es altamente probable que la orden para cometer el crimen haya salido de allí.

El novichok se conoce a través de lo que han revelado dos personalidades soviéticas, Lev Fiodorov y Vil Mirzayanov. En julio de 1992, el sabio Fiodorov publicó en el semanario ruso Top Secret (Совершенно секретно) un artículo donde alertaba contra el uso –por parte de los occidentales– de armas concebidas en la Unión Soviética. Fiodorov estimaba que los occidentales podían sentirse tentados a utilizar esas armas para destruir el medio ambiente en Rusia y convertir ese país en un lugar donde fuese imposible vivir. En octubre de 1992, Lev Fiodorov publicó en Novedades de Moscú (Московские новости) un segundo artículo, teniendo como coautor a Vil Mirzayanov, un responsable del contraespionaje, para denunciar la corrupción de varios generales y revelar que esos altos militares estaban traficando con novitchok. Pero Fiodorov y su coautor ignoraban a quién podían estar vendiendo esa sustancia. Mirzayanov fue arrestado por alta traición y posteriormente liberado. Fiodorov falleció en Rusia en agosto de 2017, pero Mirzayanov vive exiliado en Estados Unidos, donde colaboró con el Departamento de Defensa.

El novichok se fabricaba en un laboratorio soviético situado en Nurus, en el actual Uzbekistán. Al desaparecer la Unión Soviética, un equipo especializado estadounidense trabajó en su destrucción. Eso quiere decir que Uzbekistán y Estados Unidos necesariamente tuvieron en su poder muestras del novichok y lo estudiaron. Por consiguiente, son capaces de producirlo.

El ministro británico de Exteriores, Boris Johnson, convoca al embajador de la Federación Rusa en Londres, Alexander Yakovenko, y le plantea un ultimátum de 36 horas para que Rusia verifique si le falta alguna cantidad de novichok en su arsenal. El embajador ruso le responde que no puede faltar ninguna cantidad de novichok simplemente porque Rusia destruyó todas las armas químicas heredadas de la Unión Soviética, como consta en los documentos de verificación elaborados y aprobados por la Organización para la Prohibición de las Armas Químicas.

Después de una conversación telefónica con Boris Johnson, el secretario de Estado de Estados Unidos, Rex Tillerson, condena él también a Rusia por el atentado de Salisbury.

Mientras tanto, el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU celebraba un debate sobre la situación en la Ghouta. La representante permanente de Estados Unidos, Nikki Haley, declara entonces: «Hace cerca de un año, luego del ataque con gas sarín perpetrado en Khan Cheikhun por el régimen sirio, Estados Unidos advirtió al Consejo [de Seguridad]. Dijimos que ante la inacción sistemática de la comunidad internacional, los Estados se ven a veces obligados a actuar por sí mismos. El Consejo de Seguridad no actuó y Estados Unidos golpeó la base aérea desde donde Assad había lanzado su ataque químico. Hoy reiteramos la misma advertencia

Los servicios de inteligencia rusos ponen en circulación varios documentos del estado mayor de Estados Unidos que muestran que el Pentágono está listo para bombardear el palacio presidencial y los ministerios sirios, siguiendo el esquema ya utilizado durante la toma de Bagdad –del 3 al 12 de abril de 2003.

Al comentar la declaración de Nikki Haley, el ministerio de Exteriores de Rusia, que siempre ha calificado la historia de Khan Cheikhun de «manipulación occidental», revela que las informaciones falsas que en aquel momento engañaron a la Casa Blanca, llevándola a bombardear la base aérea siria de Sheyrat, provenían de un laboratorio británico que nunca aclaró cómo consiguió las “muestras”.

13 de marzo de 2018

El ministerio de Exteriores ruso publica un comunicado condenando una posible intervención militar de Estados Unidos y anunciando que si algún ciudadano ruso resulta afectado en Damasco, Moscú responderá de manera proporcional ya que el presidente de la Federación Rusa es responsable de la seguridad de sus conciudadanos.

Evadiendo la vía diplomática normal, el general Valery Guerasimov, jefe del estado mayor ruso, se pone en contacto con su homólogo estadounidense, el general Joseph Dunford, para ponerlo al tanto sobre sus temores de que se produzca un ataque químico del tipo false flag (bandera falsa) en la Ghouta. El general Dunford toma el asunto muy en serio y avisa al secretario de Defensa, el general Jim Mattis, quien a su vez transmite la información al presidente Donald Trump. Ante la seguridad de los rusos de que este golpe bajo se prepara a espaldas del Pentágono, la Casa Blanca solicita al director de la CIA, Mike Pompeo, que identifique a los responsables del complot.

No sabemos el resultado de esa investigación interna pero, en todo caso, el presidente Trump adquiere la convicción de que su secretario de Estado, Rex Tillerson, está implicado. Tillerson recibe de inmediato órdenes de interrumpir su viaje oficial a África y regresar a Washington.

Theresa May escribe al secretario general de la ONU acusando a Rusia de haber ordenado el atentado de Salisbury y solicitando una reunión urgente del Consejo de Seguridad. Sin esperar respuesta, la primera ministra británica expulsa a 23 diplomáticos rusos.

A pedido de la presidente de la Comisión del Interior de la Cámara de los Comunes, Yvette Cooper, la secretaria británica del Interior, Amber Rudd, anuncia que el MI5 (la inteligencia militar interna) va a reabrir 14 investigaciones sobre muertes que, según fuentes estadounidenses, pudieran ser resultado de asesinatos ordenados por el Kremlin.

Con ese acto, el gobierno británico adopta las teorías de la profesora Amy Knight. El 22 de enero de 2018, esta sovietóloga estadounidense había publicado un libro muy extraño: Órdenes de matar: el régimen de Putin y el asesinato político. Amy Knight, considerada «la» especialista sobre el desaparecido KGB, trata de demostrar que Vladimir Putin es una especie de serial killer responsable de docenas de asesinatos políticos, desde los atentados perpetrados en Moscú en 1999 hasta el bombazo del Maratón de Boston, en 2013, pasando por la ejecución de Alexander Litvinenko en Londres, en 2006, y la de Boris Nemtsov en Moscú, en 2015. Pero confiesa que en realidad no hay ninguna prueba de las acusaciones que publica.

Los liberales europeos se incorporan al coro. El ex primer ministro belga, Guy Verhofstadt, quien ahora preside el grupo liberal en el Parlamento Europeo, exhorta la Unión Europea a adoptar sanciones contra Rusia. Su homólogo a la cabeza de los liberales británicos, Sir Vince Cable, propone un boicot europeo contra la Copa Mundial de futbol. Buckingham Palace anuncia desde ya que la familia real británica anula su viaje a Rusia.

La autoridad británica de regulación de los medios de difusión (OFCOM) anuncia que podría prohibir la televisora Russia Today en represalia por el atentado de Salisbury, aunque ese canal ruso no ha cometido ninguna violación de las leyes británicas.

En Moscú, el ministerio ruso de Exteriores convoca al embajador británico y le informa que en poco tiempo le serán comunicadas las medidas rusas de respuesta a la expulsión de los diplomáticos rusos de Londres.

Por su parte, el presidente Trump anuncia a través de Twitter que Rex Tillerson, con quien todavía no ha entrado en contacto, sale de su administración. Tillerson es reemplazado como secretario de Estado por Mike Pompeo, hasta entonces director de la CIA, quien había confirmado el día anterior la autenticidad de las informaciones que Rusia había hecho llegar al general Dunford. Al llegar Tillerson a Washington, el general John Kelly, jefe del equipo de trabajo de la Casa Blanca, le confirma que ya no es secretario de Estado.

Rex Tillerson, ex presidente de la transnacional más grande del mundo, ExxonMobil, se creía intocable. Para su gran sorpresa, Donald Trump lo “despidió” de manera fulminante. Tillerson se puso al servicio del mundo anglosajón pero Trump lo considera un traidor a su país.

El ahora ex secretario de Estado Rex Tillerson proviene de la burguesía texana. Su familia y él mismo han invertido en los Scouts (jóvenes exploradores) estadounidenses, asociación que presidió a nivel nacional de 2010 a 2012. Culturalmente cercano a Inglaterra, al convertirse en presidente de la megatransnacional ExxonMobile (de 2006 a 2016), Tillerson no vaciló en emprender una campaña políticamente correcta para que los jóvenes homosexuales fuesen aceptados como Scouts… y también para reclutar mercenarios en la Guayana británica. Al parecer, Tillerson es miembro de la Pilgrims Society, el más prestigioso club anglo-estadounidense presidido por la reina Isabel II. En la administración Obama había numerosos miembros de la Pilgrims Society.

Mientras fue secretario de Estado, los excelentes modales de Tillerson fueron una carta de triunfo para Donald Trump, a quien la alta sociedad estadounidense considera una especie de payaso. Tillerson entró en conflicto con el presidente sobre 3 temas importantes, que nos permiten determinar la ideología de los conspiradores: 

- Al igual que Londres y que el Estado Profundo estadounidense, Tillerson creía útil demonizar a Rusia para consolidar el poder de los anglosajones dentro del bando occidental; 

- al igual que Londres, Tillerson pensaba que para mantener el colonialismo occidental en el Medio Oriente había que favorecer al presidente iraní Hassan Rohani en contra del Guía de la Revolución, el ayatola Khamenei. Por eso respaldaba el acuerdo 5+1; 

- al igual que el Estado Profundo estadounidense, Tillerson consideraba que el acercamiento de Corea del Norte a Estados Unidos debía mantenerse en secreto y ser utilizado para justificar un despliegue militar, dirigido en realidad contra China. O sea, Tillerson era favorable a la apertura oficial de conversaciones con Pyongyang, pero se oponía a un encuentro entre los dos jefes de Estado.

14 de marzo de 2018

Washington todavía se encuentra en estado de shock cuando Theresa May interviene nuevamente ante la Cámara de los Comunes para desarrollar su acusación, mientras los diplomáticos británicos en todo el mundo hacen uso de la palabra en numerosas organizaciones intergubernamentales para transmitirles el mensaje de Londres. “Respondiendo” a la primera ministra, el diputado Chris Leslie –miembro de la corriente de Tony Blair– califica a Rusia de Estado renegado y pide que se suspenda el estatus de Rusia como miembro permanente del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU. Theresa May se compromete a analizar la cuestión, aunque subraya que esa decisión sólo puede tomarse en la Asamblea General de la ONU, para evadir el veto ruso en el Consejo.

El Consejo del Atlántico Norte –instancia suprema de la OTAN– se reúne en Bruselas a solicitud del Reino Unido. Los 29 Estados miembros de la OTAN vinculan el uso de armas químicas en Siria con el atentado de Salisbury y consideran a Rusia «probablemente» responsable de ambas cosas.

En Nueva York, el representante permanente de Rusia, Vasily Nebenzya, propone a los miembros del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU la adopción de una declaración que exprese la voluntad de todos ellos de aclarar el atentado de Salisbury y que ponga la investigación en manos de la Organización para la Prohibición de las Armas Químicas conforme al más estricto respeto de los procedimientos y normas internacionales. Pero el Reino Unido rechaza la totalidad del texto porque no menciona a Rusia como «probablemente responsable» del incidente.

Durante el subsiguiente debate público del Consejo de Seguridad es el encargado de negocios Jonathan Allen quien representa al Reino Unido. Jonathan Allen es un agente del MI6. Es el creador del servicio británico de propaganda de guerra (RICU, siglas de Research Information and Communications Unit) y ha participado activamente en el apoyo a los yihadistas en Siria. Este personaje declara: «Rusia ya ha interferido en los asuntos de los demás países. Rusia ha violado el derecho internacional en Ucrania. Rusia desprecia la vida de los civiles, como demuestra el ataque contra un avión comercial sobre Ucrania por parte de mercenarios rusos. Rusia protege el uso de armas químicas por parte de Assad (…) El Estado ruso es responsable de este intento de asesinato.» El representante permante de Francia, Francois Delattre –formado en el Departamento de Estado estadounidense gracias a una derogación emitida por el presidente Nicolas Sarkozy–, interviene para recordar que Francia ha lanzado una iniciativa para poner fin a la impunidad de quienes utilicen armas químicas y da a entender que esa iniciativa, dirigida contra Siria, podría volverse contra Rusia.

El embajador de Rusia, Vasily Nebenzya, recuerda que el Consejo de Seguridad fue convocado a pedido de Londres, pero que la sesión es pública porque así lo solicitó Moscú. Observa que el Reino Unido viola el derecho internacional desde el momento en que trae el tema al Consejo de Seguridad mientras que mantiene a la Organización para la Prohibición de las Armas Químicas al margen de su investigación. Resalta que si Londres ha sido capaz de identificar el novichok es porque tiene la fórmula y que, por ende, los británicos también pueden fabricarlo. Recuerda además que Rusia ha expresado su deseo de colaborar con la Organización para la Prohibición de Armas Químicas en el más estricto respeto de todos los procedimientos internacionales.

15 de marzo de 2018

El Reino Unido publica una declaración común, firmada el día anterior junto a Francia y Alemania, y por Rex Tillerson, quien todavía era secretario de Estado de Estados Unidos. El texto se hace eco de las sospechas británicas, denuncia el uso «de un agente neurotóxico de calidad militar, de un tipo desarrollado por Rusia» y afirma que es «altamente probable que Rusia sea responsable del ataque».

El Washington Post publica una tribuna del ministro británico de Exteriores Boris Johnson mientras que el secretario del Tesoro estadounidense, Steven Mnuchin, adopta nuevas sanciones contra Rusia. Esas sanciones no están vinculadas al asunto de Salisbury sino a las alegaciones de injerencia en la vida pública estadounidense. Sin embargo, el decreto cita el atentado de Salisbury como prueba de las pérfidas intenciones de Rusia.

Gavin Williamson, el joven secretario de Defensa británico, declara que después de la expulsión de sus diplomáticos, Rusia tendrá que «cerrar el pico» (sic). Es la primera vez desde el fin de la Segunda Guerra Mundial que un dirigente de un Estado miembro permanente del Consejo de Seguridad utiliza ese tipo de vocabulario contra otro Estado miembro de ese Consejo. El ministro ruso de Exteriores, Serguei Lavrov, comenta: «Es un joven encantador. Seguramente quiere ganarse un lugar en la historia haciendo declaraciones chocantes (…) Quizás le falta educación.»

El Reino Unido nunca ha vacilado, a lo largo de su historia, en traicionar su palabra para imponer sus intereses. Así se ganó la clásica apelación de «pérfida Albión», en referencia al nombre en latín de Inglaterra.


En cuatro días, el Reino Unido y sus aliados han sentado las premisas de una nueva división del mundo, de una guerra fría.

Pero Siria no es Irak y la ONU no es el G8 –grupo del que Rusia se vio excluida luego de la adhesión de Crimea a la Federación Rusa y del respaldo ruso a Siria. Estados Unidos no destruirá Damasco y Rusia no será excluida del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU.

Luego de retirarse de la Unión Europea y de haberse negado a firmar la declaración que proponía China sobre la ruta de la seda, el Reino Unido creyó realzar su imagen eliminando a un competidor. Con esta sucia maniobra, Londres creyó poder alcanzar una nueva dimensión y convertir el Reino en la «Global Britain» que la señora May anunciaba. Lo que ha logrado es destruir su propia credibilidad.

lunes, 19 de marzo de 2018

Putin, Rusia y el Gran Juego

Wikipedia comienza su exposición sobre lo que en términos geopolíticos se denominó "El Gran Juego" ("The Great Game") con esta sencilla frase: "The Great Game was a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of the nineteenth century between the British Empire and the Russian Empire over Afghanistan and neighbouring territories in Central and Southern Asia." Si bien hoy el Imperio es otro, la breve introducción viene bien para pasar a la nota que sigue, de Pepe Escobar para el sitio web Asiatimes.com:

Título: It’s all Putin’s fault… but still he wins

Texto: For all the western narrative about Russia's "autocracy," Putin is arguably as popular at home as Xi Jinping is in China

Vladimir Putin fires a sport gun at a sports complex outside Sochi on March 9, 2012. Photo: AFP/Ria Novosti/Alexey Druzhinin

As a counterpoint to the 24/7 Russophobia oozing out of the US and the UK, Vladimir Putin is all but guaranteed to be re-elected for a fourth presidential term this Sunday.

Beyond the foregone conclusion, what’s really hanging in the balance is the 70:70 equation: whether Putin can be assured of a 70% voter turnout and win roughly 70% of the vote. That would represent a firm endorsement of his domestic and foreign policy plans up to 2024.

Although Beijing does not provide official numbers, Putin is arguably as popular in Russia as Xi Jinping is in China – even with Xi being derided by the usual Western suspects as “the new Mao.” Under the framework of the Russia-China strategic partnership, geopolitically this is, and will continue to be, the Putin-Xi era.

Putin’s domestic popularity is confirmed by a Levada poll according to which 70% of those surveyed say the annexation of Crimea has been good for Russia. Overall support for Crimea rejoining Russia after a referendum stands at a whopping 86%.

On the Russian presidential race, the West has only paid attention to Alexei Navalny – whose candidature was rejected. Navalny called for a boycott of the polls.

The Communist Party candidate, Pavel Grudinin, may end up getting around 7% of the votes. The perennial Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a hardcore nationalist from the LDPR party, may get just over 5%. And Ksenia Sobchak, the Liberal candidate – and a self-described standard-bearer of the protest vote against everybody – will muster barely 1.5%.

Sobchak, a political novice, did strike a few moves – for instance wearing a sweatshirt with a big anti-war script to emphasize her take on Putin as the representative of the War Party.

Echoing Bernie Sanders, Sobchak insisted defense spending should be redirected to building domestic infrastructure. But then she blasted the “illegitimate” Russian “occupation” of Crimea. That did not go down well: 80% of the electorate said they would never vote for her. Sobchak at least managed to start positioning herself for the 2024 elections.

Back to the Great Game

Russia’s presidential campaign has been lively – belying the Western infowar barrage blasting the country’s “autocracy.” Observers such as Gilbert Doctorow have managed to offer balanced overviews.

Western-style debates were broadcast on the two leading news channels – Rossiya-1 and Pervy Kanal – and also on the less watched, state-run ORT and TVT. No holds were barred when denouncing the gap between Moscow and other regions enjoying budget surpluses, the best salaries and good public services, compared to the so-called “deficit regions.”

Same for the “gasification” of the Russian countryside – as in Gazprom earning US$740 billion in the past decade, mostly from exports, but investing only $12 billion in bringing gas to Russian households.

Putin benefitted from the release onto Russian social networks Vkontakte and Odnoklassniki, at the last stage of the campaign, of two slick new documentaries, one crammed with good political soundbites and the other centering on his family history. Both were hits, with millions of views.

Turning the collapsing Russiagate script upside down, many in Russia are interpreting it as direct UK interference in the Russian presidential campaign

And by the way, his full, unedited interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly was a completely different animal compared with the heavily-cut 20-minute version shown to American viewers. No question the interview burnished his presidential credentials with Russian voters.

But then came the Salisbury poisoning-of-a-double-agent fiasco – a John le Carré plot gone bonkers. Turning the collapsing Russiagate script upside down, many in Russia are interpreting it as direct UK interference in the Russian presidential campaign.

The UK government’s version of Russian culpability has been challenged by independent sources.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had previously been clear about the “completed destruction of Russia’s entire chemical weapons program, including of course its nerve agent production capabilities.”

The OPCW – which includes both the UK and the US – even doubted ‘Novichoks‘ as chemical weapons actually exist.

Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, trying to dissect the riddle, emphasized how he “witnessed personally in Uzbekistan the willingness of the UK and US security services to accept and validate intelligence they knew to be false in order to pursue their policy objectives.”

Sound questions have been asked about what’s really been happening to MI6 assets on British soil as London plays an ultra-high stakes geopolitical game with a foreign traitor despised by Russia and passed on by the US as part of a spy swap.

The new chessboard

For all the hysteria, the Salisbury saga has done little to offset Putin’s game-changing speech on March 1 outlining, in detail, not only his domestic agenda but also how Russia is ready to rearrange the geopolitical chessboard.

He stressed how “Russia must firmly assert itself among the five largest global economies, and its per-capita GDP must increase by 50% by the middle of the next decade.”

He extolled Eurasian integration – as in the development of “large Eurasian transport corridors,” especially the “Europe-Asia-Pacific corridor” being built by China, Russia and Kazakhstan, as well as “the capability of the Baikal-Amur Mainline and the Trans-Siberian Railway.”

Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences

He also stressed how the Northern Sea Route, from Murmansk to the Bering Strait, “will be the key to developing the Russian Arctic and Far East,” as well as being one-third faster in moving cargo from Asia to Europe.

Russia will invest tens of billions of dollars by 2030 to develop ships, shipbuilders and ports along the Northern Sea Route – with cargo expected to grow tenfold by 2025.

And that happens to be the strategic Arctic priority for China as well – as the Polar Silk Road has now been totally integrated into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Then there’s the Yamal Peninsula mega-project, centered on low-cost gas enabling Russia to at least double its share of the global market in liquefied natural gas (LNG) by 2020.

For all the pull of Gazprom, Putin managed a counterbalance: “The dependence of the economy on hydrocarbon prices has been substantially reduced. We have increased our gold and currency reserves. Inflation has dropped to a record low level – just over 2%.”

MAD is back

Then came the stormer. Putin detailed how MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is now back with a vengeance – implying that the whole US missile defense apparatus may be, by now, useless.

And this had absolutely nothing to do with “Russian aggression,” as the usual suspects spin it. This was Moscow’s response to over two decades of NATO encroaching on Russia’s borders.

In Putin’s own words: “I will speak about the newest systems of Russian strategic weapons that we are creating in response to the unilateral withdrawal of the United States of America from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the practical deployment of their missile defense systems both in the US and beyond their national borders.” Putin first announced his intention to respond no fewer than 11 years ago.

Naval analyst Andrei Martyanov has thoroughly dissected what all of this implies. The major take away, however, was another chilling announcement by Putin: “Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences. There should be no doubt about this whatsoever.”

So MAD 2.0 is the new normal. Prof. Stephen Cohen’s assessment is fundamentally correct.

By now the ‘Putin As The Ultimate Bogeyman’ narrative has spiraled totally out of control. Even Sweden is nurturing a scheme to “mobilize” its society against Russia. The cartoonish narrative is mutating towards Russia as a rogue state threatening the whole world with chemical weapons.

Where Xi Jinping will concentrate on a complex internal tweaking of the Chinese model while continuing his multi-layered connectivity drive via BRI, Putin must concentrate on getting the Russian economy back on track while solidifying Russia’s position in the concert of powers.

Plenty among the Atlanticist elites disregard Xi and Putin as “dictators.” As far as Eurasian integration – the real deal in the 21st century New Great Game – is concerned, that is absolutely irrelevant.

domingo, 18 de marzo de 2018

Ahora dicen que ganó Putin

Cien millones de rusos habilitados para votar fueron hoy a las urnas en la Federación Rusa. Con un 40% de los votos escrutados, Vladimir Vladimírovich Putin gana por afano (más del 70%). Votó el 60% del electorado. El segundo araña el 15% de los votos, y el tercero podría llegar al 7%. Gracias, Theresa! Así lo cuenta Russia Today:  

Título: Primeros resultados oficiales: Putin lidera en las elecciones en Rusia

Subtítulo: Más de 100 millones de ciudadanos fueron llamados a elegir al próximo presidente en uno de los 96.000 colegios electorales de toda Rusia.

Texto: Este domingo los rusos han acudido a las urnas para elegir quién estará al mando del país durante los próximos seis años. Los datos preliminares de la Comisión Electoral de Rusia muestran que, con más del 40 % de las actas escrutadas, el actual mandatario Vladímir Putin ha obtenido el 74,3 % de los votos y lidera en las elecciones presidenciales, seguido del candidato del Partido Comunista, Pável Grudinin, quien ha obtenido el 13,96 % de los votos.

Con el 6,49 % de los votos en tercer lugar se ubica el líder del Partido Liberal Demócrata, Vladímir Zhirinovski. La presentadora de televisión y periodista Ksenia Sobchak (Iniciativa Ciudadana) ha logrado el 1,4 % de los votos.

El resto de los aspirantes a la presidencia de Rusia han obtenido menos del 1% de votos. El fundador del partido Yábloko, Grigori Yavlinski, ha sido votado por el 0,8% de los electores, mientras que Serguéi Baburin, de la Unión Panpopular Rusa, el Partido del Crecimiento de Borís Titov y el partido Comunistas de Rusia, representado por Maxim Suraikin, han logrado un 0,63 % cada uno.

Según datos de la Comisión Electoral Central de Rusia, la participación en los comicios ha alcanzado el 60 %. 

La participación en unas elecciones presidenciales en Rusia nunca ha llegado al 70%. En los comicios de 1996, que tuvieron lugar en dos rondas, la participación en la primera ronda fue del 69,8% y en la segunda del 69,4%. En 2008, la cifra también superó el 69%. En la última cita electoral, la participación fue del 65,3%.

Más de 100 millones de ciudadanos fueron llamados a emitir su voto en uno de los 96.000 colegios electorales de toda Rusia. Unos 2 millones de ciudadanos rusos podían ejercer su derecho a voto desde el extranjero.

Según la ley, la Comisión Electoral de Rusia debe determinar los resultados finales en un plazo no superior a 10 días tras la votación: antes del 29 de marzo.

sábado, 17 de marzo de 2018

Notas sueltas

Dos notas de sitios dispares nos llamaron la atención esta mañana. La primera de ellas viene del sitio web Oriental Review. Hace hincapié en la futilidad de las grotescas maniobras que Occidente viene desplegando últimamente en torno de Rusia. La segunda es más ominosa; acá van:

Título: The Skripal Case: Stakes Up?

Texto: The yesterday’s sharply-worded joint statement on the Skripal case issued by Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, and Theresa May, which included the latest reiteration of the strange accusations leveled against Russia, threatens to push the row between Russia and the West to a new, much more serious level. Why is this happening and and what is motivating these Western leaders?

The tone and content of the statement leave no doubt that the West holds Russia responsible for the attempt on Skripal’s life and that it has no intention of listening to any objections or rebuttals. The demand that Moscow provide answers about its Novichok program is a mere formality. A variety of measures have already been taken against Russia — from the expulsion of Russian diplomats from the UK to the announcement of new sanctions by France.

What is going on? Do these four leaders really believe that Vladimir Putin issued an order to kill Skripal? In other words, do they believe that the Russian president, a man they have acknowledged to be the most powerful and experienced geopolitical player today, is now a caricatured villain from a James Bond movie? That seems impossible to believe, even taking into account that none of them are too bright.

That means that even they don’t believe in the truth of what they’re accusing Russia of — they’re doing it for purely political reasons. And which ones would those be?

A recent editorial in the Washington Post, “Britain is punishing Putin. America should join in,” offers a pretty complete rundown of which Russian policies the West is so upset about:

An adequate international response to Mr. Putin would push back against his ventures on all fronts: Syria, where the United Nations has found Russia complicit in war crimes; Ukraine, where Russian-backed forces continue to seek military advantage; cyberspace, where Russian hackers and bots remain ubiquitous. In the absence of such action, Mr. Putin’s ambitions, and his audacity, will only escalate further.”

So it’s all quite simple: Syria, Ukraine, and the West’s internal affairs. In other words, to put it bluntly, Moscow is supposed to not only rein in its offensive geopolitical game, but also become more accommodating when it comes to Ukraine, Syria, and Europe. But since there’s no way the West is going to see any of these dreams come true — what’s the point of putting pressure on Moscow?

Clearly Trump, Macron, and Merkel all had different motives when they signed their latest statement. Trump needs to shield himself as much as possible against accusations that he’s mollycoddling Russia. Macron needs to demonstrate his solidarity with the common cause (although that won’t stop him from coming to Russia for the St. Petersburg Economic Forum in two months). Nor is Merkel, who only yesterday saw an end to the epic saga over the formation of her new coalition, about to begin her fourth term being “soft on Putin” (which is exactly how the devotees of Atlanticism would view any refusal to sign that joint statement).

But what about Russia? She does not break off relations, is never taken by surprise, and does not respond with insults. What we’re seeing is not something that’s happened just once or twice, but rather hundreds of times in the three hundred years since Russia joined the ranks of the great powers that decide the fate of the world. Russia is accustomed to external pressure and do not pay much attention on it. She keeps the course of creating a new configuration of global powers better corresponding to modern geopolitical realities.

Four great powers, three of which are members of the UN Security Council, are, of course, a mighty force. However, their reaction to the “Skripal affair” has shown that they are being guided from a single command center. Al least half of the joint statement’s sides enjoy only limited sovereignty, unlike Russia and its key Asian partners.


La nota que sigue, altamente significativa, viene del sitio Zero Hedge de hoy:

Título: Russia Claims US Deploys Warships For Imminent Attack On Syria, Trains Militants For False Flag Attack

Texto: Last April, in one of the Trump administration's first "diplomatic" ventures, the US fired 59 Tomahawk missiles on Syria, in stated retaliation for the latest alleged chemical attack by the Assad regime, the same "false flag" excuse which was used by the US to officially enter the conflict back in 2013 when military tensions between the US and Russia nearly resulted in a regional war.

Well, it appears that Assad is a relentless glutton for punishment, because not even a year later, the WaPo reported two weeks ago that the US is considering a new military action against Syria for - what else - retaliation against Assad's latest chemical attack, which took place several weeks earlier.

How do we know Assad (and apparently, Russia) was behind the attack? We don't: in fact, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, in a moment of bizarre honesty, admitted that he really doesn't know much at all about "whoever conducted the attacks." But hey: just like it is "highly likely" that Russia poisoned the former Russian double agent in the UK - with no proof yet - so it is "highly likely" that a clearly irrational Assad was once again behind an attack which he knew would provoke violent and aggressive retaliation by the US, and once again destabilize his regime.

And so we now wait for that flashing, red headline saying that US ships in the Mediterranean have launched a missile attack on Syria, just like a year ago. Only this time Russia - which is allied with the Assad regime - is not planning to be on the defensive, and according to Russia’s Defense Ministry, "US instructors" are currently training militants to stage false flag chemical attacks in south Syria, i.e., the catalyst that will be used to justify the US attack on Assad. The incidents, the ministry said, will be used a pretext for airstrikes on Syrian government troops and infrastructure.

We have reliable information at our disposal that US instructors have trained a number of militant groups in the vicinity of the town of At-Tanf, to stage provocations involving chemical warfare agents in southern Syria,” Russian General Staff spokesman General Sergey Rudskoy said at a news briefing on Saturday.

According to the Russian, "early in March, the saboteur groups were deployed to the southern de-escalation zone to the city of Deraa, where the units of the so-called Free Syrian Army are stationed."

"They are preparing a series of chemical munitions explosions. This fact will be used to blame the government forces. The components to produce chemical munitions have been already delivered to the southern de-escalation zone under the guise of humanitarian convoys of a number of NGOs."

And, using the exact same worn out narrative as last April, and every prior "chemical attack by the Assad Regime", the "planned provocations will be widely covered in the Western media and will ultimately be used as a pretext by the US-led coalition to launch strikes on Syria", Rudskoy warned.

"The provocations will be used as a pretext by the United States and its allies to launch strikes on military and government infrastructure in Syria."

Confirming the WaPo's report from early March, it now appears that an attack is imminent.

We’re registering the signs of the preparations for the possible strikes. Strike groups of the cruise missile carriers have been formed in the east of the Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf and Red Sea.”

Rudskoy also warned that another false flag chemical attack is being prepared in the province of Idlib by the “Al-Nusra Front terrorist group, in coordination with the White Helmets.” The militants have already received 20 containers of chlorine to stage the incident, he said.

Moscow and Damascus have repeatedly warned about upcoming chemical provocations, and have highlighted that banned warfare agents have been used by the militants. Of course, none of that matters to the Western press which has its marching orders to expose the bloodthirsty killer Assad as an irrational despot who will use the exact same military method month after month and year after year, knowing well the response he will get from the US.

Meanwhile, just a few days ago, Syrian government forces reportedly captured a well-equipped chemical laboratory in Eastern Ghouta. Footage from the facility has been published by the SANA news agency.

The installation contained modern industrial-grade hardware of foreign origins, large amounts of chemical substances as well as crude homemade munitions ad their parts. It was unclear if the chemical lab was capable of synthesizing the novachok nerve gas used in the attempted murder of the Russian agent in the UK that has resulted in the latest diplomatic scandal involving Russia and the west.

viernes, 16 de marzo de 2018


La imagen de arriba es un truco fotográfico que mezcla las fotos del ex Secretario de Estado Colin Powell denunciando en las Naciones Unidas la existencia de "armas de destrucción masiva" en Irak (la excusa para invadir, en aquel momento) con el rostro de la Primera Ministro británica Theresa May denunciando el envenenamiento de un agente ruso-británico la semana pasada, y acusando a Rusia del hecho. Siguen llegando las advertencias de que se cocina algo grande en las próximas semanas, tal vez días. ¿Será en Siria? ¿Será en Ucrania? La nota que sigue es de Edward Curtin para el sitio web OffGuardian:

Título: Further Signs of More War: A Most Dangerous Game

Texto: Donald Trump’s days of playing the passive/aggressive host of a reality-television game show are coming to an end. Either he fires all the apprentices who might slightly hesitate to wage a much larger world war and lets the bombs fly, or he will be replaced by one who will. Signs are that he has learned what his job entails and the world will suffer more death and destruction as a result.

Back in the days of the first Cold War – the late 1950s to early 1960s when our little world came close to extinction – my very large family appeared on many American television shows. Their names told the story of those times: “Who Do You Trust,” “To Tell the Truth,” “Charades,” “Play Your Hunch,” and “Beat the Clock,” to name a few. It was as if those silly game shows were unconsciously suggesting we probe a little deeper behind the headlines to discover what was really going on before the Doomsday Clock ran out.

Today things are far more sophisticated and sinister, with a massive and unrelenting war on truth being waged by the Western corporate media, an arm of the CIA, capitalism’s invisible army. It is a twisted game show with deadly consequences.

Its method is Janus-faced. From one face, repeat over and over again bold-faced lies always lacking in evidence – e.g. Russiagate, WMD in Iraq, the Syrian government used chemical weapons, Russia is an aggressor planning to invade Eastern Europe, three World Trade Center buildings fell into their own footprints in virtual free fall speed because of fires, etc.; from the other face, play the game of suggesting to the public that they know more than they do because they watch CIA-backed shows like “Homeland,” movies like “Zero Dark Thirty,” and are being informed by all the so-called ex-CIA and intelligence commentators that populate the corporate media and explain what’s really going on.

The old adage that “you never leave the CIA” has somehow imperceptibly morphed into “Yes, we can; trust us.”

Now we have the British Prime Minister Theresa May accusing Russia of poisoning the double-agent Sergei Skripal on the streets of an English town, and threatening Russia to give a “credible” explanation why they killed this man [Editor’s note: Skripal is still very much alive].  A man who sold the identities of Russian agents to the UK for cash, putting them in serious danger.

“Or else”, she says, the UK “will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom.” Naturally she presented no evidence for Russian involvement, but the BBC, as is its wont, speculates on how the British may punish Russia, and the other corporate media chime in. But we are left to wonder where this is leading. Could it be Syria? Former British diplomat Craig Murray suggests it could be a false-flag setup aimed at raising Russophobia to hysterical proportions. But to what end?

If we look to the United Nations and the accusations and threats flying from the mouth of the US Ambassador Nikki Haley, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power’s doppelganger in war lust, we see that the picture expands. Haley threatened that the US will take unilateral action in Syria against Syrian and Russian forces if the UN didn’t adopt her resolution that would have allowed anti-government terrorists plenty of time to escape from East Ghouta. She said, echoing words we have heard numerous times:

It is not the path we prefer, but it a path we have demonstrated we will take, and we are prepared to take again….When the international community fails to act, there are Times when states are compelled to take their own action.

In response we have the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warning that another US strike on Syrian government forces would have serious consequences. And the Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov saying,

We have reliable information about militants preparing to falsify a government chemical attack against civilians. In several districts of Eastern Ghouta, a crowd was assembled with women, children, and old people, brought from other regions, who were to represent the victims of the chemical incident.

He added that “White Helmets” activists (proven to be financed by the US and UK) had already arrived at the scene with satellite video transmitters ready to film the planned incident. And that the Russians had discovered a “laboratory for the production of chemical weapons in the village of Aftris which was liberated from terrorist.” After the planned false-flag attack, the US was going to bomb government held districts in Damascus fulfilling Haley’s threat.

And here in the US, Col. Lawrence Wilkinson, who was Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff when Powell lied at the UN in 2003 to garner support for the criminal attack on Iraq, spoke to The Israel Lobby and American Policy 2018 conference ten days ago. He said, of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, that:

They’re both headed for war. Of that I’m convinced. They will use Iran’s allegedly existential (sic) to Israel presence in Syria which is becoming even more so from a military perspective every day, Hezbollah’s accumulation of some 150,000 missiles if we believe our intelligence agencies. The need to set Lebanon’s economy back yet again, that’s important. Look at what they’re deliberating right now with regard to the new very, very rich gas find in the Eastern Mediterranean with Israel claiming Section 9 and Lebanon claiming Section 9. Take that, Lebanon. We’re going to bomb you, then you’ll let us have it. And that will be their excuse.

Now Rex Tillerson is out as Secretary of State and the head of the CIA, the far more war minded Mike Pompeo slides naturally into the role. Musical chairs for the power elite. As Trump has said of Pompeo, “We are on the same wavelength.”

Riding that same wavelength is Nikki Haley, a trio whose alliance bodes very poorly for Middle Eastern peace or for any rapprochement with Russia. The game turns deadlier as the Presidential Apprentice learns the rules and the empire prepares to shed more innocent blood in an unholy alliance with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other “team players.”

But this time the game won’t be, in the words of another CIA liar, “a slam dunk.” The opponents are ready this time. The game has changed.

And in eastern Ukraine, the snow should be melting in the next 3-4 weeks.

Play your hunch.

jueves, 15 de marzo de 2018

Los tiempos que corren

Los tiempos son extremadamente peligrosos, chicos. Disculpen que insista, pero asistimos a una degradación del lenguaje diplomático probablemente nunca antes vista en el cotolengo occidental contra Rusia. Asustan tanto el tono como el contenido de las declaraciones. Nos referimos a la última opereta, probablemente a cargo de servicios británicos, en torno al supuesto intento de asesinato del espía ruso-británico Sergei Skripal. El siguiente resumen de situación de las últimas horas corre a cargo de Adam Bienkov para el sitio web Information Clearing House:

Título: Trump, May, Merkel and Macron Issue Joint Statement Blaming Russia for Sergei Skripal Poisoning


- Four world leaders have issued a joint statement blaming Russia for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, the former double agent who fell ill with his daughter in England.

- The leaders say there is "no plausible alternative explanation" to Russia being to blame.

- The statement follows days of diplomacy by UK Prime Minister Theresa May and comes amid a meeting by NATO to discuss the crisis.

LONDON — The leaders of United States, Britain, France, and Germany have released a joint statement condemning Russia for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal in England last week.

US President Donald Trump, UK Prime Minister Theresa May, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed that there was "no plausible alternative explanation" than that Russia was to blame for the attack.

The leaders called on Russia to "live up to its responsibilities as a member of the UN Security Council," adding that Russia's actions "threaten the security of us all."

The statement marks a significant ramping up of tensions with Russia and comes as members of the NATO military alliance meet to discuss the crisis.

It came after several days of diplomacy by May following initial reluctance by the French and US governments to publicly blame Russia for the incident, in which Skripal and his daughter were poisoned by what was identified as a Russia-developed nerve agent.

On Wednesday, May announced that Britain would expel 23 Russian diplomats from the UK in response to the attack.

Britain is also set to freeze the accounts of people close to Russian President Vladimir Putin and suspend all high-level contact with the Russian government.

On Thursday, UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said Russia should "shut up" and "go away" and suggested that Britain was in a "chilly" war with the country.

The joint statement in full:

"We, the leaders of France, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom, abhor the attack that took place against Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, UK, on 4 March 2018. A British police officer who was also exposed in the attack remains seriously ill, and the lives of many innocent British citizens have been threatened. We express our sympathies to them all, and our admiration for the UK police and emergency services for their courageous response.

"This use of a military-grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, constitutes the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War. It is an assault on UK sovereignty and any such use by a State party is a clear violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a breach of international law. It threatens the security of us all. The United Kingdom briefed thoroughly its allies that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for the attack. We share the UK assessment that there is no plausible alternative explanation, and note that Russia's failure to address the legitimate request by the UK government further underlines its responsibility.

"We call on Russia to address all questions related to the attack in Salisbury. Russia should in particular provide full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Our concerns are also heightened against the background of a pattern of earlier irresponsible Russian behaviour. We call on Russia to live up to its responsibilities as a member of the UN Security Council to uphold international peace and security."