miércoles, 17 de diciembre de 2014

Ochenta mil secuestrados desde 2002


La siguiente nota de Thierry Meyssan para Red Voltaire incluye información notablemente valiosa que jamás será resaltada por la prensa corporativa de Occidente. Es que si lo fuera, se derrumbaría la armadura de justificaciones en torno a la buena parte de la política exterior de los EEUU desde 2002 en adelante, invasiones a varios países de Medio Oriente y el norte de Africa incluidas. Hemos editado mínimamente el texto en media docena de frases ya que la versión castellana tenía algunas deficiencias. Los subrayados son nuestros.


Título: El informe senatorial sobre la tortura confirma que al-Qaeda no está implicada en los atentados del 11 de Septiembre

Epígrafe: Los fragmentos del informe de la Comisión senatorial estadounidense sobre el programa secreto de torturas de la CIA revelan los contornos de una organización criminal de gran envergadura. Después de leer cuidadosamente las 525 páginas de ese informe, Thierry Meyssan encuentra en ese documento estadounidense la prueba de lo que él ha venido proclamando desde hace años.

Texto: El 9 de diciembre de 2014, Dianne Feinstein, presidenta de la Comisión del Senado estadounidense a cargo de los servicios de inteligencia, hizo público un fragmento de su informe clasificado sobre el programa secreto de torturas de la CIA [1].


Presentación del informe

El fragmento desclasificado sólo representa una doceava parte del informe inicial. El informe en sí no trata sobre el vasto sistema de secuestros y encarcelamientos arbitrarios que la US Navy instauró bajo los mandatos del presidente George W Bush Jr., programa que dio lugar a los secuestros de más de 80.000 personas en todo el mundo y al encierro de esos secuestrados en 17 barcos estacionados en aguas internacionales (se trata de los navíos: USS Bataan, USS Peleliu, USS Ashland, USNS Stockham, USNS Watson, USNS Watkins, USNS Sister, USNS Charlton, USNS Pomeroy, USNS Red Cloud, USNS Soderman, USNS Dahl, MV PFC William B Baugh, MV Alex Bonnyman, MV Franklin J Phillips, MV Louis J Huage Jr., MV James Anderson Jr.). El texto se limita al estudio de 119 casos de personas utilizadas como conejillos de Indias en la realización de experimentos sicológicos en [la base naval estadounidense de] Guantánamo y en unas 50 cárceles secretas, desde el año 2002 y hasta finales de 2009, o sea un año después de la elección del actual presidente Barack Obama.

Los fragmentos del informe no indican bajo qué criterios fueron seleccionados esos cobayos humanos. Se limitan a indicar que cada prisionero denunciaba al siguiente y también indican que esas confesiones no les fueron arrancadas sino inculcadas. En otras palabras, lo que hizo la CIA fue justificar sus propias decisiones fabricando denuncias que las confirmaban a posteriori.

En el informe inicial, los nombres de los agentes y de los contratistas de la CIA implicados fueron reemplazados por seudónimos. Además, los fragmentos desclasificados han sido ampliamente censurados, fundamentalmente para borrar los nombres de los cómplices extranjeros de la CIA.


El contenido del informe

He leído detenidamente las 525 páginas de fragmentos provenientes del informe. A pesar de ello, estoy aún lejos de haber sacado de esos fragmentos toda la información que puede obtenerse de ellos ya que habrá que realizar numerosas investigaciones para poder interpretar los párrafos mutilados por la censura.

Las sesiones de condicionamiento se realizaban en unas 50 cárceles secretas bajo la responsabilidad de «Alec Station», la unidad de la CIA a cargo de la búsqueda de Osama Ben Laden. Las infraestructuras, el personal y los transportes funcionaban bajo la responsabilidad del «Grupo de Capitulación y Detención» de la CIA. Las sesiones se concebían y realizaban bajo la supervisión de 2 sicólogos contratados que incluso crearon una firma en 2005. Las autorizaciones para la aplicación de las técnicas de condicionamiento se concedían desde el más alto nivel, sin especificar que el objetivo de esas torturas no era arrancar información a las víctimas sino condicionarlas.

El vicepresidente de Estados Unidos Dick Cheney; la consejera de Seguridad Nacional Condoleezza Rice; el secretario de Justicia John Ashcroft; el secretario de Defensa Donald Rumsfeld; el secretario de Estado Colin Powell y el director de la CIA George Tenet participaron en reuniones sobre ese tema realizadas en la Casa Blanca. Asistieron a simulaciones en la Casa Blanca y visionaron grabaciones de video de varias sesiones, grabaciones que posteriormente fueron destruidas ilegalmente. Es evidente que el objetivo de aquellas reuniones era implicar a esas personalidades, pero no resulta posible determinar cuáles de ellas sabían para qué se utilizaban esas técnicas.

Sin embargo, en junio de 2007, el contratista de la CIA que supervisaba aquellos experimentos explicó personalmente a Condoleezza Rice en qué consistían. La consejera de Seguridad Nacional autorizó la continuación de los experimentos, limitándose a reducir la cantidad de torturas autorizadas.

Los fragmentos publicados del informe contienen un análisis detallado de cómo la CIA mintió a las demás ramas de la administración Bush, a los medios de prensa y al Congreso.


Los experimentos del profesor Martin Seligman

Los fragmentos del informe que se han dado a conocer confirman que la CIA realizó experimentos basados en los trabajos del profesor Martin Seligman (teoría de «la impotencia aprendida»). El objetivo de los experimentos no era obtener confesiones ni información sino inculcar a los torturados un discurso o un comportamiento.

La mayoría de las citaciones que la prensa ha publicado tienden a confundir al público. En efecto, la CIA se refiere a los «métodos de condicionamiento» llamándolos «métodos de interrogatorio no estándares» (non-standard means of interrogation). Sacada de su contexto, esa denominación hace pensar que el término «interrogatorio» designa la búsqueda de información cuando en realidad designa el condicionamiento de las víctimas.

Todos los nombres de los torturadores fueron censurados en la parte desclasificada del informe. A pesar de ello, es evidente que bajo el seudónimo de “Grayson Swigert” se esconde Bruce Jessen mientras que James Mitchell aparece en el informe como “Hammond Dunbar”.

Bruce Jessen y James Mitchell supervisaron el programa desde el 12 de abril de 2002. Estaban físicamente presentes en las cárceles secretas. En 2005, formaron juntos una firma comercial, Mitchell, Jessen & Associates, designada en el informe como “Company Y”. Desde el año 2005 y hasta 2010, esa firma recibió pagos que ascienden a 81 millones de dólares. Posteriormente, el US Army [las fuerzas terrestres de Estados Unidos] los empleó para que dirigieran un programa sobre el comportamiento aplicado a 1,1 millones de soldados estadounidenses.

En mayo de 2003, un «senior officer» de la CIA recurrió al inspector general de la agencia señalando que los trabajos del profesor Seligman se basaban en las torturas que se aplicaban en Vietnam del Norte para obtener «confesiones con fines propagandísticos». Aquel oficial cuestionaba el programa de condicionamiento. Pero su denuncia no tuvo consecuencias. En todo, la denuncia contenía un pequeño error: se refería a Vietnam del Norte. Los trabajos de Seligman, al igual que las prácticas de los norvietnamitas, se basaban en trabajos coreanos.


Cómo se protegieron los torturadores

Según la Comisión senatorial, el programa de tortura de la CIA respondía a una orden del presidente George W. Bush emitida el 17 de septiembre de 2001, o sea 6 días después de los atentados contra los Torres Gemelas y el Pentágono. Tenía como único objetivo proporcionar medios extraordinarios para la investigación sobre los atentados del 11 de septiembre de 2001. Pero ese programa se desarrolló de inmediato en violación de varias instrucciones del presidente. Por consiguiente, a partir de la realización de los atentados, la CIA, a espaldas de la Casa Blanca, se esforzó por fabricar falsos testimonios que “demostrarían” la culpabilidad de al-Qaeda.

El presidente George W. Bush y los miembros del Congreso fueron engañados por la CIA que:

- obtuvo autorizaciones para recurrir a ciertas torturas disimulando el objetivo final de tales procedimientos
- y presentó falsamente como información obtenida bajo la tortura lo que en realidad eran confesiones inculcadas.

El 6 de septiembre de 2006, cuando el presidente Bush reconoció la existencia del programa secreto de torturas de la CIA, defendió esa práctica argumentando que había permitido la obtención de información que sirvió para salvar vidas. Bush se basaba en los informes plagados de falsedades proporcionados por la CIA e ignoraba que, en vez de buscar pruebas, la agencia se dedicaba a fabricarlas. A partir de entonces, la prensa atlantista se hundió en la barbarie y comenzó a debatir sobre la justificación de la tortura presentándola como algo malo que permitía lograr algo bueno.

Los torturadores tuvieron la precaución de dotarse de una cobertura jurídica. Para ello pidieron que el Departamento de Justicia los utilizara a torturar. Pero el Departamento de Justicia se pronunció únicamente sobre la legalidad de los métodos utilizados (aislamiento, encierro en una caja de pequeñas dimensiones, simulacros de enterramientos, uso de insectos, etc.) en vez de pronunciarse sobre el programa en su conjunto. La mayoría de los juristas autorizaban solamente algunas posturas en particular, pasando por alto las consecuencias síquicas que podían acarrear cuando se combinaban unas con otras. En agosto de 2002 ya se habían obtenido todas las autorizaciones.

Los dirigentes de la CIA que autorizaron esos experimentos especificaron por escrito que había que incinerar los cadáveres si las personas utilizadas como cobayos morían durante el proceso de condicionamiento y que a los sobrevivientes había que mantenerlos encerrados por el resto de sus días.


Confesiones fabricadas

Para que se entienda bien, la Comisión senatorial no dice que las confesiones de los detenidos de la CIA son legalmente incorrectas por haber sido obtenidas bajo la tortura. Lo que expone es que la CIA no interrogó a esos detenidos sino que los condicionó para que declararan sobre situaciones y actos con los que no tenían nada que ver. La Comisión precisa que los agentes de la CIA ni siquiera trataron de informarse sobre lo que los detenidos ya habían declarado o confesado a las autoridades que los habían arrestado. En otras palabras, no sólo la CIA no trató de saber si al-Qaeda estaba implicada o no en los atentados del 11 de septiembre sino que su acción tuvo como único objetivo fabricar testimonios falsos para demostrar falsamente una supuesta implicación de al-Qaeda en los atentados del 11 de septiembre.

La Comisión senatorial no discute si las confesiones de los cobayos humanos les fueron arrancadas o si les fueron inculcadas. Pero, después de explicar que los supervisores no eran expertos en interrogatorios sino en condicionamiento, detalla ampliamente el hecho que ninguna de esas «confesiones» permitió anticipar nada. Demuestra que la CIA mintió al afirmar que habían permitido impedir otros atentados. La Comisión no escribe que la información sobre al Qaeda proveniente de aquellas confesiones son fabricadas pero señala que todo lo que se podía verificar era falso. De esa manera, la Comisión desmiente explícitamente los argumentos utilizados para justificar la tortura y anula implícitamente los testimonios utilizados para vincular al-Qaeda con los atentados del 11 de septiembre.

Ese informe confirma, de manera oficial, varias informaciones que nosotros ya habíamos presentado a nuestros lectores y que contradicen e invalidan los trabajos de los "think tanks" atlantistas, de las universidades y de la prensa desde el 11 de septiembre, tanto en lo tocante a los atentados de 2001 como en lo que concierne a al-Qaeda.

Como resultado de la publicación de los fragmentos del informe queda demostrado que todos los testimonios citados en el informe de la Comisión Presidencial Investigadora sobre el 11 de Septiembre que vinculan a al-Qaeda con esos atentados son falsos. Ya no existe en este momento el menor indicio que permita atribuir esos atentados a al-Qaeda: no existe ninguna prueba de que las 19 personas acusadas como secuestradores aéreos estuviesen aquel día en ninguno de los 4 aviones y tampoco es cierto ninguno de los testimonios de ex miembros de al-Qaeda que se atribuyen la autoría de los atentados [2].


El informe confirma lo que ya revelamos en 2009

En octubre de 2009 publiqué un estudio sobre ese tema en la revista rusa Odnako [3]. Afirmaba en ese trabajo que Guantánamo no era un centro de interrogatorio sino de condicionamiento. También cuestionaba personalmente al profesor Seligman. Un año más tarde, luego de la publicación de la traducción de aquel artículo al inglés, sicólogos estadounidenses hicieron campaña exigiendo que Martin Seligman diese explicaciones sobre el asunto. La respuesta de Seligman consistió únicamente en negar su papel como torturador y emprender una acción legal simultánea contra mí y contra la Red Voltaire tanto en Francia como en Líbano, país donde yo residía en aquel momento. Pero finalmente, el profesor Seligman ordenó a sus abogados suspender toda acción legal cuando publicamos una de sus cartas acompañada de una explicación de texto [4]. Martin Seligman emprendió igualmente acciones legales contra todos los que abordaron el tema, como Bryant Weich del Hunffington Post [5].


En este momento

En lo que constituye una muestra de valentía, la senadora Diane Feinsein ha logrado publicar parte de su informe, a pesar de la oposición del actual director de la CIA, John Brennan, quien estuvo a cargo de ese programa de tortura.

El presidente Barack Obama ha anunciado que no emprenderá acciones legales contra ninguno de los responsables de esos crímenes, mientras que los defensores de los derechos humanos luchan por poner a los torturadores en el banquillo de los acusados, que es lo mínimo que debería hacerse.

Pero no son esas las preguntas realmente importantes: ¿Por qué cometió la CIA esos crímenes? ¿Por qué inventó la CIA confesiones destinadas a vincular artificialmente a al-Qaeda con los atentados del 11 de septiembre? Y, por lo tanto, si al-Qaeda no tiene nada que ver con los atentados del 11 de septiembre, ¿a quién quiso proteger la CIA?

Y, para terminar, el programa de la CIA sólo contaba 119 cobayos humanos. ¿Qué pasó entonces con los 80.000 prisioneros de las cárceles secretas de la US Navy?



NOTAS:

[1] “Study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program - Foreword, Findings and Conclusions, and Executive Summary”, US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 9 de diciembre de 2014.

[2] La Gran impostura, por Thierry Meyssan, La Esfera (España) / La Terrible impostura, por Thierry Meyssan, El Ateneo (America latina).

[3] «El secreto de Guantánamo», por Thierry Meyssan, ?dnako (Rusia), Red Voltaire, 6 de noviembre de 2009.

[4] «Carta de Martin Seligman», por Martin Seligman, Red Voltaire, 21 de junio de 2010.


[5] “Fort Hood: A Harbinger of Things to Come?”, Bryant Welch, Hunffington Post, 18 de marzo de 2010. Y la respuesta: “A Response to Bryant Welch”, Martin Seligman.

Momento de decisión


Sobre trenes transcontinentales, rutas marítimas globales, mundo nuevo, Imperios del caos y momentos de decisión. Todo junto en esta nueva, bella nota de Pepe Escobar para Asia Times Online. Acá va:  

Título: Go west, young Han

Texto: November 18, 2014: it's a day that should live forever in history. On that day, in the city of Yiwu in China's Zhejiang province, 300 kilometers south of Shanghai, the first train carrying 82 containers of export goods weighing more than 1,000 tons left a massive warehouse complex heading for Madrid. It arrived on December 9.

Welcome to the new trans-Eurasia choo-choo train. At over 13,000 kilometers, it will regularly traverse the longest freight train route in the world, 40% farther than the legendary Trans-Siberian Railway. Its cargo will cross China from East to West, then Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Germany, France, and finally Spain. 

You may not have the faintest idea where Yiwu is, but businessmen plying their trades across Eurasia, especially from the Arab world, are already hooked on the city "where amazing happens!" We're talking about the largest wholesale center for small-sized consumer goods - from clothes to toys - possibly anywhere on Earth. 

The Yiwu-Madrid route across Eurasia represents the beginning of a set of game-changing developments. It will be an efficient logistics channel of incredible length. It will represent geopolitics with a human touch, knitting together small traders and huge markets across a vast landmass. It's already a graphic example of Eurasian integration on the go. And most of all, it's the first building block on China's "New Silk Road", conceivably the project of the new century and undoubtedly the greatest trade story in the world for the next decade. 

Go west, young Han. One day, if everything happens according to plan (and according to the dreams of China's leaders), all this will be yours - via high-speed rail, no less. The trip from China to Europe will be a two-day affair, not the 21 days of the present moment. In fact, as that freight train left Yiwu, the D8602 bullet train was leaving Urumqi in Xinjiang Province, heading for Hami in China's far west. That's the first high-speed railway built in Xinjiang, and more like it will be coming soon across China at what is likely to prove dizzying speed. 

Today, 90% of the global container trade still travels by ocean, and that's what Beijing plans to change. Its embryonic, still relatively slow New Silk Road represents its first breakthrough in what is bound to be an overland trans-continental container trade revolution. 

And with it will go a basket of future "win-win" deals, including lower transportation costs, the expansion of Chinese construction companies ever further into the Central Asian "stans", as well as into Europe, an easier and faster way to move uranium and rare metals from Central Asia elsewhere, and the opening of myriad new markets harboring hundreds of millions of people. 

So if Washington is intent on "pivoting to Asia," China has its own plan in mind. Think of it as a pirouette to Europe across Eurasia. 


Defecting to the East?

The speed with which all of this is happening is staggering. Chinese President Xi Jinping launched the New Silk Road Economic Belt in Astana, Kazakhstan, in September 2013. One month later, while in Indonesia's capital, Jakarta, he announced a 21st-century Maritime Silk Road. Beijing defines the overall concept behind its planning as "one road and one belt", when what it's actually thinking about is a boggling maze of prospective roads, rail lines, sea lanes, and belts. 

We're talking about a national strategy that aims to draw on the historical aura of the ancient Silk Road, which bridged and connected civilizations, east and west, while creating the basis for a vast set of interlocked pan-Eurasian economic cooperation zones. Already the Chinese leadership has green-lighted a $40 billion infrastructure fund, overseen by the China Development Bank, to build roads, high-speed rail lines, and energy pipelines in assorted Chinese provinces. The fund will sooner or later expand to cover projects in South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Europe. But Central Asia is the key immediate target. 

Chinese companies will be investing in, and bidding for contracts in, dozens of countries along those planned silk roads. After three decades of development while sucking up foreign investment at breakneck speed, China's strategy is now to let its own capital flow to its neighbors. It's already clinched $30 billion in contracts with Kazakhstan and $15 billion with Uzbekistan. It has provided Turkmenistan with $8 billion in loans and a billion more has gone to Tajikistan. 

In 2013, relations with Kyrgyzstan were upgraded to what the Chinese term "strategic level." China is already the largest trading partner for all of them except Uzbekistan and, though the former Central Asian socialist republics of the Soviet Union are still tied to Russia's network of energy pipelines, China is at work there, too, creating its own version of Pipelineistan, including a new gas pipeline to Turkmenistan, with more to come. 

The competition among Chinese provinces for much of this business and the infrastructure that goes with it will be fierce. Xinjiang is already being reconfigured by Beijing as a key hub in its new Eurasian network. In early November 2014, Guangdong - the "factory of the world" - hosted the first international expo for the country's Maritime Silk Road and representatives of no less than 42 countries attended the party. 

President Xi himself is now enthusiastically selling his home province, Shaanxi, which once harbored the start of the historic Silk Road in Xian, as a twenty-first-century transportation hub. He's made his New Silk Road pitch for it to, among others, Tajikistan, the Maldives, Sri Lanka, India, and Afghanistan. 

Just like the historic Silk Road, the new one has to be thought of in the plural. Imagine it as a future branching maze of roads, rail lines, and pipelines. A key stretch is going to run through Central Asia, Iran, and Turkey, with Istanbul as a crossroads site. Iran and Central Asia are already actively promoting their own connections to it. 

Another key stretch will follow the Trans-Siberian Railway with Moscow as a key node. Once that trans-Siberian high-speed rail remix is completed, travel time between Beijing and Moscow will plunge from the current six and a half days to only 33 hours. In the end, Rotterdam, Duisburg, and Berlin could all be nodes on this future "highway" and German business execs are enthusiastic about the prospect. 

The Maritime Silk Road will start in Guangdong province en route to the Malacca Strait, the Indian Ocean, the Horn of Africa, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, ending essentially in Venice, which would be poetic justice indeed. Think of it as Marco Polo in reverse. 

All of this is slated to be completed by 2025, providing China with the kind of future "soft power" that it now sorely lacks. When President Xi hails the push to "break the connectivity bottleneck" across Asia, he's also promising Chinese credit to a wide range of countries. 

Now, mix the Silk Road strategy with heightened cooperation among the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), with accelerated cooperation among the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), with a more influential Chinese role over the 120-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) - no wonder there's the perception across the Global South that, while the US remains embroiled in its endless wars, the world is defecting to the East. 



New banks and new dreams

The recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Beijing was certainly a Chinese success story, but the bigger APEC story went virtually unreported in the United States. Twenty-two Asian countries approved the creation of an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) only one year after Xi initially proposed it. This is to be yet another bank, like the BRICS Development Bank, that will help finance projects in energy, telecommunications, and transportation. Its initial capital will be $50 billion and China and India will be its main shareholders. 

Consider its establishment a Sino-Indian response to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), founded in 1966 under the aegis of the World Bank and considered by most of the world as a stalking horse for the Washington consensus. When China and India insist that the new bank's loans will be made on the basis of "justice, equity, and transparency", they mean that to be in stark contrast to the ADB (which remains a US-Japan affair with those two countries contributing 31% of its capital and holding 25% of its voting power) - and a sign of a coming new order in Asia. In addition, at a purely practical level, the ADB won't finance the real needs of the Asian infrastructure push that the Chinese leadership is dreaming about, which is why the AIIB is going to come in so handy. 

Keep in mind that China is already the top trading partner for India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. It's in second place when it comes to Sri Lanka and Nepal. It's number one again when it comes to virtually all the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), despite China's recent well-publicized conflicts over who controls waters rich in energy deposits in the region. We're talking here about the compelling dream of a convergence of 600 million people in Southeast Asia, 1.3 billion in China, and 1.5 billion on the Indian subcontinent. 

Only three APEC members - apart from the US - did not vote to approve the new bank: Japan, South Korea, and Australia, all under immense pressure from the Obama administration. (Indonesia signed on a few days late.) And Australia is finding it increasingly difficult to resist the lure of what, these days, is being called "yuan diplomacy". 

In fact, whatever the overwhelming majority of Asian nations may think about China's self-described "peaceful rise", most are already shying away from or turning their backs on a Washington-and-NATO-dominated trade and commercial world and the set of pacts - from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) for Europe to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) for Asia - that would go with it. 


When dragon embraces bear

Russian President Vladimir Putin had a fabulous APEC. After his country and China clinched a massive $400 billion natural gas deal in May - around the Power of Siberia pipeline, whose construction began this year - they added a second agreement worth $325 billion around the Altai pipeline originating in western Siberia. 

These two mega-energy deals don't mean that Beijing will become Moscow-dependent when it comes to energy, though it's estimated that they will provide 17% of China's natural gas needs by 2020. (Gas, however, makes up only 10% per cent of China's energy mix at present.) But these deals signal where the wind is blowing in the heart of Eurasia. Though Chinese banks can't replace those affected by Washington and EU sanctions against Russia, they are offering a Moscow battered by recent plummeting oil prices some relief in the form of access to Chinese credit. 

On the military front, Russia and China are now committed to large-scale joint military exercises, while Russia's advanced S-400 air defense missile system will soon enough be heading for Beijing. In addition, for the first time in the post-Cold War era, Putin recently raised the old Soviet-era doctrine of "collective security" in Asia as a possible pillar for a new Sino-Russian strategic partnership. 

Chinese President Xi has taken to calling all this the "evergreen tree of Chinese-Russian friendship" - or you could think of it as Putin's strategic "pivot" to China. In either case, Washington is not exactly thrilled to see Russia and China beginning to mesh their strengths: Russian excellence in aerospace, defense technology, and heavy equipment manufacturing matching Chinese excellence in agriculture, light industry, and information technology. 

It's also been clear for years that, across Eurasia, Russian, not Western, pipelines are likely to prevail. The latest spectacular Pipelineistan opera - Gazprom's cancellation of the prospective South Stream pipeline that was to bring yet more Russian natural gas to Europe - will, in the end, only guarantee an even greater energy integration of both Turkey and Russia into the new Eurasia. 


So long to the unipolar moment

All these interlocked developments suggest a geopolitical tectonic shift in Eurasia that the American media simply hasn't begun to grasp. Which doesn't mean that no one notices anything. You can smell the incipient panic in the air in the Washington establishment. The Council on Foreign Relations is already publishing laments about the possibility that the former sole superpower's exceptionalist moment is "unraveling". The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission can only blame the Chinese leadership for being "disloyal", adverse to "reform", and an enemy of the "liberalization" of their own economy. 

The usual suspects carp that upstart China is upsetting the "international order", will doom "peace and prosperity" in Asia for all eternity, and may be creating a "new kind of Cold War" in the region. From Washington's perspective, a rising China, of course, remains the major "threat" in Asia, if not the world, even as the Pentagon spends gigantic sums to keep its sprawling global empire of bases intact. Those Washington-based stories about the new China threat in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, however, never mention that China remains encircled by US bases, while lacking a base of its own outside its territory. 

Of course, China does face titanic problems, including the pressures being applied by the globe's "sole superpower". Among other things, Beijing fears threats to the security of its sea-borne energy supply from abroad, which helps explain its massive investment in helping create a welcoming Eurasian Pipelineistan from Central Asia to Siberia. Fears for its energy future also explain its urge to "escape from Malacca" by reaching for energy supplies in Africa and South America, and its much-discussed offensive to claim energy-rich areas of the East and South China seas, which Beijing is betting could become a "second Persian Gulf", ultimately yielding 130 billion barrels of oil. 


On the internal front, President Xi has outlined in detail his vision of a "results-oriented" path for his country over the next decade. As road maps go, China's "must-do" list of reforms is nothing short of impressive. And worrying about keeping China's economy, already the world's number one by size, rolling along at a feverish pitch, Xi is also turbo-charging the fight against corruption, graft, and waste, especially within the Communist Party itself. 

Economic efficiency is another crucial problem. Chinese state-owned enterprises are now investing a staggering $2.3 trillion a year - 43% of the country's total investment - in infrastructure. Yet studies at Tsinghua University's School of Management have shown that an array of investments in facilities ranging from steel mills to cement factories have only added to overcapacity and so actually undercut China's productivity. 

Xiaolu Wang and Yixiao Zhou, authors of the academic paper "Deepening Reform for China's Long-term Growth and Development", contend that it will be difficult for China to jump from middle-income to high-income status - a key requirement for a truly global power. For this, an avalanche of extra government funds would have to go into areas like social security/unemployment benefits and healthcare, which take up at present 9.8% and 15.1% of the 2014 budget - high for some Western countries but not high enough for China's needs. 

Still, anyone who has closely followed what China has accomplished over these past three decades knows that, whatever its problems, whatever the threats, it won't fall apart. As a measure of the country's ambitions for economically reconfiguring the commercial and power maps of the world, China's leaders are also thinking about how, in the near future, relations with Europe, too, could be reshaped in ways that would be historic. 


What about that "harmonious community"? 

At the same moment that China is proposing a new Eurasian integration, Washington has opted for an "empire of chaos", a dysfunctional global system now breeding mayhem and blowback across the Greater Middle East into Africa and even to the peripheries of Europe. 

In this context, a "new Cold War" paranoia is on the rise in the US, Europe, and Russia. Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who knows a thing or two about Cold Wars (having ended one), couldn't be more alarmed. Washington's agenda of "isolating" and arguably crippling Russia is ultimately dangerous, even if in the long run it may also be doomed to failure. 

At the moment, whatever its weaknesses, Moscow remains the only power capable of negotiating a global strategic balance with Washington and putting some limits on its empire of chaos. NATO nations still follow meekly in Washington's wake and China as yet lacks the strategic clout. 

Russia, like China, is betting on Eurasian integration. No one, of course, knows how all this will end. Only four years ago, Vladimir Putin was proposing "a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok", involving a trans-Eurasian free trade agreement. Yet today, with the US, NATO, and Russia locked in a Cold War-like battle in the shadows over Ukraine, and with the European Union incapable of disentangling itself from NATO, the most immediate new paradigm seems to be less total integration than war hysteria and fear of future chaos spreading to other parts of Eurasia. 

Don't rule out a change in the dynamics of the situation, however. In the long run, it seems to be in the cards. One day, Germany may lead parts of Europe away from NATO's "logic", since German business leaders and industrialists have an eye on their potentially lucrative commercial future in a new Eurasia. Strange as it might seem amid today's war of words over Ukraine, the endgame could still prove to involve a Berlin-Moscow-Beijing alliance. 

At present, the choice between the two available models on the planet seems stark indeed: Eurasian integration or a spreading empire of chaos. China and Russia know what they want, and so, it seems, does Washington. The question is: What will the other moving parts of Eurasia choose to do?

Teorías


A Astroboy le encantan esas teorías que, como la Tectónica de Placas, explican prácticamente todo: terremotos, volcanes, subducción, desplazamientos de la corteza, orogenias, etc. Por este motivo, nunca se creyó del todo esas explicaciones que dan por ahí, sobre una conspiración de Arabia Saudita para fundir la industria de fracking en EEUU. Por un lado, eso supone que los sauditas pueden decidir algo en este mundo (improbable); por el otro, dar vuelta la economía mundial porque no te gusta el fracking suena a disparate. La teoría del gambito ruso, por iniciativa del Imperio, nos gusta mucho más. Al respecto, lean esta linda nota de Mike Whitney para Counterpunch, reproducida ayer en Strategic Culture Foundation. Acá va:


Título: The Oil Coup

Texto: “John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, allegedly struck a deal with King Abdullah in September under which the Saudis would sell crude at below the prevailing market price. That would help explain why the price has been falling at a time when, given the turmoil in Iraq and Syria caused by Islamic State, it would normally have been rising.” (Stakes are high as US plays the oil card against Iran and Russia, Larry Eliot, Guardian)

U.S. powerbrokers have put the country at risk of another financial crisis to intensify their economic war on Moscow and to move ahead with their plan to “pivot to Asia”.

Here’s what’s happening: Washington has persuaded the Saudis to flood the market with oil to push down prices, decimate Russia’s economy, and reduce Moscow’s resistance to further NATO encirclement and the spreading of US military bases across Central Asia. The US-Saudi scheme has slashed oil prices by nearly a half since they hit their peak in June. The sharp decline in prices has burst the bubble in high-yield debt which has increased the turbulence in the credit markets while pushing global equities into a tailspin. Even so, the roiled markets and spreading contagion have not deterred Washington from pursuing its reckless plan, a plan which uses Riyadh’s stooge-regime to prosecute Washington’s global resource war. Here’s a brief summary from an article by F. William Engdahl titled “The Secret Stupid Saudi-US Deal on Syria”:

“The details are emerging of a new secret and quite stupid Saudi-US deal on Syria and the so-called IS. It involves oil and gas control of the entire region and the weakening of Russia and Iran by Saudi Arabian flooding the world market with cheap oil. Details were concluded in the September meeting by US Secretary of State John Kerry and the Saudi King…

..the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has been flooding the market with deep discounted oil, triggering a price war within OPEC… The Saudis are targeting sales to Asia for the discounts and in particular, its major Asian customer, China where it is reportedly offering its crude for a mere $50 to $60 a barrel rather than the earlier price of around $100. That Saudi financial discounting operation in turn is by all appearance being coordinated with a US Treasury financial warfare operation, via its Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, in cooperation with a handful of inside players on Wall Street who control oil derivatives trading. The result is a market panic that is gaining momentum daily. China is quite happy to buy the cheap oil, but her close allies, Russia and Iran, are being hit severely…

According to Rashid Abanmy, President of the Riyadh-based Saudi Arabia Oil Policies and Strategic Expectations Center, the dramatic price collapse is being deliberately caused by the Saudis, OPEC’s largest producer. The public reason claimed is to gain new markets in a global market of weakening oil demand. The real reason, according to Abanmy, is to put pressure on Iran on her nuclear program, and on Russia to end her support for Bashar al-Assad in Syria….More than 50% of Russian state revenue comes from its export sales of oil and gas. The US-Saudi oil price manipulation is aimed at destabilizing several strong opponents of US globalist policies. Targets include Iran and Syria, both allies of Russia in opposing a US sole Superpower. The principal target, however, is Putin’s Russia, the single greatest threat today to that Superpower hegemony. (The Secret Stupid Saudi-US Deal on Syria, F. William Engdahl, BFP)

The US must achieve its objectives in Central Asia or forfeit its top-spot as the world’s only superpower. This is why US policymakers have embarked on such a risky venture. There’s simply no other way to sustain the status quo which allows the US to impose its own coercive dollar system on the world, a system in which the US exchanges paper currency produced-at-will by the Central Bank for valuable raw materials, manufactured products and hard labor. Washington is prepared to defend this extortionist petrodollar recycling system to the end, even if it means nuclear war.


How Flooding the Market Adds to Instability

The destructive and destabilizing knock-on effects of this lunatic plan are visible everywhere. Plummeting oil prices are making it harder for energy companies to get the funding they need to roll over their debt or maintain current operations. Companies borrow based on the size of their reserves, but when prices tumble by nearly 50 percent–as they have in the last six months– the value of those reserves falls sharply which cuts off access to the market leaving CEO’s with the dismal prospect of either selling assets at firesale prices or facing default. If the problem could be contained within the sector, there’d be no reason for concern. But what worries Wall Street is that a surge in energy company failures could ripple through the financial system and wallop the banks. Despite six years of zero rates and monetary easing, the nation’s biggest banks are still perilously undercapitalized, which means that a wave of unexpected bankruptcies could be all it takes to collapse the weaker institutions and tip the system back into crisis. Here’s an excerpt from a post at Automatic Earth titled “Will Oil Kill the Zombies?”:

“If prices fall any further, it would seem that most of the entire shale edifice must of necessity crumble to the ground. And that will cause an absolute earthquake in the financial world, because someone supplied the loans the whole thing leans on. An enormous amount of investors have been chasing high yield, including many institutional investors, and they’re about to get burned something bad….. if oil keeps going the way it has lately, the Fed may instead have to think about bailing out the big Wall Street banks once again.” (Will Oil Kill the Zombies?, Raúl Ilargi Meijer, Automatic Earth)

The problem with falling oil prices is not just mounting deflation or droopy profits; it’s the fact that every part of the industry–exploration, development and production — is propped atop a mountain of red ink (junk bonds). When that debt can no longer be serviced or increased, then the primary lenders (counterparties and financial institutions) sustain heavy losses which domino through the entire system. Take a look at this from Marketwatch:

“There’s ‘no question’ that for energy companies with a riskier debt profile the high-yield debt market “is essentially shut down at this stage,” and there are signs that further pain could hit the sector, ” senior fixed-income strategist at U.S. Bank Wealth Management, Dan Heckman told Marketwatch. “We are getting to the point that it is becoming very concerning.” (Marketwatch)

When energy companies lose access to the market and are unable to borrow at low rates, it’s only a matter of time before they trundle off to extinction.

On Friday, the International Energy Agency (IEA) renewed pressure on prices by lowering its estimate for global demand for oil in 2015. The announcement immediately sent stocks into a nosedive. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) lost 315 points by the end of the day, while, according to Bloomberg, more than “$1 trillion was erased from the value of global equities in the week”.
The world is awash in cheap petroleum which is wreaking havoc on domestic shale producers that need prices of roughly $70 per barrel to break-even. With West Texas Intermediate (WTI) presently headed south of 60 bucks–and no bottom in sight–these smaller producers are sure to get clobbered. Pension funds, private equity, banks, and other investors who gambled on these dodgy energy-related junk bonds are going to get their heads handed to them in the months ahead.

The troubles in the oil patch are mainly attributable to the Fed’s easy money policies. By dropping rates to zero and flooding the markets with liquidity, the Fed made it possible for every Tom, Dick and Harry to borrow in the bond market regardless of the quality of the debt. No one figured that the bottom would drop out leaving an entire sector high and dry. Everyone thought the all-powerful Fed could print its way out of any mess. After last week’s bloodbath, however, they’re not nearly as confident. Here’s how Bloomberg sums it up:

“The danger of stimulus-induced bubbles is starting to play out in the market for energy-company debt….Since early 2010, energy producers have raised $550 billion of new bonds and loans as the Federal Reserve held borrowing costs near zero, according to Deutsche Bank AG. With oil prices plunging, investors are questioning the ability of some issuers to meet their debt obligations…

The Fed’s decision to keep benchmark interest rates at record lows for six years has encouraged investors to funnel cash into speculative-grade securities to generate returns, raising concern that risks were being overlooked. A report from Moody’s Investors Service this week found that investor protections in corporate debt are at an all-time low, while average yields on junk bonds were recently lower than what investment-grade companies were paying before the credit crisis.” (Fed Bubble Bursts in $550 Billion of Energy Debt: Credit Markets, Bloomberg)

The Fed’s role in this debacle couldn’t be clearer. Investors piled into these dodgy debt-instruments because they thought Bernanke had their back and would intervene at the first sign of trouble. Now that the bubble has burst and the losses are piling up, the Fed is nowhere to be seen.

In the last week, falling oil prices have started to impact the credit markets where investors are ditching debt on anything that looks at all shaky. The signs of contagion are already apparent and likely to get worse. Investors fear that if they don’t hit the “sell” button now, they won’t be able to find a buyer later. In other words, liquidity is drying up fast which is accelerating the rate of decline. Naturally, this has affected US Treasuries which are still seen as “risk free”. As investors increasingly load up on USTs, long-term yields have been pounded into the ground like a tentpeg. As of Friday, the benchmark 10-year Treasury checked in at a miniscule 2.08 percent, the kind of reading one would expect in the middle of a Depression.

The Saudi-led insurgency has reversed the direction of the market, put global stocks into a nosedive and triggered a panic in the credit markets. And while the financial system edges closer to a full-blown crisis every day, policymakers in Washington have remained resolutely silent on the issue, never uttering as much as a peep of protest for a Saudi policy that can only be described as a deliberate act of financial terrorism.

Why is that? Why have Obama and Co. kept their mouths shut while oil prices have plunged, domestic industries have been demolished, and stocks have gone off a cliff? Could it be that they’re actually in cahoots with the Saudis and that it’s all a big game designed to annihilate enemies of the glorious New World Order?

It certainly looks that way.

martes, 16 de diciembre de 2014

Preparaciones


Mientras una vocecita imaginaria nos interpela al oído ("¿Qué hacías tú, papá, el jueves 16 de Diciembre de 1982?") leemos circunstancialmente en la web un título que nos intriga:  

De tiros y culatas

Buena nota de Michael Hudson, uno de los últimos economistas estadounidenses no neoliberales que quedan, aparecida el 11 de Diciembre en su sitio web (http://michael-hudson.com/2014/12/backfired/). Veámosla:

Título: Backfired!

Epígrafe: U.S. New Cold War policy has backfired – and created its worst nightmare

Texto:

1. The world’s geopolitics, major trade patterns and military alliances have changed radically in the past month. Russia has re-oriented its gas and oil trade, and also its trade in military technology, away from Europe toward Eurasia.

The result is the opposite of America’s hope for the past half-century of dividing and conquering Eurasia: setting Russia against China, isolating Iran, and preventing India, the Near East and other Asian countries from joining together to create an alternative to the U.S. dollar area. American sanctions and New Cold War policy has driven these Asian countries together in association with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an alternative to NATO, and in the BRICS moves to avoid dealing with the dollar area, the IMF and World Bank austerity programs.

Regarding Europe, America’s insistence that it join the New Cold War by imposing sanctions on Russia and blocking Russian gas and oil exports has aggravated the Eurozone’s economic austerity, making it even more of a Dead Zone. This week a group of Germany’s leading politicians, diplomats and cultural celebrities wrote an open letter to Angela Merkel protesting her pro-U.S. anti-Russian policy. By overplaying its hand, the United States is in danger of driving Europe out of the U.S. economic orbit.

Turkey already is moving out of the U.S.-European orbit, by turning to Russia for its energy needs. Iran also has moved into an alliance with Russia. Instead of the Obama administration’s neocons dividing and conquering as they had planned, they are isolating America from Europe and Asia. Yet there has been almost no recognition of this in the U.S. press, despite its front-page discussion throughout Europe and Asia. Instead of breaking up the BRICS, the dollar area is coming undone.

This week, President Putin is going to India to negotiate a gas and arms deal. Last week he was in Turkey diverting what was to be the South Stream pipeline away from southern Europe to Turkey. And Turkey is becoming an associate of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization integrating the BRICS in a defensive alliance against the United States, now that it is obvious that it has no chance of joining the EU.

A few months earlier, Russia announced the largest oil and gas trade and pipeline investment ever, with China – along with a transfer of missile defense technology.


2. There has been almost no discussion of this vast geopolitical realignment in the U.S. media, largely because it represents a defeat for the New Cold War policy pushed by the neocons over the past year, ever since Russia convinced President Obama not to go to war in Syria, which had been a neocon military aim.

Their response was to isolate Russia and economically attack its trade and hence balance-of-payments strength: its gas and oil trade with Europe. Last February, U.S. diplomats engineered a Pinochet-style coup d’état in Ukraine, and used this as a lever to reverse Europe’s buildup of trade with Russia.

The aim was to punish Russia’s economy – and in the process to press for a regime change against Putin, putting in place a more pro-U.S., neoliberal Yeltsin-style regime by causing a financial crisis.

The assumption underlying this policy was that since the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, Russia was turning toward Europe to re-integrate its economy and society. And Europe for its part sought to make Russia its main energy supplier – of oil as well as gas, through new pipelines being built to circumvent Ukraine. Northstream ran via the North Sea to northern Europe. Southstream was to be built via Bulgaria and Serbia to southern Europe – mainly Italy and Austria.

Germany for its part looked to Russia as an export market, to earn the rubles to pay for Russian gas and oil. Other European countries stepped up their agricultural trade with Russia, and France agreed to build the enormous Mistral aircraft carrier. In short, the ending of the Cold War promised to bring a much closer economic and hence political integration of Russia with Europe – cemented largely by a gas pipeline network.


3. U.S. Cold Warriors have tried to disrupt this trade. The plan was to isolate Russia and lock Europe into the U.S. economy. The dream was to export U.S. shale gas to Europe, squeezing out Russia and thereby hurting its balance of payments.

This was always a pipedream. But what U.S. heavy-handed military confrontation with Russia really has done is to drive a political wedge between the United States and Europe. Last week, Putin gave a speech saying he found little point in negotiating with European politicians, because they simply followed U.S. orders via NATO and by U.S. pressure on German politicians, French politicians and other European politicians.

In following U.S. New Cold War confrontation, Europe has been acting against its own economic interests. Its neoliberal Third Energy law has effectively blocked Russia from having any economic gain in selling more gas to Europe.


4. Rentier pipeline politics

The U.S. neoliberal plan has been to insist on non-Russian control of the pipelines that would carry Russian gas and oil to Europe. The idea is to use this pipeline as a tollbooth to siphon off the revenue that Russia had hoped to receive from Europe.

Here’s the best way to understand what has occurred. Imagine that the United States had a law that owners of buildings could not also own the elevators in them. This would mean that the owners of the Empire State Building, for instance, could not own their elevators. Some other investors could buy the elevators, and then tell the building’s renters or other occupants that they would have to pay a fee each time they rode up to the 40th floor, the 50th floor, the 60th floor, and so forth.

The result would be that instead of the landlord receiving the rental value of the Empire State Building, the elevator owner could demand the lion’s share. Without access, the building would be a walk-up and its rents would fall – unless renters paid the elevator tollbooth.

This is what would happen with an oil pipeline owned by parties hostile to Russia. It is to avoid this that Gazprom insisted on building its own pipeline, under Russian control, to prevent rent-extracting investors. When Europe sought to block this by pretending that “free markets” meant separating pipeline ownership from the gas suppliers, it was trying to carve out a rent-extraction opportunity to siphon off Russian gas revenue.

The European Commission earlier had pressed an anti-Gazprom policy last year, in the process of imposing its austerity program on Greece. It insisted that Greece pay the IMF for having bailed out foreign bondholders by selling off assets in the public domain. The largest asset was Greece’s oil rights in the Aegean and its commercial oil-related infrastructure. When Gazprom was the largest bidder, Europe blocked the sale. The result has been to impose even deeper austerity on Greece, polarizing that nation’s politics in an increasingly anti-EU and anti-IMF stance – and hence, anti-US Cold War politics.


5. What is occurring is a radical shift in U.S.-European diplomacy – in a way that according to textbook theory is inherently unstable and unworkable.

Europe has inverted the major textbook premises of how national diplomacy is conducted. Instead of basing this diplomacy on economic and commercial interests, it is subordinating these interests to U.S. control. And as for Europe’s membership in NATO, instead of viewing military policy as an arm of foreign diplomacy, it is subordinating economic diplomacy, trade patterns, gas and oil supplies, export markets for industry and agriculture all to serve NATO’s military ends.

The objective no longer is military security as originally was the logic for NATO. Europe’s economic realignment against Russia threatens to bring military conflict directly into the continent as a result of the proxy war in Ukraine.

It has been said that nations do not have friends or enemies, only national interests. Most of these are economic. But today in Europe, German Chancellor Merkel seems to be ignoring German and other European economic interests. 

Still obsessed with her hatred of the East German Communist regime, she sees in Russia only an enemy, not an economic market and supplier of raw materials and customer for German manufactures and technology. Likewise, her political love for the United States deems it Europe’s natural friend, without taking into account how its New Cold War policy toward Europe – “Let’s you and Russia fight” – undercuts European continental interests and exacerbates its austerity.

The United States for its part has adopted von Clausewitz’s statement that war is an extension of foreign policy by other means in a very limited form: war seems to be the only lever that the United States is using in its foreign policy these days. And lacking an ability to mount a ground invasion, its only real threat is to tear economies apart by aerial bombing, as it has done to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libra and now Syria – and is doing by backing a proxy war in Ukraine.

lunes, 15 de diciembre de 2014

Lo impensable


Primero veamos la noticia tal cual la publica Russia Today en español: 

Título: Existen indicios de que EE.UU. planea ataque nuclear contra Rusia

Texto: Según opina el analista estadounidense Eric Zuesse, hay una serie de indicios de que EE.UU. está preparando un ataque nuclear contra Rusia y enumera varios sucesos que muestran que los preparativos se han intensificado a raíz de la crisis ucraniana.

El miércoles 11 de junio de 2014 el canal CNN informaba en su sitio web que EE.UU. despliega en Europa bombarderos furtivos B-2, recuerda Eric Zuesse, analista del portal OpEdNews, que también apunta que la ventaja principal de esta aeronave furtiva es lanzar ataques nucleares preventivos. 

Según Zuesse, los círculos gobernantes de EE.UU. necesitan una guerra con Rusia para preservar el dólar como moneda de reserva mundial, una estatus que proporciona innumerables ventajas a la 'aristocracia' estadounidense. Y de ahí la estrategia de presentar como el imperio del mal a una Rusia que ya no es 'comunista', al estilo de la Guerra Fría. 

"En mi opinión, es muy significativo que, según una reciente encuesta de CNN, el temor de los estadounidenses ante Rusia ha crecido claramente en los dos últimos años. Nuestros medios de comunicación presentan al líder ruso, Vladímir Putin, como el malo de la película, incluso cuando la realidad no lo justifica", indicó. 

Y la guerra en Ucrania brinda una oportunidad 'histórica' para ello… 

El articulista sugiere que la operación punitiva en el territorio de Ucrania tiene por objeto provocar a Rusia para que intervenga militarmente. 

"Como resultado, la gente de Obama está aumentando la presión sobre Putin, bombardeando los territorios ucranianos habitados por rusófonos que tienen vínculos familiares en el territorio de Rusia. Solo dos semanas después de la perpetración de esos atentados el apoyo a Putin entre los ciudadanos rusos comenzará a caer significativamente si no decide poner fin a la masacre y no envía tropas para proteger a la gente y repeler los ataques de Kiev (que obedece a Washington), hecho que finalmente dará a Obama el deseado pretexto", señaló. 

Así, el presidente Obama actualmente está intentando convencer a los líderes de la UE para que se unan a su plan de crear una vía para un ataque nuclear preventivo que podría eliminar por completo a Rusia del escenario mundial. 

Otra posible razón de la operación militar en el este de Ucrania es, según el analista, forzar a Rusia a aceptar la pérdida de los créditos que ofreció a Ucrania para que Kiev pague primero sus deudas al FMI y la UE. 
  
"De hecho, ante nosotros tenemos un procedimiento internacional de quiebra, pero en lugar de recursos judiciales se utilizan medios militares. Imagine que dos prestamistas reclaman a un moroso el dinero que les debe pero solo lo recibe el que tiene más armas. Es por ello que el FMI ordenó a Kiev poner fin a la rebelión en el sureste", sugirió. 

Al mismo tiempo, Obama no solo aumenta la capacidad de un ataque nuclear preventivo de EE.UU., sino que también crea algo nuevo. Se trata de la iniciativa llamada 'Prompt Global Strike' (Ataque Global Rápido), que debería complementar las fuerzas nucleares con armas de precisión. En teoría, estas armas deberían ser capaces, una vez lanzadas desde el territorio de la vecina Ucrania, de destruir las armas nucleares rusas en pocos minutos, recuerda Zuesse. 

"Solo dos cosas son capaces de detener [a Obama] en este momento: una división dentro de la OTAN o que Putin decida aceptar los ataques de la opinión pública en su país por no responder a nuestras crecientes provocaciones", concluye el analista. 

***

Pasemos ahora al artículo completo de Eric Zuesse para OpEdNews (http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Indications-that-the-U-S--by-Eric-Zuesse-Nuclear-Weapons_Obama-Administration_PNAC-Neocon-Project-For-A-New-American-C_President-Barack-Obama-POTUS-140614-352.html):

Título: Indications that the U.S. Is Planning a Nuclear Attack Against Russia

Texto: On Wednesday, June 11th, CNN headlined "U.S. Sends B-2 Stealth Bombers to Europe," and reported that "they arrived in Europe this week for training." Wikipedia notes that B-2s were "originally designed primarily as a nuclear bomber," and that "The B-2 is the only aircraft that can carry large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration."

In other words, the primary advantage of the newer, "Stealth," version of B-2, is its first-strike (or surprise-attack) nuclear capability. That's the upgrade: the weapon's ability to sneak upon the target-country and destroy it before it has a chance to fire off any of its own nuclear weapons in response to that "first-strike" attack. The advantage of Stealth is creating and stationing a nuclear arsenal for the purpose of winning a nuclear war, instead of for the goal of having continued peace via "Mutually Assured Destruction," or MAD.

Some historical background is necessary here, so that a reader can understand why this is happening -- the switch to an objective of actually winning a nuclear war (as opposed to deterring one). One cannot understand what's happening now in Ukraine without knowing this bigger picture.

(This account is written under the assumption that the reader already knows some of the allegations it contains, but not all of them, and that the reader will click on the link wherever a given allegation requires documentation and support.)

I have previously reported about "How and Why the U.S. Has Re-Started the Cold War (The Backstory that Precipitated Ukraine's Civil War)," and, "Do We Really Need to Re-Start the Cold War?" I pointed out there that we don't really need to re-start the Cold War, at all, since communism (against which the Cold War was, at least allegedly, fought) clearly lost to capitalism (we actually won the Cold War, and peacefully) but that America's aristocracy very much does need to re-start a war with Russia -- and why it does. (It has to do with maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency, something that benefits America's aristocrats enormously.)

Consequently, for example, a recent CNN Poll has found that Americans' fear of Russia has soared within just the past two years. Our news media present a type of news "reporting" that places Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, into a very bad light, even when it's unjustified by the facts.

The situation now is thus rather similar to that right before World War I, when the aristocracy in America decided that a pretext had to be created for our going to war against Germany. That War had already started in Europe on 28 July 1914, and President Wilson wanted to keep the U.S. out of it, but we ultimately joined it on the side of J.P. Morgan and Company. This was documented in detail in an important 1985 book, Britain, America and the Sinews of War, 1914-1918, which was well summarized in Business History Review, by noting that: "J.P. Morgan & Co. served as Britain's financial and purchasing agent, and the author makes especially good use of the Morgan Grenfell & Co. papers in London to probe that relationship. Expanding British demand for U.S. dollars to pay for North American imports made the politics of foreign exchange absolutely central to Anglo-American relations. How to manage those politics became the chief preoccupation of Her Majesty's representatives in the United States," and most especially of Britain's financial and purchasing agent in the U.S.

In 1917, after almost two years of heavy anti-German propaganda in the U.S. press that built an overwhelming public support for our joining that war against Germany, Congress found that, in March 1915, "J.P. Morgan interests had bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media" so that we'd join the war on England's side. Whereas back then, it was Germany's leader who was being goaded into providing a pretext for us to declare war against his country, this time it's Russia's leader (Putin) who is being demonized and goaded into providing such a pretext, though Putin (unlike Germany's Kaiser) has thus far refrained from providing the pretext that Obama constantly warns us that he will (a Russian invasion of Ukraine). Consequently, Obama's people are stepping up the pressure upon Putin by bombing the areas of neighboring Ukraine where Russian speakers live, who have family across the border inside Russia itself. Just a few more weeks of this, and Putin's public support inside Russia could palpably erode if Putin simply lets the slaughter proceed without his sending troops in to defend them and to fight back against Kiev's (Washington's surrogate's) bombing-campaign. This would provide the pretext that Obama has been warning about.

I also have reported on "Why Ukraine's Civil War Is of Global Historical Importance." The article argued that "This civil war is of massive historical importance, because it re-starts the global Cold War, this time no longer under the fig-leaf rationalization of an ideological battle between 'capitalism' versus 'communism,' but instead more raw, as a struggle between, on the one hand, the U.S. and West European aristocracies; and, on the other hand, the newly emerging aristocracies of Russia and of China." The conflict's origin, as recounted there, was told in its highest detail in an article in the scholarly journal Diplomatic History, about how U.S. President George H.W. Bush in 1990 fooled the Soviet Union's leader Mikhail Gorbachev into Gorbachev's allowing the Cold War to be ended without any assurance being given to the remaining rump country, his own Russia, that NATO and its missiles and bombers won't expand right up to Russia's doorstep and surround Russia with a first-strike ability to destroy Russia before Russia will even have a chance to get its own nuclear weapons into the air in order to destroy the U.S. right back in retaliation.

That old system -- "Mutually Assured Destruction" or MAD, but actually very rational from the public's perspective on both sides -- is gone. The U.S. increasingly is getting nuclear primacy. Russia, surrounded by NATO nations and U.S. nuclear weapons, would be able to be wiped out before its rusty and comparatively puny military force could be mustered to respond. Whereas we are not surrounded by their weapons, they are surrounded by ours. Whereas they don't have the ability to wipe us out before we can respond, we have the ability to wipe them out before they'll be able to respond. This is the reason why America's aristocracy argue that MAD is dead. An article, "Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War" was published in the December 2008 Physics Today, and it concluded that, "the indirect effects ['nuclear winter'] would likely eliminate the majority of the human population." (It would be even worse, and far faster, than the expected harms from global warming.) However, aristocrats separate themselves from the public, and so their perspective is not necessarily the same as the public's. The perspective that J.P. Morgan and Co. had in 1915 wasn't the perspective that the U.S. public had back then, and it also wasn't the perspective that our President, Woodrow Wilson, did back then, when we were a democracy. But it's even less clear today that we are a democracy than it was in 1915. In that regard, things have only gotten worse in America.

So, President Obama is now trying to persuade EU leaders to join with him to complete this plan to replace MAD with a first-strike nuclear capability that will eliminate Russia altogether from the world stage.

As I also documented, the IMF is thoroughly supportive of this plan to remove Russia, and announced on May 1st, just a day prior to our massacre of independence-supporters in the south Ukrainian city of Odessa on May 2nd, that unless all of the independence supporters in south and eastern Ukraine can be defeated and/or killed, the IMF will pull the plug on Ukraine and force it into receivership.

Obama clearly means business here, and so the government that we have installed in Kiev is bombing throughout southeastern Ukraine, in order to convince the residents there that resistance will be futile. Part of the short-term goal here is to get Russia to absorb the losses of all of Ukraine's unpaid debts to Russia, so that far less of Ukraine's unpaid debts to the IMF, U.S. and E.U., will remain unpaid. It's basically an international bankruptcy proceeding, but without an international bankruptcy court, using instead military means. It's like creditors going to a bankrupt for repayment, and the one with the most gunmen gets paid, while the others do not. This is the reason why the IMF ordered the leaders in Kiev to put down the rebellion in Ukraine's southeast. What's important to the IMF is not land, it's the Kiev government's continued control over the assets in the rebelling part of Ukraine -- assets that will be worth something in a privatization or sell-off to repay that debt. However, for Obama, what is even more important than repaid debts is the continued dominance of the U.S. dollar. Wall Street needs that.

Among other indications that the U.S. is now preparing a nuclear attack against Russia is an article on May 23rd, "U.S. Tests Advanced Missile For NATO Interceptor System," and also a June 10th report from a website with good sources in Russian intelligence, which alleges that Ukrainian President Petro "Poroshenko secretly met with ... [an] American delegation headed by the Director of ... the CIA's National Clandestine Service, Frank Archibald, which also included former CIA chief in Ukraine Jeffrey Egan, the current -- Raymond Mark Davidson, Mark Buggy (CIA, Istanbul), Andrzej Derlatka, a CIA agent in the Polish intelligence Agency, and member of CIA Kevin Duffin who is working as senior Vice President of the insurance company Brower. Poroshenko and Archibald signed a paper entitled an 'Agreement on Military Cooperation between the U.S. and Ukraine'"

Furthermore, barely a month before the CIA and State Department overthrew the previous, the pro-Russian, President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, the government of Netherlands decided, after 18 years of "dithering," to allow the U.S. to arm our F-35 bombers there with nuclear weapons. And this was already after Holland's "Parliament in November signed off on a government plan to purchase 37 F-35As to replace the Dutch air force's aging fleet of nuclear-capable F-16s. The Netherlands is widely understood to host about two dozen U.S. B-61 gravity bombs at the Volkel air base, as part of NATO's policy of nuclear burden-sharing."

Moreover, Obama isn't only beefing up our first-strike nuclear capability, but is also building something new, called "Prompt Global Strike," to supplement that nuclear force, by means of "a precision conventional weapon strike" that, if launched against Russia from next-door Ukraine, could wipe out Russia's nuclear weapons within just a minute or so. That might be a fallback position, for Obama, in case the EU's leaders (other than Netherlands and perhaps one or two others) might happen to decide that they won't participate in our planned nuclear invasion of Russia.

Certainly, Obama means business here, but the big question is whether he'll be able to get the leaders of other "democratic" nations to go along with his first-strike plan.

The two likeliest things that can stop him, at this stage, would be either NATO's breaking up, or else Putin's deciding to take a political beating among his own public for simply not responding to our increasing provocations. Perhaps Putin will decide that a temporary embarrassment for him at home (for being "wimpy") will be better, even for just himself, than the annihilation of his entire country would be. And maybe, if Obama pushes his indubitable Superpower card too hard, he'll be even more embarrassed by this conflict than Putin will be. After all, things like this and this aren't going to burnish Obama's reputation in the history books, if he cares about that. But maybe he's satisfied to be considered to have been George W. Bush II, just a far better-spoken version: a more charming liar than the original. However, if things come to a nuclear invasion, even a U.S. "victory" won't do much more for Obama's reputation than Bush's "victory" in Iraq did for his. In fact, perhaps Americans will then come to feel that George W. Bush wasn't America's worst President, after all. Maybe the second half of the Bush-Obama Presidency will be even worse than the first.