lunes, 26 de septiembre de 2016

Brasil: comienza el desguace

La nota que sigue es de F. William Engdahl y apareció sucesivamente en los sitios web New Eastern Outlook y The International Reporter. En la misma se argumenta sobre los verdaderos motivos detrás de la destitución de Dilma Rousseff como presidenta constitucional del Brasil: vender los más valiosos activos del estado y debilitar a los BRICS. A ver si los enfurece un poquito:

Título: Washington Tries to Break BRICS – Rape of Brazil Begins

Epígrafe: Washington’s regime change machinery has for the time being succeeded in removing an important link in the alliance of large emerging nations by railroading through a Senate impeachment of the duly elected President, Dilma Rousseff. On August 31 her Vice President Michel Temer was sworn in as President. In his first speech as president, the cynical Temer called for a government of “national salvation,” asking for the trust of the Brazilian people. He indicated plans to reform, and has also signaled his intention to overhaul the pension system and labor laws, and cut public spending, all themes beloved of Wall Street banks, of the International Monetary Fund and their Washington Consensus. Now after less than three weeks at the job, Temer has unveiled plans for wholesale privatization of Brazil’s crown jewels, starting with oil. The planned Wall Street rape of Brazil is about to begin.

Texto: It’s important to keep in mind that elected President Rousseff was not convicted or even formally charged with any concrete act of corruption, even though the pro-oligarchy mainstream Brazil media, led by O’Globo Group of the billionaire Roberto Irineu Marinho, ran a media defamation campaign creating the basis to railroad Rousseff into formal impeachment before the Senate. The shift took place after the opposition PMDB party of Temer on March 29 broke their coalition with Rousseff’s Workers’ Party, as accusations of Petrobras-linked corruption were made against Rousseff and former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

On August 31, 61 Senators voted to remove her while 20 voted against removal. The formal charge was “manipulation of the state budget” before the 2014 elections to hide the size of the deficit. She vehemently denies the charge. Indeed, the Senate issued its own expert report that concluded there was “no indication of direct or indirect action by Dilma” in any illegal budgetary maneuvers. According to the Associated Press, “Independent auditors hired by Brazil’s Senate said in a report released Monday that suspended President Dilma Rousseff didn’t engage in the creative accounting she was charged with at her impeachment trial.” Under an honest system that would have ended the impeachment then and there. Not in Brazil.

In effect, she was impeached for the dramatic decline in the Brazilian economy, a decline deliberately pushed along as US credit rating agencies downgraded Brazilian debt, and international and mainstream Brazilian media kept the Petrobras corruption allegations in the spotlight. Importantly, the Senate did not ban her from office for 8 years as Washington had hoped, and she has promised an electoral return. The Washington-steered Temer has until end of 2018 to deliver Brazil to Temer’s foreign masters before his term legally ends.

Notably, Temer himself was accused of corruption in the Petrobras state oil company investigations. He reportedly asked the then-head of the transportation unit of Petróleo Brasileiro SA in 2012 to arrange illegal campaign contributions to Temer’s party which was running a Washington-backed campaign to oust Rousseff’s Workers’ Party. Then this June, only days into his serving as acting president, two of Temer’s own chosen ministers, including the Minister of Transparency, were forced to resign in response to allegations that they sought to subvert the probe into massive graft at Petrobras.

One of the two, Temer’s extremely close ally Romero Jucá, was caught on tape plotting Dilma’s impeachment as a way to shut down the ongoing Petrobras corruption investigation, as well as indicating that Brazil’s military, the media, and the courts were all participants in the impeachment plotting.

In brief, the removal of Dilma Rousseff and her Workers’ Party after 13 years in Brazil’s leadership was a new form of Color Revolution from Washington, one we might call a judicial coup by corrupt judges and congressmen. Of the 594 members of the Congress, as the Toronto Globe and Mail reported, “318 are under investigation or face charges” while their target, President Rousseff, “herself faces no allegation of financial impropriety.”

The day after the first Lower House impeachment vote in April, a leading member of Temer’s PSDP party, Senator Aloysio Nunes, went to Washington, in a mission organized by former Bill Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s lobbying firm, Albright Stonebridge Group. Nunes, as president of the Brazilian Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, has repeatedly advocated that Brazil once again move closer to an alliance with the US and UK.

Madeline Albright, a Director of the leading US think-tank, Council on Foreign Relations, is also chair of the prime US Government “Color Revolution” NGO, the National Democratic Institute (NDI). Nothing fishy here, or? Nunes reportedly went to Washington to rally backing for Temer and the unfolding judicial coup against Rousseff.

A key player from the side of Washington, Rousseff’s de facto political executioner, was, once again, Vice President Joe Biden, the “Dick Cheney” dirty operator-in-chief in the Obama Administration.

Biden’s fateful Brazil trip

In May, 2013, US Vice President Joe Biden made a fateful visit to Brazil to meet with President Rousseff. In January 2011 Rousseff had succeeded her Workers’ Party mentor, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, or Lula, who constitutionally was limited to two consecutive terms. Biden went to Brazil to discuss oil with the new President. Relations between Lula and Washington had chilled as Lula backed Iran against US sanctions and came economically closer to China.

In late 2007 Petrobras had discovered what was estimated to be a mammoth new basin of high-quality oil on the Brazilian Continental Shelf offshore in the Santos Basin. In total the Brazil Continental Shelf could contain over 100 billion barrels of oil, transforming the country into a major world oil and gas power, something Exxon and Chevron, the US oil giants wanted tocontrol.

In 2009, according to leaked US diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks, the US Consulate in Rio wrote that Exxon and Chevron were trying in vain to alter a law advanced by Rousseff’s mentor and predecessor in her Brazilian Workers’ Party , President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva. That 2009 law made the state-owned Petrobras chief operator of all offshore oilblocs. Washington and the US oil giants were not at all pleased at losing control over potentially the largest new world oil discovery in decades.

Lula had not only pushed ExxonMobil and Chevron out of the controlling position in favor of the state-owned Petrobras, but he also opened Brazilian oil exploration to the Chinese, since 2009 a core member of the BRICS developing nations with Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa.

In December, 2010 in one of his last acts as President, Lula oversaw signing of a deal between the Brazilian-Spanish energy company Repsol and China’s state-owned Sinopec. Sinopec formed a joint venture, Repsol Sinopec Brasil, investing more than $7.1 billion towards Repsol Brazil. Already in 2005 Lula had approved formation of Sinopec International Petroleum Service of Brazil Ltd as part of a new strategic alliance between China and Brazil.

In 2012 in a joint exploration drilling, Repsol Sinopec Brasil, Norway’s Statoil and Petrobras made a major new discovery in Pão de Açúcar, the third in block BM-C-33, which includes the Seat and Gávea, the latter one of the world’s 10 largest discoveries in 2011. USA and British oil majors were nowhere to be seen.

Biden’s task was to sound out Lula’s successor, Rousseff, about reversing that exclusion of US major oil companies in favor of the Chinese. Biden also met with leading energy companies in Brazil including Petrobras.

While little was publicly said, Rousseff refused to reverse the 2009 oil law in a way that would be suitable to Biden, Washington and US oil majors. Days after Biden’s visit came the Snowden NSA revelations that the US had also spied on Rousseff and top officials of Petrobras. She was livid and denounced the Obama Administration that September before the UN General Assembly for violating international law. She cancelled a planned Washington visit in protest. After that, US-Brazil relations took a dive.

After his May 2013 talks with Rousseff, Biden clearly gave her the kiss of death.

Before Biden’s May 2013 visit Dilma Rousseff had 70% of popularity rating. Less than two weeks after Biden left Brazil, nationwide protests by a very well-organized group called Movimento Passe Livre, over a nominal 10 cent bus fare increase, brought the country virtually to a halt and turned very violent. The protests bore the hallmark of typical “Color Revolution” or Twitter social media destabilizations that seem to follow Biden wherever he makes a presence. Within weeks Rousseff’s popularity plummeted to 30%.

Washington had clearly sent a signal that Rousseff had to change course or face serious problems. The Washington regime change machine, including its entire array of financial warfare operations ranging from a leaked PwC audit of Petrobras to Wall Street credit rating agency Standard & Poors’ downgrade of Brazil public debt to junk in September 2015, went into full action to remove Rousseff, a key backer of the BRICS New Development Bank and of an independent national development strategy for Brazil.

Selling the Crown Jewels

The man who has now manipulated himself into the Presidency, the corrupt Michel Temer, worked as an informer for Washington the entire time. In documents released by Wikileaks, it was revealed that Temer was an informant to US intelligence since at least 2006, via telegrams to the US embassy in Brazil classified by the Embassy as “sensitive” and “for official use only.”

Washington’s man in Brazil, Temer, has lost no time appeasing his patrons in Wall Street. Even as acting President this May, Temer named Henrique Meirelles as Minister of Finance and Social Security. Meirelles, a Harvard-educated former President of the Brazilian central bank, was President of BankBoston in the USA until 1999, and was with that bank in 1985 when it was found guilty of failing to report $1.2 billion in illegal cash transfers with Swiss banks. Meirelles is now overseeing the planned selloff of Brazil’s “crown jewels” to international investors, a move that is intended to gravely undercut the power of the state in the economy. Another of Temer’s key economic advisers is Paulo Leme, former IMF economist and now Goldman Sachs Managing Director of Emerging Markets Research. Wall Street is in the middle of the Temer-led economic rape of Brazil.

On September 13, Temer’s government unveiled a massive privatization program with the cynically misleading comment, “It is clear the public sector cannot move forward alone on these projects. We are counting on the private sector.” He omitted to say the private sector he meant were his patrons.

Temer unveiled plans that would complete the country’s largest privatization in decades. Conveniently, the process us to be completed by end of 2018, just before Temer’s term must end. The influential US-Brazil Business Council detailed the privatization list on its website. The US-Brazil Business Council was founded forty years ago by Citigroup, Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemicals and other US multinationals.

Tenders for the first round of concessions will be issued before the end of this year. They will include privatization of four airports and two port terminals, all auctioned in the first quarter of 2017. Other concessions include five highways, one rail line, bidding on small oil blocks and a later round for large, mainly offshore, oil development blocks. As well the government will sell selected assets currently controlled by its Minerals Research Department plus six electric power distributors and three water treatment facilities.

The heart of his planned privatization are, not surprisingly, Joe Biden’s coveted state oil and gas companies along with chunks of the state Eletrobrás power company. Temer plans to get as much as $24 billion from the selloff. Fully $11 billion of the total are to come from sale of key oil and gas state holdings. Of course, when state assets such as huge oil and gas resources are sold off to foreign interests in what will clearly be a distress sale, it is a one-off deal. State oil and gas or electric power projects generate a continuing revenue stream many times any one-off privatization gains. Brazil’s economy is the ultimate loser in such privatization. Wall Street banks and multinationals are of course, as planned, the winner.

On September 19-21, according to the US-Brazil Business Council website, the Brazilian government’s key ministers for infrastructure including Minister Moreira Franco; Minister Fernando Bezerra Coelho Filho, Minister of Mines and Energy; and Minister Mauricio Quintella Lessa, Minister of Transport, Ports and Civil Aviation, will be in New York City to meet with Wall Street “infrastructure investors.”

This is Washington’s way, the way of the Wall Street Gods of Money, as I title one of my books. First, destroy any national leadership intent on genuine national development such as Dilma Rousseff. Replace them with a vassal regime willing to do anything for money, including selling the crown jewels of their own nation as people like Anatoli Chubais did in Russia in the 1990’s under Boris Yeltsin’s “shock therapy.” As reward for his behavior, Chubais today sits on the advisory board of JP MorganChase. What will Temer and associates get for their efforts remains to be seen. Washington for now has broken one of the BRICS that ultimately threaten her global hegemony. It is not likely to bring any lasting success if recent history is any guide.

domingo, 25 de septiembre de 2016

Acá están, estos son

No, no están sacándole fotos a otro candidato que entró por la puerta opuesta a la de Hillary (a la derecha en la foto). Están haciéndose una selfie con la candidata de fondo para subirla al face lo antes posible. 

Esta es la gente que en algo más de un mes va a decidir sobre los destinos del mundo.



Acá va una interesante nota de Fred Reed para UNZ Review. El tema: la (en su opinión) obsolescencia conceptual, no sólo tecnológica, de las actuales fuerzas armadas del Imperio. A ver si te gusta:

Título: An Obsolescent Military

Subtítulo: Bombing Everything, Gaining Nothing

Texto: What, precisely, is the US military for, and what, precisely, can it do? In practical terms, how powerful is it? On paper, it is formidable, huge, with carrier battle groups, advanced technology, remarkable submarines, satellites, and so on. What does this translate to?

Military power does not exist independently, but only in relation to specific circumstances. Comparing technical specifications of the T-14 to those of the M1A2, or Su-34 to F-15, or numbers of this to numbers of that, is an interesting intellectual exercise. It means little without reference to specific circumstances.

For example, America is vastly superior militarily to North Korea in every category of arms–but the North has nuclear bombs. It can’t deliver them to the US, but probably can to Seoul. Even without nuclear weapons, it has a large army and large numbers of artillery tubes within range of Seoul. It has an unpredictable government. As Gordon Liddy said, if your responses to provocation are wildly out of proportion to those provocations, and unpredictable, nobody will provoke you.

An American attack by air on the North, the only attack possible short of a preemptive nuclear strike, would offer a high probability of a peninsular war, devastation of Seoul, paralysis of an important trading partner–think Samsung–and an uncertain final outcome. The United States hasn’t the means of getting troops to Korea rapidly in any numbers, and the domestic political results of lots of GIs killed by a serious enemy would be politically grave. The probable cost far exceeds any possible benefit. In practical terms, Washington’s military superiority means nothing with regard to North Korea. Pyongyang knows it.

Or consider the Ukraine. On paper, US forces overall are superior to Russian. Locally, they are not. Russia borders on the Ukraine and could overrun it quickly. The US cannot rapidly bring force to bear except a degree of air power. Air power hasn’t worked against defenseless peasants in many countries. Russia is not a defenseless peasant. Europe, usually docile and obedient to America, is unlikely to engage in a shooting war with Moscow for the benefit of Washington. Europeans are aware that Russia borders on Eastern Europe, which borders on Western Europe. For Washington, fighting Russia in the Ukraine would require a huge effort with seaborne logistics and a national mobilization. Serious wars with nuclear powers do not represent the height of judgement.

Again, Washington’s military superiority means nothing.

Or consider Washington’s dispute with China in the Pacific. China cannot begin to match American naval power. It doesn’t have to. Beijing has focused on anti-ship missiles–read “carrier-killer”–such as the JD21 ballistic missile. How well it works I do not know, but the Chinese are not stupid. Is the risk of finding out worth it? Fast, stealthed, sea-skimming cruise missiles are very cheap compared to carriers, and America’s admirals know that lots of them arriving simultaneously would not have a happy ending.

Having a fleet disabled by China would be intolerable to Washington, but its possible responses would be unappealing. Would it start a conventional war with China with the ghastly global economic consequences? This would not generate allies. Cut China’s oil lanes to the Mid-East and push Beijing toward nuclear war? Destroy the Three Gorges Dam and drown god knows how many people? If China used the war as a pretext for annexing bordering counties? What would Russia do?

The consequences both probable and assured make the adventure unattractive, especially since likely pretexts for a war with China–a few rocks in the Pacific, for example–are too trivial to be worth the certain costs and uncertain outcome. Again, military superiority doesn’t mean much.

We live in a military world fundamentally different from that of the last century. All-out wars between major powers, which is to say nuclear powers, are unlikely since they would last about an hour after they became all-out, and everyone knows it. In WWII Germany could convince itself, reasonably and almost correctly, that Russia would fall in a summer, or the Japanese that a Depression-ridden, unarmed America might decide not to fight. Now, no. Threaten something that a nuclear power regards as vital and you risk frying. So nobody does.

At any rate, nobody has. Fools abound in DC and New York.

What then, in today’s world, is the point of huge conventional forces?

The American military is an upgraded World War II military, designed to fight other militarizes like itself in a world like that which existed during World War II. The Soviet Union was that kind of military. Today there are no such militaries for America to fight. We are not in the same world. Washington seems not to have noticed.

A World War II military is intended to destroy point targets of high value—aircraft, ships, factories, tanks—and to capture crucial territory, such as the enemy’s country. When you have destroyed the Wehrmacht’s heavy weaponry and occupied Germany, you have won. This is the sort of war that militaries have always relished, having much sound and fury and clear goals.

It doesn’t work that way today. Since Korea, half-organized peasant militias have baffled the Pentagon by not having targets of high value or crucial territory. In Afghanistan for example goatherds with rifles could simply disperse, providing no point targets at all, and certainly not of high value. No territory was crucial to them. If the US mounted a huge operation to take Province A, the resistance could just fade into the population or move to Province B. The US would always be victorious but never win anything. Sooner or later America would go away. The world understands this.

Further, the underlying nature of conflict has changed. For most of history until the Soviet Union evaporated, empires expanded by military conquest. In today’s world, countries have not lost their imperial ambitions, but the approach is no longer military. China seems intent on bringing Eurasia under its hegemony, and advances toward doing it, but its approach is economic, not martial. The Chinese are not warm and fuzzy. They are, however, smart. It is much cheaper and safer to expand commercially than militarily, and wiser to sidestep martial confrontation—in a word, to ignore America. More correctly it is sidestepping the Pentagon.

Military and diplomatic power spring from economic power, and China is proving successful economically. Using commercial clout, she is expanding her influence, but in ways not easily bombed. She is pushing the BRICS alliance, from which the US is excluded. She is enlarging the SCO, from which America is excluded. Perhaps most importantly, she has set up the AIIB, the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, which does not include the US but includes Washington’s European allies. These organizations will probably trade mostly not in dollars, a serious threat to Washington’s economic hegemony.

What is the relevance of the Pentagon? How do you bomb a trade agreement?
China enjoys solvency, and hegemonizes enthusiastically with it. Thus in Pakistan it has built the Karakoram Highway from Xian Jiang to Karachi, which will increase trade between the two. It is putting in the two power reactors near Karachi. It is investing in Afghan resources, increasing trade with Iran. . When the US finally leaves, China, without firing a shot, will be predominant in the region.

What is the relevance of aircraft carriers?

Beijing is talking seriously about building more rail lines, including high-speed rail, from itself to Europe, accompanied by fiber-optic lines and so on. This is not just talk. China has the money and a very large network of high-speed rail domestically. (The US has not a single mile.) Google “China-Europe Rail lines.”

What is the Pentagon going to do? Bomb the tracks?

As trade and ease of travel from Berlin to Beijing increase, and as China prospers and wants more European goods, European businessmen will want to cuddle up to that fabulously large market—which will loosen Washington’s grip on the throat of Europe. Say it three times slowly: Eur-asia. Eur-asia. Eur-asia. I promise it is what the Chinese are saying.

What is the Pentagon’s trillion-dollar military going to bomb? Europe? Railways across Kazakhstan? BMW plants?

All of which is to say that while the US military looks formidable, it isn’t particularly useful, and aids China by bankrupting the US. Repeatedly it has demonstrated that it cannot defeat campesinos armed with those most formidable weapons, the AK, the RPG, and the IED. The US does not have the land forces to fight a major or semi-major enemy. It could bomb Iran, with unpredictable consequences, but couldn’t possibly conquer it.

The wars in the Mid-East illustrate the principle nicely. Iraq didn’t work. Libya didn’t work. Iran didn’t back down. ISIS and related curiosities? The Pentagon is again bombing an enemy that can’t fight back—its specialty—but that it seems unable defeat.

Wrong military, wrong enemy, wrong war, wrong world.

sábado, 24 de septiembre de 2016

Hillary y la demolición de Libia y Siria

La nota que sigue, de Manlio Dinucci para Red Voltaire, cuenta algo de lo que se desprende de los mails hackeados de la hoy candidata Hillary Clinton mientras fue Secretaria de Estado del presidente Obama. Dos países en particular fueron motivo de sus furias: Libia y Siria. Ninguno había agredido al Imperio. El primero derrotado por la NATO, el segundo está todavía en veremos; ambos, de todos modos, fueron demolidos hasta los cimientos. Lo interesante son los motivos, y esta nota habla de ellos.

Título: Los emails explosivos de Hillary Clinton

Epígrafe: Los anglosajones son expertos en “lavado” de la memoria colectiva. Les basta con presentar excusas a quienes no tienen cómo castigarlos por los errores cometidos y, partir de ahí, ¡borrón y cuenta nueva! Por supuesto, las excusas nunca van dirigidas a los organismos a los que mintieron.

Texto: De vez en cuando, Occidente saca del armario algunos esqueletos, en lo que constituye un ejercicio de «limpieza moral de verano» con objetivos político-mediáticos.

En Gran Bretaña, una comisión de la Cámara de los Comunes criticó a David Cameron por la intervención militar de 2011 en Libia, emprendida bajo su mandato como primer ministro. Pero la comisión no criticó a Cameron por la agresión militar que destruyó un Estado soberano sino por haber emprendido esa guerra sin «inteligencia» adecuada y sin plan para la «reconstrucción» [1].

Lo mismo hizo Barack Obama en abril de este año 2016, cuando declaró haber cometido en el caso de Libia el «peor error», pero no por haber destruido ese país utilizando las fuerzas de la OTAN bajo las órdenes de Estados Unidos sino por no haber planificado «The Day after», o sea lo que vendría después. Al mismo tiempo, Obama reiteró su apoyo a Hillary Clinton, hoy candidata a la presidencia. O sea, la misma Hillary Clinton que, como secretaria de Estado, lo convenció para que autorizara una operación secreta contra Libia –incluyendo el envío de fuerzas especiales y la entrega de armamento a grupos terroristas– para preparar el asalto aeronaval de Estados Unidos y la OTAN contra ese país.

Los correos electrónicos de Hillary Clinton, posteriormente revelados, demuestran cual fue el verdadero objetivo de la guerra contra Libia: impedir el proyecto de creación de organismos financieros autónomos de la Unión Africana y de una moneda africana alternativa al dólar y al franco CFA, que Kadhafi pensaba concretar gracias a los multimillonarios fondos soberanos de Libia.

Después de haber destruido el Estado libio, Estados Unidos y la OTAN, junto a las monarquías del Golfo, emprendieron la operación secreta que debía acabar con el Estado sirio, infiltrando en Siria fuerzas especiales y grupos terroristas que acabaron pariendo el Emirato Islámico (Daesh, también designado como Estado Islámico o con siglas como EI, EIIL, ISIL o ISIS).

Uno de los numerosos correos electrónicos de Hillary Clinton que el Departamento de Estado tuvo que desclasificar a raíz del escándalo provocado por las revelaciones de Wikileaks menciona uno de los objetivos fundamentales de la operación, aún en marcha, contra Siria. En el correo electrónico desclasificado como «case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498» [2], la secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton escribe, el 31 de diciembre de 2012:

«Es la relación estratégica entre Irán y el régimen de Bachar al-Assad lo que permite a Irán socavar la seguridad de Israel, no a través de un ataque directo sino a través de sus aliados en Líbano, como el Hezbollah

La señora Clinton subraya entonces que «la mejor manera de ayudar a Israel es ayudar a la rebelión en Siria que ya dura desde hace más de un año», o sea desde 2011, y sostiene que para poner de rodillas a Bachar al-Assad hay que recurrir «al uso de la fuerza» para «poner en peligro su vida y la de su familia».

En ese correo electrónico, Hillary Clinton concluye:

«El derrocamiento de Assad sería no sólo una inmensa ganancia para la seguridad de Israel, sino que también haría disminuir el temor israelí comprensible de perder el monopolio nuclear

O sea, en ese correo electrónico la secretaria de Estado reconoce lo que nadie dice oficialmente: el hecho que Israel es el único país del Medio Oriente que posee armas nucleares [Desde aquella época, Arabia Saudita compró la bomba atómica [3].]

El apoyo de la administración Obama a Israel, más allá de alguna que otra disensión más bien formales, acaba de ser ampliamente confirmado por el acuerdo, firmado en Washington el 14 de septiembre de 2016, donde Estados Unidos se compromete a equipar a Israel con el armamento más moderno de sus arsenales por un valor total de 38 000 millones de dólares en 10 años, con un financiamiento anual de 3 300 millones más medio millón para la «defensa antimisiles».

En todo caso, luego de la intervención rusa que dio al traste con el plan tendiente a destruir Siria desde adentro imponiéndole una guerra, Estados Unidos se las arregló para obtener una «tregua» (que inmediatamente viola) mientras emprende en Libia una nueva ofensiva disfrazada de operación humanitaria, con la participación de los “mili-humanitarios” de Italia.

Mientras tanto, Israel, en la sombra, sigue fortaleciendo su ventaja nuclear, que tanto estima Hillary Clinton.


[1] Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK’s future policy options, House of Commons, Foreign Committee, 6 de septiembre de 2016.

[2] «New Iran and Syria», Hillary Clinton, 31 de diciembre de 2012, (Wikileaks).

[3] «Alerta roja nuclear», por Manlio Dinucci, Il Manifesto (Italia), Red Voltaire, 25 de febrero de 2016. «Arabia Saudita tiene la bomba atómica», por Giulietto Chiesa, Il Fatto Quotidiano (Italia), Red Voltaire, 2 de marzo de 2016.

viernes, 23 de septiembre de 2016

Incapaces de acordar

Seguimos los acontecimientos de Siria con el interés que nos provoca el accionar del Imperio en las situaciones delicadas. Por lo general los chicos de la "stars & stripes" terminan llamando al General Custer, mueren quichicientos indios y se proclama a los cuatro vientos que ganaron los buenos. Luego sigue el packaging de las pelis de Holywood, los Pulitzers a los periodistas comprometidos (con la causa, por lo general), series de toda calaña donde se demuestra una vez más que los sucios barbudos son eso, sucios y barbudos, y poca cosa más. A fuerza de repetir el guión, sin embargo, la cosa suena ya a cartón pintado. Para colmo, ni siquiera funciona. Leemos en el sitio web The Vineyard of the Saker

TítuloWhy the recent developments in Syria show that the Obama Administration is in a state of confused agony

Texto: The latest developments in Syria are not, I believe, the result of some deliberate plan of the USA to help their “moderate terrorist” allies on the ground, but they are the symptom of something even worse: the complete loss of control of the USA over the situation in Syria and, possibly, elsewhere.  Let me just re-state what just happened:

First, after days and days of intensive negotiations, Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov finally reached a deal on a cease-fire in Syria which had the potential to at least “freeze” the situation on the ground until the Presidential election in the USA and a change in administration (this is now the single most important event in the near future, therefore no plans of any kind can extend beyond that date).

Then the USAF, along with a few others, bombed a Syrian Army unit which was not on the move or engaged in intense operations, but which was simply holding a key sector of the front.  The US strike was followed by a massive offensive of the “moderate terrorists” which was barely contained by the Syrian military and the Russian Aerospace forces.  Needless to say, following such a brazen provocation the cease-fire was dead.  The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began saying that the Americans were недоговороспособны”.  What that word means is literally “not-agreement-capable” or unable to make and then abide by an agreement.  While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it.  For example, the Russians have often said that the Kiev regime is “not-agreement-capable”, and that makes sense considering that the Nazi occupied Ukraine is essentially a failed state.  But to say that a nuclear world superpower is “not-agreement-capable” is a terrible and extreme diagnostic.  It basically means that the Americans have gone crazy and lost the very ability to make any kind of deal.  Again, a government which breaks its promises or tries to deceive but who, at least in theory, remains capable of sticking to an agreement would not be described as “not-agreement-capable”.  That expression is only used to describe an entity which does not even have the skillset needed to negotiate and stick to an agreement in its political toolkit.  This is an absolutely devastating diagnostic.

Next came the pathetic and absolutely unprofessional scene of US Ambassador Samantha Powers simply walking out of a UNSC meeting when the Russian representative was speaking.  Again, the Russians were simply blown away, not by the infantile attempt at offending, but at the total lack of diplomatic professionalism shown the Powers.  From a Russian point of view, for one superpower to simply walk out at the very moment the other superpower is making a crucial statement is simply irresponsible and, again, the sign that their American counterparts have totally “lost it”.

Finally, there came the crowning moment: the attack of the humanitarian convey in Syria which the USA blamed, of course, on Russia.  The Russians, again, could barely believe their own eyes.  First, this was such a blatant and, frankly, Kindergarten-level attempt to show that “the Russians make mistakes too” and that “the Russians killed the cease-fire”.  Second, there was this amazing statement of the Americans who said there are only two air forces which could have done that – either the Russians or the Syrians (how the Americans hoped to get away with this in an airspace thoroughly controlled by Russian radars is beyond me!).  Somehow, the Americans “forgot” to mention that their own air force was also present in the region, along with the air forces of many US allies.  Most importantly, they forgot to mention that that night armed US Predator drones were flying right over that convoy.

What happened in Syria is painfully obvious: the Pentagon sabotaged the deal made between Kerry and Lavrov and when the Pentagon was accused of being responsible, it mounted a rather crude false flag attack and tried to blame it on the Russians.

All this simply goes to show that the Obama Administration is in a state of confused agony.  The White House apparently is so freaked out at the prospects of a Trump victory in November that it has basically lost control of its foreign policy in general and, especially, in Syria.  The Russians are quite literally right: the Obama Administration is truly “not-agreement-capable”.

Of course, the fact that the Americans are acting like clueless frustrated children does not mean that Russia will reciprocate in kind.  We have already seen Lavrov go back and further negotiate with Kerry.  Not because the Russians are naive, but precisely because, unlike their US colleagues, the Russians are professionals who know that negotiations and open lines of communications are always, and by definition, preferable to a walk-away, especially when dealing with a superpower.  Those observers who criticize Russia for being “weak” or “naive” simply project their own, mostly American, “reaction set” on the Russians and fail to realize the simply truth that Russians are not Americans, they think differently and they act differently.  For one thing, the Russians don’t care if they are perceived as “weak” or “naive”.  In fact, they would prefer to be perceived as such if that furthers their goals and confuses the opponent about their real intentions and capabilities.  The Russians know that they did not build the biggest country on the planet by being “weak” or “naive” and they won’t be take lessons from a country which is younger that many Russian buildings.  The western paradigm is usually like this: a crises leads to a breakdown in negotiations and conflict follows.  The Russian paradigm is completely different: a crisis leads to negotiations which are conducted up the the last second before a conflict erupts.  There are two reasons for that: first, continuing to negotiate up to the last second makes it possible to seek a way out of the confrontation up to the last second and, second, negotiations up to the last second make it possible to come as close as possible to achieving strategic surprise for an attack.  This is exactly how Russia acted in Crimea and in Syria – with absolutely no warning signs or, even less so, a well-publicized display of power to attempt to intimidate somebody (intimidation is also a western political strategy the Russians don’t use).

So Lavrov will continue to negotiate, no matter how ridiculous and useless such negotiations will appear.  And Lavrov himself will probably never officially utter the word недоговороспособны, but the message to the Russian people and to the Syrian, Iranian and Chinese allies of Russia will be that at this point Russia has lost any hope of dealing with the current US Administration.

Obama and Co. now have their hands full with trying to hide Hillary’s health and character problems and right now they probably can think of only one thing: how to survive the upcoming Hillary-Trump debate.  The Pentagon and the Department of State are mostly busy fighting each other over Syria, Turkey, the Kurds and Russia.  The CIA seems to be fighting itself, though this is hard to ascertain.

It is likely that some kind of deal with still be announced by Kerry and Lavrov, if not today, then tomorrow or the day after.  But, frankly, I completely agree with the Russians: the American are truly “not-agreement-capable” and at this point in time, both the conflict in Syria and the one in the Ukraine are frozen.  I don’t mean “frozen” in the sense of “no fighting”, not at all, but I do mean “frozen” in the same of “no major developments possible”.  There will still be combats, especially now that the Wahabi and Nazi allies of the USA feel that their boss is not in charge because he is busy with elections and race riots, but since there is no quick military solution possible in either one of these wars, the tactical clashes and offensives will not yield any strategic result.

Barring an election-canceling false flag inside the USA, like the murder of either Hillary or Trump by a “lone gunman”, the wars in the Ukraine and Syria will go on with no prospects of any kind of meaningful negotiations.  And whether Trump or Hillary get into the White House next, a major “reset” will take place in early 2017.  Trump will probably want to meet Putin for a major negotiations session involving all the key outstanding issues between the USA and Russia.  If Hillary and her Neocons make it into the White House then some kind of war between Russia and the USA will become almost impossible to prevent.

PS: some Russian military experts are saying that the kind of damage shown in the footage of the attack on the humanitarian convey is not consistent with an airstrike or even an artillery strike and that it looks much more like the result of a blast of several IEDs.  If so, then that would still not point at Russia, but at the “moderate terrorist” forces in control of that location.  This could still be a US ordered-false flag attack or, alternatively, the proof that the US has lost control over its Wahabi allies on the ground.

Otoño caliente

Se recalienta el otoño en el corazón del Imperio. Tres días sucesivos de protestas, con momentos de fuerte violencia, en Charlotte, Carolina del Norte. En el video de abajo, una periodista le pregunta a un manifestante qué se siente ser joven y negro en los EEUU de hoy.

"Miedo, se siente miedo", dice el chico de 24 años. "No estamos enojados, no odiamos a nadie; estamos confundidos. Queremos saber qué es lo que está pasando. No puede ser que me levante cada mañana con miedo por el hecho de ser negro, simplemente"

El video, acá:

Si andan con tiempo, o insomnes, péguenle una mirada a este otro video. Dura más de cuatro horas y media. Algo se está armando allá en el norte.

jueves, 22 de septiembre de 2016

¿Qué le pasa a esta gente?

Como prácticamente no pasa nada en ningún lado (chiste) decidimos tomarnos el día y repasar las últimas tendencias de la moda. Nos ponemos entonces a mirar la colección de Prada y nos quedamos estupefactos. En realidad nunca antes habíamos hecho algo así, motivo por el cual este post les podrá  parecer ingenuo, pero... ¿qué les pasa a estas chicas, por dio...? No es sólo que ya son unos esqueletos, unas pobres perchas humanoides sin vestigios de calorías. Lo que nos asusta son las caripelas! La que no simula ser un zombie parece estar oliendo mierda. Su percepción del entorno es igual a cero. Parecen un ejército de robots a punto de eliminar a la raza humana del planeta. Hasta ahora las chicas y chicos de la moda nos tenían acostumbrados a esas caritas de rebeldes sin causa que permitían a unos cuantos vivos de este planeta vender unos trapos por varios miles de euros. Pero esto... esto nos desconcierta. Las fotos son del Telegraph de Londres de hoy.

Que vuelvan las gordis YA !!!!!!  

miércoles, 21 de septiembre de 2016

Siria: ¿Ahora qué?

La siguiente nota de Aram Mirzaei para el sitio web The Vineyard of the Saker da cuenta de tres aspectos de los acontecimientos que se desarrollan en Siria en estos momentos: (1) la naturaleza del cese de hostilidades, (2) su ruptura por parte de los EEUU, y (3) lo que cabe esperar de ahora en más:

Título: Syrian Ceasefire failed, what now?


The “Ceasefire”

One week ago I and many other analysts predicted that the ceasefire agreement brokered by the US and Russia last week was doomed to fail. I said this because of the fact that there are no “moderate” rebels, and that any group trying to disassociate itself from Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham (formerly Jabhat Al-Nusra) would commit both political and military suicide. Right from the first day of the implementation, Western backed Jihadists and their allies declared that they would not take part in the cessation of hostilities, which really rendered the whole agreement useless since it became clear that they would use this opportunity to regroup and rearm.

This week long ceasefire was also supposed to allow for humanitarian aid to reach besieged areas such as East Aleppo which is currently under the control of Washington’s “moderate” rebels. Despite the Syrian Army withdrawing up to 1 km north of the imperative Castillo road leading into the eastern parts of Aleppo and handing over the control over the checkpoints in this area to Russian Marines and Syrian Red Crescent Society, the humanitarian aid destined for eastern Aleppo were severely delayed due to constant attacks on the Russian Marines by the Jihadists.[1] [2] In a video posted by RT on their Youtube page, one can clearly see the Russian personnel coming under attack by Jihadist fire, yet despite this, mainstream media in the West shamefully reported that the “Assad regime” were the ones who were guilty of both violating the ceasefire and disrupting the delivery of humanitarian aid. [3] [4]

The Jihadists and their supporters refused to allow for humanitarian aid to be delivered because they refused to acknowledge the ceasefire, instead claiming that both the ceasefire and the humanitarian aid being sent to them was part of a “UN conspiracy” and that they “refuse to accept this humiliating and pathetic aid”. In a video posted online, a rally takes place in eastern Aleppo where Jihadists and their supporters declare that they refuse to accept this “humiliating” aid in the name of the religion (of Islam).[5]

It should clearly be concluded then that these Jihadists and their supporters were not interested in any kind of reduced violence, not even for a week it would seem, with Jihadists clearly showing their intentions of using this ceasefire to break the siege of Aleppo by even attacking Russian Marines.

This ceasefire was doomed from the start because Washington will not and cannot separate any “moderates” from the rest of the Jihadists. In an Op-Ed posted on RT in June, experts agree that Washington has no control over its proxies in Syria, with Journalist Willy van Damme saying that Al-Nusra and “moderate rebels” have been cooperating for about five years fighting together against the Syrian government. “To think that they would split from Al-Nusra is dreaming,” he added.

In another video posted online last week, the “spiritual leader” of the Jihadist Jaysh Al-Fateh coalition Abullah Muhaysani, a renowned Saudi Wahhabi cleric who illegally entered Syria in 2013, declared that “the other factions’ [moderates] rejection of the ceasefire is not only a slap in the face of Kerry and Lavrov, but it is also a slap in the face of all those who are trying to incite the factions against each other”. He goes on to reiterate the unity among the plethora of Jihadist factions working together as one against a common enemy, the Syrian government. [6]

The US-led Coalition massacre of Syrian Army personnel

As if the rejection of the ceasefire and the blocking of humanitarian aid wasn’t proof enough that the ceasefire was doomed to fail, Washington also did its utmost to make sure that it didn’t by flagrantly attacking the Syrian Army in the besieged city of Deir Ezzor. Although I was shocked, I was not surprised to read on Saturday night that the US-led coalition had struck the Syrian Army with phosphorous bombs over the Jabal Al- Thardeh area in southwestern Deir Ezzor, killing at least 62 and injuring over 100 Syrian Army soldiers.

Washington being used to dishonesty, immediately tried to put the blame first on Russia with the Pentagon claiming that they had informed Russian of the upcoming strike and that he bombardment only concluded when Russia had told Washington that it was possibly targeting the Syrian Army and not the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Some hours later Russia flatly denied the earlier CENTCOM press release claim of Russian knowledge about the bombardment beforehand with Major General Igor Konashenkov of the Russian Defense Ministry adding that “If the airstrike was caused by the wrong coordinates of targets then it’s a direct consequence of the stubborn unwillingness of the American side to coordinate with Russia in its actions against terrorist groups in Syria”. [7]

Russia, furious with the Americans, immediately summoned the UN Security Council for an emergency meeting on the matter with the Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova being blasting Washington as she said that “If previously we had suspicions that Al-Nusra Front is protected this way, now, after today’s airstrikes on the Syrian army we come to a really terrifying conclusion for the entire world: The White House is defending IS [Islamic State, formerly ISIS/ISIL]

We demand a full and detailed explanation from Washington. That explanation must be given at the UN Security Council,” Zakharova added.[8]

But there was no explanation from Washington. Instead, Washington offered us the despicable US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power. Instead of explaining the actions of the US-led coalition’s massacre of Syrian Army soldiers, she walked out of Russian UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin’s speech and later on went on to address reporters with nonsense about “the crimes of the Assad Regime and Russia”. She even mocked the Russians decision to call for an emergency meeting, calling it a “stunt”.[9]

It is clear that the United States must come up with some very serious actions. What actions, I can not say now, but what I saw today, unfortunately, was very concerning, as my American colleague Samantha Power behaved very strange at the least,” – said Russia’s permanent representative to the UN Churkin about the results of the consultations of the Security Council.[10]

Churkin was correct to say that “in all my years in the United Nations, that is over 10 years, and all my years in international life, which is over 40 years, I have never seen such an extraordinary display of American heavy-handedness as we have seen today”.

And I understand him. One look at Samantha Power is enough to understand that she is mentally deranged. Her behaviour was shameful for a representative of a leading country at the highest international body, behaving as a teenager that has just been dragged out of bed with a hangover.

If it wasn’t clear before this incident, it should be clear by now that Washington cannot be trusted, ever. Moscow should now understand that it can never reach a deal with Washington that will hold, because Washington is only interested in weakening Syria as much as possible, and will go to lengths unimaginable to achieve it, one way or another.

It therefore comes as no surprise that according to an Iranian military source, ISIL launched an offensive on the Jabal Al- Thardeh area just 7 minutes after the US led airstrikes, who added that that the air and ground assault were highly coordinated. Initially ISIL captured the Jabal Al-Thardeh area but were later repelled after a Syrian Army counterattack backed by Russian airstrikes, that same night. The source said the simultaneous raid of the ISIL terrorists immediately after the coalition airstrikes is the best evidence of the high coordination done between the US and the terrorists.[11]

In Iran’s view, this flagrant attack on Syrian Army personnel violated the truce; “We strongly denounce the US measures, and do not believe that it was a military mistake,” said Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Iranian Parliamentary Director General for International Affairs on Sunday during a meeting with Syria’s Ambassador to Tehran, Adnan Hassan Mahmoud.“Attacking an army which is battling terrorism means backstabbing and helping Daesh,” he added.

Iran reiterated its support for Syria on Monday when deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Jaberi Ansari travelled to Damascus to meet with Syrian officials. “Iran is determined to provide Syria all the possible facilities in its fateful fight against terrorism,” Jaberi Ansari said in a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. He added that “strategic and one-of-a-kind” relations between Iran and Syria go beyond the two nations’ interests and are based on common views and understanding of the threats facing all regional nations such as terrorism and extremism.[12]

One can conclude that the attack on the Syrian Army by the US-led coalition was indeed intentional, which leaves us with the question of why they would do such a thing? A quick look at a map of who controls what in the Deir Ezzor province gives us a clue. The province of Deir Ezzor in northeastern Syria (see map) is mostly controlled by the ISIL terrorist group except for parts of the city of Deir Ezzor that has been under siege for years now, with ISIL facing stiff resistance from the Syrian Army comprised of the heroic 104th Brigade of the Republican Guard, led by the iconic Druze Major General Issam Zahreddine and the 137th Artillery Brigade. To the northeastern part of the province, there is a Kurdish/FSA presence as a result of the US-backed Kurdish-led “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF) largely expelling ISIL from the neighbouring Al-Hasakah province earlier this year.

SDF has since made their intentions publicly clear that they intend to advance on both the province and city of Deir Ezzor. This is something that Washington sees as an opportunity to carve up the country in order to achieve its ultimate goal; to separate Syria from Iran indefinitely. Washington has previously made it clear that if it cannot achieve its plan A; regime change, it will go for its plan B; to balkanize the country and help to create a Kurdish and/or Sunni state in eastern Syria. Achieving this will “isolate” the Syrian government and its Lebanese allies Hezbollah from Iran, thus protecting Israel, Washington’s main imperial ally in the region.

Attacking the Syrian Army, and allowing ISIL to capture the city will make Deir Ezzor a probable target for the US-backed proxies to attack and annex. It does not matter for Washington if 100 000 civilians are trapped along with the Syrian Army personnel stationed there, and that they will meet a fate far worse than anyone of us can imagine if the city falls into terrorist hands, as long as Washington achieves its goals, it is content with whatever price the Syrian people must pay for Washington’s imperial ambitions.

What happens now?

The Syrian Arab Army’s High Command announced on Monday that the nationwide ceasefire is over after a 7-day period. “Rebel forces committed more than 300 violations by targeting residents and the Syrian military around the country,” the High Command added. Several civilians and military personnel were killed as a result of these ceasefire violations committed by the Jihadist forces. The High command also declared that Jihadist groups had taken advantage of the ceasefire to regroup and attack Syrian military positions, while the Army had done its utmost to implement the truce with the highest degree of professionalism, but that ultimately it had to respond to the provocations against the Syrian Armed Forces.[13]

As soon as the ceasefire expired at 7 pm Damascus time yesterday, fighting began to rage on in the Aleppo, Hama and Damascus provinces, with both the Syrian Army and the Jihadist groups launching offensives on different fronts. The Russian Air Force also began targeting Jihadists in Aleppo who led by Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham were trying to launch a new offensive. Meanwhile on Monday, new accusations were made by Washington and its vassals against Russia and Syria, claiming that they had struck a UN aid convoy heading for Aleppo City, an incident that the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed as an attempt to distract attention from the US-led coalition’s bombardment of the Syrian troops on September 17. [14] “We are considering, with resentment and indignation, attempts by some foreign curators of rebel units and terrorists in Syria to put the blame for the incident on the Russian and Syrian Aerospace Forces who allegedly bombarded a relief convoy,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

Such attempts, which are unconfirmed by any facts, are designed, among other things, to distract attention from a strange ‘error’ made by pilots of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition on September 17 when its planes bombed the Syrian government troops positions near Deir ez-Zor,” the Russian Foreign Ministry stressed.

In fact, it has been established that this was not even a UN aid convoy that had been attacked, but rather it was a Syrian Red Crescent convoy that was attempting to deliver weapons to the Jihadists. The humanitarian convoy that was attacked on Monday in the Syrian province of Aleppo was followed by a militant group’s pickup truck carrying a large-caliber mortar launcher, the Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Igor Konashenkov said on Tuesday.

Analysis of video records from drones of yesterday’s movement of the humanitarian convoy across Aleppo’s territories controlled by militants has revealed new details. It is clearly seen in the video that a terrorists’ pickup truck with a towed large-caliber mortar is moving along with the convoy,” he said.[15] I am in agreement with the Russian Foreign Ministry in their analysis over the situation. It is clear that these accusations are intended to lay the blame for the failure of the ceasefire on Russia and the Syrian government, and try to divert attention from their own crimes in Deir Ezzor last week. It therefore comes as no surprise that a senior Obama administration official speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity said that “We don’t know if it can be salvaged,” when speaking of the collapsing ceasefire.“At this point the Russians have to demonstrate very quickly their seriousness of purpose because otherwise there will be nothing to extend and nothing to salvage,” he added.

Washington was never interested in a ceasefire, rather it wanted to give its Jihadist proxies time to regroup and regain their strength after a month of hammering by the Syrian Army, especially in Aleppo. During this entire week, Washington and the Western mainstream media have been looking for excuses to lay the blame on Russia and the Syrian government for the failure to implement the ceasefire. From an Iranian point of view (and my own), these ceasefires have always been useless because Iran has always maintained that Washington can never be trusted. Instead of benefitting the Syrian Army and its allies, the ceasefires have served to not only benefit the Jihadists, but also to sow discord between Russia and Iran who on several occasions have made it clear that Moscow’s constant faith in Washington and Secretary Kerry endangers the war effort against terrorism.

It remains to be seen now what will happen with this ceasefire agreement, but from the looks of it, it is all but over as the Syrian Army and its allies have restarted their operations across the country. Hopefully, Moscow have proved once and for all that there is no way to separate any “moderate opposition” from Jihadist rebels and that they must now all be deemed as legitimate targets for aerial bombardment. Moscow must hold nothing back and coordinate more than ever with its Syrian and Iranian allies on the ground in order to defeat this terrorist plague that has been wreaking havoc in Syria for almost six years now.

















martes, 20 de septiembre de 2016

Simulacro de paz

Nueva nota de  Thierry Meyssan para Red Voltaire, esta vez sobre el fin del alto el fuego pactado en Siria, y las miserias humanas que llevaron a este desenlace.

Título: Simulacro de paz

Epígrafe: Cuando parecía que subsistía el alto al fuego pactado en Siria por el secretario de Estado John Kerry y el ministro ruso de Exteriores Serguei Lavrov –con excepción de la agresión israelí del primer día–, el Pentágono también agredió al Ejército Árabe Sirio. Ahora asegura que se trató de un error, pero la reacción de la embajadora de Estados Unidos en la ONU hace pensar más bien en la ejecución de un plan. ¿Cuál es el juego de Washington?

Texto: Al negociar con Estados Unidos un alto al fuego en Siria, Rusia estaba consciente de que Washington no lo respetaría, como ya sucedió con los anteriores. Pero Moscú esperaba avanzar así por el camino del reconocimiento de un mundo multipolar. Washington, por su parte, utilizaba el próximo fin del mandato del presidente Obama para justificar que se trataba de la última posibilidad de suscribir un acuerdo.

Dejemos de lado la intentona israelí de aprovechar la tregua para atacar Damasco y el Golán. El resultado fue que los aviones israelíes fueron blanco de misiles antiaéreos de nueva generación, Israel perdió un avión y tendrá que reparar otro. Al parecer, Siria está ahora en condiciones de poner en duda el predominio aéreo de Israel en la región.

Dejemos de lado también el hecho que los jefes de Estado y de gobierno europeos aplaudieron el acuerdo, aún sin conocer su contenido, con lo cual quedaron totalmente en ridículo.

Concentrémonos en lo fundamental. En definitiva, el convoy “humanitario” de la ONU –repleto de armas y municiones– sigue en espera del lado turco de la frontera, oficialmente porque no está garantizada la seguridad de la carretera, en realidad porque las autoridades sirias quieren hacer valer su derecho a verificar la carga de los camiones antes de dejar pasar el convoy. El hecho es que la actitud de la ONU confirma las revelaciones del ex jefe del antiterrorismo turco, Ahmet Sait Yayla [1], actualmente en fuga fuera de su país: el Pentágono y Turquía utilizan los convoyes humanitarios para enviar armamento a los yihadistas.

También es fundamental el hecho que el Pentágono atacó una posición fija del Ejército Árabe Sirio en Deir ez-Zor. Detuvo los ataques cuando Rusia le señaló el “error”. Y después permitió que los yihadistas se lanzaran al ataque aprovechando el “error” que les había abierto el camino.

En el plano estratégico, impedir que el Ejército Árabe Sirio libere toda la gobernación de Deir ez Zor es mantener al Emirato Islámico (Daesh) en su papel de barrera sobre la ruta terrestre Damasco-Bagdad-Teherán. Anteriormente, el Pentágono permitió que el Emirato Islámico se instalara en Palmira, la etapa histórica de la «Ruta de la Seda». Actualmente los yihadistas siguen cortando la ruta del lado iraquí, pero es posible evitarlos pasando por Deir ez-Zor si los iraquíes liberan Mosul.

Desde el punto de vista de Estados Unidos, el acuerdo de alto al fuego sólo era una manera de ganar tiempo, reabastecer a los yihadistas y proseguir después la guerra. Llevando la situación al plano diplomático, Rusia convocó una reunión urgente del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, con lo cual puso a correr a todo Washington. En efecto, el momento no corresponde solamente al final del mandato de Barack Obama, también está la apertura de la Asamblea General de la ONU.

Evidentemente muy inquieta, la embajadora de Estados Unidos, Samantha Power (ver foto), abandonó la sala del Consejo de Seguridad, en medio de la reunión urgente, para hablar con la prensa. Su objetivo era que los primeros despachos de las agencias mencionaran solamente el punto de vista de Estados Unidos. Se refirió con ironía a la «puesta en escena» rusa alrededor de algo que supuestamente no pasaba de ser un simple «incidente» (¡62 muertos y un centenar de heridos!). Y luego se lanzó en una diatriba sobre los crímenes mucho más graves del régimen de Damasco.

Al ser alertado sobre la manipulación, el embajador ruso, Vitali Tchourkine, salió de la sala del Consejo para explicar a la prensa su punto de vista. Los periodistas, a quienes la Cámara de los Comunes del Reino Unido acaba de recordar las mentiras de la señora Power sobre los supuestos crímenes de Muammar el-Kadhafi, reportaron las dos intervenciones.

Ahora, Rusia hará valer su ventaja en el plano diplomático: Estados Unidos ha sido sorprendido en pleno delito de traición. Moscú tendrá por tanto la oportunidad de anunciar, en plena Asamblea General de la ONU, su voluntad de acabar con los yihadistas. La manipulación estadounidense se vuelve, como un boomerang, contra quienes la concibieron.

Washington no tendría más que dos opciones: enfrascarse en una confrontación abierta, que no desea, o aceptar que sus protegidos pierdan la partida.