miércoles, 23 de julio de 2014


Avión de Malasia II: Ahora dicen que andá a saber quién fue. En efecto, parece que ahora, en una de esas, quién te dice, los rusos no fueron los asesinos hijoputiconchisumadre que voltearon el avión. Pero si no fueron le pegan en el poste, como aseveran varios informes re-serios de la hintelijenzia de la Gran Democracia del Norte. Entre otras fuentes igualmente dignas de crédito, estas agencias (que consumen 62 mil millones de dólares al año, chupate esa mandarina) citan a… naaaaaaa… síiiiii… Féisbu!!!!! Tremendo, te digo. 

En síntesis: en menos de doce horas, casi sin solución de continuidad, casi toda la prensa occidental pasó de la acusación pura y dura al silbido bajito  --excepto El País, por supuesto, que ni se enteró lo que estaba pasando. En fin, ¡duro con los ruskis, chicos!

Pero no todas son pálidas para la gran prensa de Occidente. El mismo El País, sin ir más lejos, publica en tapa, en valiente tipografía: “La ONU investigará posibles violaciones de derechos en Gaza” (¡Grande, ONU!). Inmediatamente a la izquierda reproduce una entrevista exclusiva al primer ministro de Francia, Manuel Valls. El título de la entrevista, una frase aparentemente textual del ministro francés, es antológico: “La izquierda puede morir si no se reinventa y renuncia al progreso”. Llamen al médico, porfis.

martes, 22 de julio de 2014

Infancia en Gaza

Nuevas cimas

Tanto los gobiernos de la NATO como la prensa occidental están alcanzando nuevas cimas, nuevos récords, en su loca carrera hacia la abyección y la guerra. Nos preguntamos hasta cuándo van a seguir idiotizando a sus respectivos pueblos. Nos preguntamos hasta cuándo esos mismos pueblos van a seguir dejando que los idioticen. ¿Puede ser que no haya ninguna respuesta organizada a la serie demencial de mentiras que llegan del norte en estos días? ¡El Mundial ya pasó, chicos!!! Se están generando las condiciones objetivas para una conflagración en gran escala. Despierten!!! 

Nos referimos, por supuesto, al episodio del avión malayo derribado en territorio ucraniano hace pocos días. Por suerte, algunas voces se alzan, acá y allá, denunciando la barbarie de gobiernos y medios occidentales. La siguiente nota de Paul Craigh Roberts, aparecida en el sitio web Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-american-propaganda-works-guilt-by-insinuation/5392573) es elocuente al respecto. El Sr. Roberts es tan preciso, claro, incisivo y valiente en sus declaraciones que comenzamos a temer por su integridad física. Vayamos a la nota.

Título: How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation” 

Texto: "Why hasn’t Washington joined Russian President Putin in calling for an objective, non-politicized international investigation by experts of the case of the Malaysian jetliner?
The Russian government continues to release facts, including satellite photos showing the presence of Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft missiles in locations from which the airliner could have been brought down by the missile system and documentation that a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet rapidly approached the Malaysian airliner prior to its downing.

The head of the Operations Directorate of Russian military headquarters said at a Moscow press conference today (July 21) that the presence of the Ukrainian military jet is confirmed by the Rostov monitoring center.

The Russian Defense Ministry pointed out that at the moment of destruction of MH-17 an American satellite was flying over the area. The Russian government urges Washington to make available the photos and data captured by the satellite.

President Putin has repeatedly stressed that the investigation of MH-17 requires “a fully representative group of experts to be working at the site under the guidance of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).”  Putin’s call for an independent expert examination by ICAO does not sound like a person with anything to hide.

Turning to Washington Putin stated: “In the meantime, no one [not even the “exceptional nation”] has the right to use this tragedy to achieve their narrowly selfish political goals.”

Putin reminded Washington: “We repeatedly called upon all conflicting sides to stop the bloodshed immediately and to sit down at the negotiating table. I can say with confidence that if military operations were not resumed [by Kiev] on June 28 in eastern Ukraine, this tragedy wouldn’t have happened.”

What is the American response?

Lies and insinuations.

Yesterday (July 20) the US Secretary of State, John Kerry confirmed that pro-Russian separatists were involved in the downing of the Malaysian airliner and said that it was “pretty clear” that Russia was involved. Here are Kerry’s words:  “It’s pretty clear that this is a system that was transferred from Russia into the hands of separatists. We know with confidence, with confidence, that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point and time, so it obviously points a very clear finger at the separatists.”

Kerry’s statement is just another of the endless lies told by US secretaries of state in the 21st century.  Who can forget Colin Powell’s package of lies delivered to the UN about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” or Kerry’s lie repeated endlessly that Assad “used chemical weapons against his own people” or the endless lies about “Iranian nukes”?

Remember that Kerry on a number of occasions stated that the US had proof that Assad crossed the “red line” by using chemical weapons.  However, Kerry was never able to back up his statements with evidence.  The US had no evidence to give the British prime minister whose effort to have Parliament approve Britain’s participation with Washington in a military attack on Syria was voted down. Parliament told the prime minister, “no evidence, no war.”

Again here is Kerry declaring “confidence” in statements that are directly contradicted by the Russian satellite photos and endless eye witnesses on the ground.

Why doesn’t Washington release its photos from its satellite?

The answer is for the same reason that Washington will not release all the videos it confiscated and that it claims prove that a hijacked 9/11 airliner hit the Pentagon.  The videos do not support Washington’s claim, and the US satellite photos do not support Kerry’s claim.

The UN weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq reported that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.  However, the fact did not support Washington’s propaganda and was ignored. Washington started a highly destructive war based on nothing but Washington’s intentional lie.

The International Atomic Energy Commission’s inspectors on the ground in Iran and all 16 US intelligence agencies reported that Iran had no nuclear weapons program. However, the fact was inconsistent with Washington’s agenda and was ignored by both the US government and the presstitute media.

We are witnessing the same thing right now with the assertions in the absence of evidence that Russia is responsible for the downing of the Malaysian airliner.

Not every member of the US government is as reckless as Kerry and John McCain.

In place of direct lies, many US officials use insinuations. US Senator Diane Feinstein is the perfect example.  Interviewed on the presstitute TV station CNN, Feinstein said: “The issue is where is Putin?  I would say, ‘Putin, you have to man up. You should talk to the world. You should say, if this is a mistake, which I hope it was, say it.’”

Putin has been talking to the world nonstop calling for an expert non-politicized investigation, and Feinstein is asking Putin why he is hiding behind silence. We know you did it, Feinstein insinuates, so just tell us whether you meant to or whether it was an accident.

The way the entire Western news cycle was orchestrated with blame instantly being placed on Russia long in advance of real information suggests that the downing of the airliner was a Washington operation.  It is, of course, possible that the well-trained presstitute media needed no orchestration from Washington in order to lay the blame on Russia.  On the other hand, some of the news performances seem too scripted not to have been prepared in advance.

We also have the advanced preparation of the youtube video that purports to show a Russian general and Ukrainian separatists discussing having mistakenly downed a civilian airliner.  As I pointed out earlier, this video is twice damned.  It was ready in advance and by implicating the Russian military, it overlooked that the Russian military can tell the difference between a civilian airliner and a military airplane. The existence of the video itself implies that there was a plot to down the airliner and blame Russia.

I have seen reports that the Russian anti-aircraft missile system, as a safety device, is capable of contacting aircraft transponders in order to verify the type of aircraft.  If the reports are correct and if the transponders from MH-17 are found, they might record the contact.

I have seen reports that Ukrainian air control changed the route of MH-17 and directed it to fly over the conflict area.  The transponders should also indicate whether this is correct.  If so, there clearly is at least circumstantial evidence that this was an intentional act on the part of Kiev, an act which would have required Washington’s blessing.

There are other reports that there is a divergence between the Ukrainian military and the unofficial militias formed by the right-wing Ukrainian extremists who apparently were the first to attack the separatists.  It is possible that Washington used the extremists to plot the airliner’s destruction in order to blame Russia and use the accusations to pressure the EU to go along with Washington’s unilateral sanctions against Russia.

We do know that Washington is desperate to break up the growing economic and political ties between Russia and Europe.

If it was a plot to down an airliner, any safety device on the missile system could have been turned off so as to give no warning or leave any telltale sign.  That could be the reason a Ukrainian fighter was sent to inspect the airliner.  Possibly the real target was Putin’s airliner and incompetence in implementing the plot resulted in the destruction of a civilian airliner.

As there are a number of possible explanations, let’s keep open minds and resist Washington’s propaganda until facts and evidence are in.  In the very least Washington is guilty of using the incident to blame Russia in advance of the evidence. All Washington has shown us so far is accusations and insinuations.  If that is all Washington continues to show us, we will know where the blame resides.

In the meantime, remember the story of the boy who cried “wolf!”  He lied so many times that when the wolf did come, no one believed him.  Will this be Washington’s ultimate fate?

Instead of declaring war on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, and Syria, why did Washington hide behind lies?  If Washington wants war with Iran, Russia, and China, why not simply declare war?  The reason that the US Constitution requires war to begin with a declaration of war by Congress is to prevent the executive branch from orchestrating wars in order to further hidden agendas.  By abdicating its constitutional responsibility, the US Congress is complicit in the executive branch’s war crimes.  By approving Israel’s premeditated murder of Palestinians, the US government is complicit in Israel’s war crimes.

Ask yourself this question: Would the world be a safer place with less death, destruction and displaced peoples and more truth and justice if the United States and Israel did not exist?"

lunes, 21 de julio de 2014

Mundo pintoresco

Un lunes aburrido de Julio de 2014. Todavía estás dormido y no sabés qué postear. Tonces, agarrás el Russia Today y mirás esas notis pintorescas que aparecen a la derecha. Pequeñas grajeas que nos enriquecen la vida. Hasta mañana.

Título: 'Selfie' en Auschwitz genera polémica

Texto: Un autoretrato sacado con un móvil por una joven con un campo de concentración nazi como un telón de fondo, que se ha vuelto viral, ha causado una ola de indignación en la red social Twitter. 

Muchos usuarios comentaron que la 'selfie' en la que la joven –llamada Breanna-, posa sonriente junto a un emoticono feliz muestra una total falta de respeto por los exterminados en Auschwitz, donde fue sacada la foto.

Breanna lamentó la reacción que provocó, explicando que su sonrisa en la foto indicaba lo contenta que estaba por haber llegado al lugar, dado que esa visita la había planeado junto con su difunto padre, informó el portal Buzzfeed.

[Nota de Astroboy: Tremendo el lío que se armó con la pobre Breanna. Totalmente injusto, por lo demás. La chica andaba con los audífonos al palo escuchando música disco y de pronto se le ocurre lo de la selfie. El ritmo no le dio tiempo para la reflexión. Se le ocurrió y lo hizo; por lo menos es espontánea. Claro, un millón de viejos vinagre le saltaron al cuello. Muéransé, amargosssssss]


Título: Francia: Seis futbolistas sudamericanos del Shakhtar Donetsk se fugan para no volver a Ucrania

Texto: Cinco futbolistas brasileños y uno argentino del club Shakhtar Donetsk se han fugado de la concentración de su equipo, que se encontraba de gira de pretemporada por Francia. Según medios franceses, la fuga se debe a que los jugadores no creen contar en Ucrania con las garantías de seguridad necesarias.

Por otro lado, medios argentinos revelan que el mediocampista Sebastián Blanco, del Metalist Járkov, regresó a Argentina, asegurando que no volverá a Europa del Este. Mientras, embajadas de estas naciones en Ucrania recomiendan a los futbolistas que militan en clubes de este país que busquen nuevos horizontes.

A la guerra civil en el este del país, se ha sumado esta semana la tragedia del avión malayo en Ucrania, que se cobró la vida de las 298 personas que iban a bordo, confirmando a los futbolistas la sensación de peligro al que se sienten expuestos. 


Título: Una banda de sicarios peruanos recluta nuevos miembros a través de Facebook

Texto: Una banda peruana de la ciudad de Trujillo conocida como 'La Jauría' usa abiertamente Facebook para buscar nuevos miembros, según el diario peruano 'El Comercio'.  

"Reclutamos gente que esté dispuesta a todo lo que le manden”, dice una de las publicaciones del grupo. En los comentarios muchos usuarios se interesan por el pago, y escriben que están dispuestos a viajar de Lima a Trujillo.

El pasado mes marzo pasado, la Policía peruana reveló la existencia de 17 cuentas de Facebook de organizaciones criminales que operan en la región de La Libertad, mediante las cuales ofrecían sus crímenes por encargo.


Título: Los combates por el aeropuerto de Tripoli dejan 47 muertos

Texto: Los combates por el aeropuerto principal en Tripoli, capital de Libia, han dejado 47 muertos en una semana, informa la agencia AFP, citando al Ministerio de Salud del país. Al menos 120 personas han resultado heridas, mientras que el 90% de los aviones en el aeropuerto han quedado dañados. 

Los milicianos islamistas intensificaron este domingo sus ataques contra el aeropuerto, que permanece controlado por un grupo de rebeldes opositores al gobierno, dejando un saldo de tres muertos.   


Título: Fotos: El Estado Islámico ejecuta por 'adulterio' a dos mujeres en Siria por medio de lapidación

Texto: El grupo Estado Islámico (ex EIIL) ha ejecutado al menos a dos mujeres acusadas de 'adulterio' a través de lapidación en últimos días, informa la revista en línea 'IBTimes', citando a la ONG Observatorio Sirio para los Derechos Humanos. Ambos casos han tenido lugar en la provincia de Raqqa en Siria.

El primer caso tuvo lugar el jueves, cuando fue asesinada una joven recién casada, a quién su marido acusó de no ser virgen. El segundo caso se registró horas después en la ciudad de Raqqa, cuando fue ejecutada una viuda.

domingo, 20 de julio de 2014

Sobre el caos

Nada de esto fue un error, chicos. El caos en buena parte del mundo no es una consecuencia indeseada del accionar político-militar del Imperio, sino precisamente el objetivo. El siguiente artículo de Ismael Hossein-Zadeh apareció estos días en Counterpunch. Vale la pena leerlo.

Título: Planned Chaos in the Middle East—and Beyond

Texto: Geopolitical observers of the Middle East turbulence tend to blame the raging chaos in the area on the presumed failure of the “incoherent,” “illogical” or “contradictory” policies of the United States. Irrefutable evidence (some of which presented in this study) suggests, however, that in fact the chaos represents the success, not failure, of those policies—policies that are designed by the beneficiaries of war and military adventures in the region, and beyond. While U.S. policies in the region are certainly irrational and conflicting from the standpoint of international peace, or even from the standpoint of the U.S. national interests as a whole, they are quite logical from the viewpoint of economic and geopolitical beneficiaries of war and international hostilities, that is, from the viewpoint of (a) the military-industrial complex, and (b) the militant Zionist proponents of “greater Israel.”

The seeds of the chaos were planted some 25 years ago, when the Berlin Wall Collapsed. Since the rationale for the large and growing military apparatus during the Cold War years was the “threat of communism,” U.S. citizens celebrated the collapse of the Wall as the end of militarism and the dawn of “peace dividends”—a reference to the benefits that, it was hoped, many would enjoy in the United States as a result of a reorientation of part of the Pentagon’s budget toward non-military social needs.

But while the majority of the U.S. citizens celebrated the prospects of what appeared to be imminent “peace dividends,” the powerful interests vested in the expansion of military/security spending felt threatened. Not surprisingly, these influential forces moved swiftly to safeguard their interests in the face of the “threat of peace.”

To stifle the voices that demanded peace dividends, beneficiaries of war and militarism began to methodically redefine the post-Cold War “sources of threat” in the broader framework of the new multi-polar world, which goes way beyond the traditional “Soviet threat” of the bipolar world of the Cold War era. Instead of the “communist threat” of the Soviet era, the “menace” of “rogue states,” of radical Islam and of “global terrorism” would have to do as new enemies.
Publicly, most of the reassessment of the post-Cold War world was presented by the top military brass. For example, General Carl Vuno, Chief of Staff of the US Army, told a House Committee in May 1989: “Much more complex [than any peril posed by the Soviet Union] is the threat situation developing in the rest of the world. . . . In this increasingly multipolar world, we face the potential of multiple threats from countries and factors which are becoming more sophisticated militarily and more aggressive politically” [2].

General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, likewise argued before a Senate Committee that despite the collapse of the Soviet Union the United States needed to continue its military buildup because of numerous other obligations: “With all these challenges and opportunities confronting our nation, it is impossible for me to believe that demobilizing or hollowing out the American military is a feasible course of action for the future. The true ‘peace dividend’ is peace itself. . . . Peace comes about through the maintenance of strength” [3].

While the military brass, often donned in nifty and flamboyant uniforms, publicly took the center stage in the fight against the downsizing of the military-industrial complex, civilian militarists, working in and around the Pentagon and the associated hawkish think-tanks, schemed from behind the scenes. These included the then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, his Undersecretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, then a Wolfowitz aide, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, then principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Strategy. This group of men and their co-thinkers and collaborators (such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Michael Ladeen, Elliott Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol, John Bolton, and others) worked diligently together on averting post-Cold War cutbacks. “What we were afraid of was people who would say, ‘Let’s bring all of the troops home, and let’s abandon our position in Europe’,” recalled Wolfowitz in an interview [4].
While these military planners were officially affiliated with the Pentagon and/or the Bush (Sr.) administration, they also closely collaborated with a number of jingoistic lobbying think-tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs that were set up to serve either as the armaments lobby or the Israel lobby or both. Even a cursory look at the records of these militaristic think tanks—their membership, their financial sources, their institutional structures, and the like—shows that they are created to essentially serve as institutional fronts to camouflage the incestuous business and/or political relationship between the Pentagon, its major contractors, the top military brass, the Israel lobby, and other similarly hawkish bodies in and around the government [5].

In a carefully calculated effort to redefine the post-Cold War world as a “more dangerous” world, and accordingly craft a new “National Security Strategy” for the United States, this team of military planners and militaristic think-tanks produced a new military-geopolitical document in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union which came to be known as “Defense Planning Guidance,” or “Defense Strategy for the 1990s.” The document, unveiled by the White House in the early 1990s before the Congress, focused on “unpredictable turbulent spots in the Third World” as new sources of attention for the U.S. military power in the post-Cold War era: “In the new era, we foresee that our military power will remain an essential underpinning of the global balance . . . that the more likely demands for the use of our military forces may not involve the Soviet Union and may be in the Third World, where new capabilities and approaches may be required” [6].
To respond to “turbulences in the most vital regions,” the new situation called for a strategy of “discriminate deterrence”—a military strategy that “would contain and quell regional or local conflicts in the Third World with lightning speed and sweeping effectiveness before they get out of hand.” In the post-Cold War world of “multiple sources of threats” the United States would also need to be prepared to fight “low-intensity” and “mid-intensity” wars. Low or mid-intensity does not refer to the level of firepower and violence employed but to the geographic scale compared to an all-out war on a global or regional war that could disrupt international trade and paralyze global markets.

The “Defense Strategy for the 1990s” also spoke about maintaining and expanding America’s “strategic depth”—a term coined by the then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. “Strategic depth” had a geopolitical connotation, meaning that, in the aftermath of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the United States must extend its global presence—in terms of military bases, listening and/or intelligence stations, and military technology—to areas previously neutral or under the influence of the Soviet Union.

Policy prescriptions of these self-fulfilling prophecies were unmistakable: having thus portrayed (and subsequently created) the post-Cold War world as a place fraught with “multiple sources of threats to U.S. national interest,” powerful beneficiaries of the Pentagon budget succeeded in maintaining military spending at essentially the Cold War levels. Proponents of continued militarism “moved with remarkable speed to ensure that the collapse [of the Soviet Union] would not affect the Pentagon’s budget or our ‘strategic position’ on the globe we had garrisoned in the name of anti-communism” [7].

To carry out the thus-outlined “National Security Strategy” of the post-Cold War world, militaristic U.S. planners need pretexts, which often means inventing or manufacturing enemies. Beneficiaries of war dividends sometimes find “external enemies and threats” by definition, “by deciding unilaterally what actions around the world constitute terrorism,” or by arbitrarily classifying certain countries as “supporters of terrorism,” as Bill Christison, retired CIA advisor, put it [8].

They also create international frictions by insidious policies of provoking anger and violence, thereby justifying war and destruction, which will trigger further acts of terror and violence in the fashion of a vicious cycle. Of course, the nefarious driving force behind this self-fulfilling strategy of war and terrorism is to maintain the high dividends of the business of war. The late Gore Vidal has satirically characterized this wicked need of the beneficiaries of war and militarism to constantly come up with new threats and enemies as an “enemy of the month club: each month we are confronted by a new horrendous enemy at whom we must strike before he destroys us” [9].

A small war here, a small war there, a “low-intensity” war in country x, and a “mid-intensity” war in country y—cynically scripted as “controlled wars”—are strategies that would keep military appropriations flowing into the coffers of the military-industrial complex without causing a major or worldwide conflict that could cripple world markets altogether.

Against this backdrop—the collapse of the Soviet Union, the “threat of peace dividends” to the interests of the military-industrial complex, and the consequent need of the beneficiaries of war dividends for substitutes for the “communist threat” of the Cold War era—the U.S. government’s approach to the heinous attacks of 9/11 as an opportunity for war and aggression should not have come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the vicious needs of militarism. The monstrous attacks were treated not as crimes but as “war on America.” Once it was thus established that the United States was “at war,” military buildup and imperialist aggressions followed accordingly. As the late Chalmers Johnson put it, the 9/11 tragedy “served as manna from heaven to an administration determined to ramp up military budgets” [10].

Champions of the U.S. wars of choice had already labeled “unfriendly” governments such as those ruling in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North Korea as rogue and/or supporter of terrorism, which required “regime change.” Before the 9/11 attacks, however, such demonizing labels were apparently not enough to convince the American people to support U.S. wars of preemption. The 9/11 tragedy served as the militarists’ coveted pretext for such wars—hence, the regime change in Iraq, to be followed by similar changes of “unfriendly” regimes in many other countries in the region and around the world.

Just as the beneficiaries of war dividends, the military-security-industrial complex, view international peace and stability inimical to their interests, so too the militant Zionist proponents of “greater Israel” perceive peace between Israel and its Palestinian/Arab neighbors perilous to their goal of gaining control over the “promised land.” The reason for this fear of peace is that, according to a number of the United Nations’ resolutions, peace would mean Israel’s return to its pre-1967 borders, that is, withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But because proponents of “greater Israel” are unwilling to withdraw from these occupied territories, they are therefore afraid of peace—hence, their continued attempts at sabotaging peace efforts/negotiations.

By the same token, these proponents view war and convulsion (or, as David Ben-Gurion, one of the key founders of the State of Israel, put it, “revolutionary atmosphere”) as opportunities that are conducive to the expulsion of Palestinians, to the geographic recasting of the region, and to the expansion of Israel’s territory. “What is inconceivable in normal times,” Ben-Gurion pointed out, “is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is possible in such great hours is not carried out—a whole world is lost” [11].

Echoing a similarly evil sentiment that the dissolution and fragmentation of the Arab states into a mosaic of ethnic groupings is possible only under conditions of war and sociopolitical convulsion, the notoriously hawkish Ariel Sharon likewise pointed out on March 24, 1988, “that if the Palestinian uprising continued, Israel would have to make war on her Arab neighbors. The war, he stated, would provide ‘the circumstances’ for the removal of the entire Palestinian population from the West Bank and Gaza and even from inside Israel proper” [12].

The view that war would “provide the circumstances” for the removal of Palestinians from the occupied territories is premised on the expectation that the United States would go along with the notion and would, therefore, support Israeli expansionism in the event of the contemplated war. The expectation is by no means outlandish or unusual, as the beneficiaries of war and military spending in the U.S. do, indeed, gladly oblige, not so much for the sake of Israel or the Jewish people as for their own nefarious purposes—hence, the de facto alliance between the military-industrial complex and the Israel lobby.

Because the interests of these two powerful interest groups converge over fomenting war and political convulsion in the Middle East, an ominously potent alliance has been forged between them—ominous, because the mighty U.S. war machine is now supplemented by the almost unrivaled public relations capabilities of the hardline pro-Israel lobby in the United States. The convergence and/or interdependence of the interests of the military-industrial complex and those of militant Zionism on war and political convulsion in the Middle East is at the heart of the perpetual cycle of violence in the region.

The alliance between the military-industrial complex and the Israel lobby is unofficial and de facto; it is subtlely forged through an elaborate network of powerful militaristic think tanks such as The American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century, America Israel Public Affairs Committee, Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, National Institute for Public Policy, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and Center for Security Policy.

In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, these militaristic think tanks and their hawkish operatives in and around the government published a number of policy papers that clearly and forcefully advocated plans for border change, for demographic change, and for regime change in the Middle East. For example, in 1996 an influential Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, sponsored and published a policy document titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” which argued that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “should ‘make a clean break’ with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel’s claim to the West Bank and Gaza. It presented a plan whereby Israel would ‘shape its strategic environment,’ beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad, to serve as a first step toward eliminating the anti-Israeli governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran” [13].

In an “Open Letter to the President” (Clinton), dated 19 February1998, a number of hawkish think tanks and individuals, representing the military-industrial complex and the Israel lobby, recommended “a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime.” Among the letter’s signers were the following: Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, David Wurmser, Dov Zakheim, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol, Joshua Muravchik, Leon Wieseltier, and former Congressman Stephen Solarz [14].

In September 2000, another militaristic think tank, called Project for the New American Century (PNAC), issued a report, titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” which explicitly projected an imperial role for the United States the world over. It stated, for example, “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in [Persian] Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”  The sponsors of the report included Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, and William Kristol, who was also a co-author of the report [15].

The influential Jewish Institute for the National Security Affairs (JINSA) also occasionally issued statements and policy papers that strongly advocated “regime changes” in the Middle East. Its advisor Michael Ladeen, who also unofficially advised the Bush administration on Middle Eastern issues, openly talked about the coming era of “total war,” indicating that the United States should expand its policy of “regime change” in Iraq to other countries in the region such as Iran and Syria. “In its fervent support for the hardline, pro-settlement, anti-Palestinian Likud-style policies in Israel, JINSA has essentially recommended that ‘regime change’ in Iraq should be just the beginning of a cascade of toppling dominoes in the Middle East” [16].

In brief, the evidence is overwhelming (and irrefutable) that the raging chaos in the Middle East, North Africa and Eastern Europe/Ukraine is not because of the “misguided” policies of the United States and its allies, as many critics and commentators tend to maintain. It is, rather, because of premeditated and carefully-crafted policies that have been pursued by an unholy alliance of the military-security-industrial complex and the Israel lobby in the post-Cold War world.


[1] Extensive excerpts from my book, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism, especially from chapters 4 and 6, are used in this essay.

[2] Quoted in Sheila Ryan, “Power Projection in the Middle East,” inMobilizing Democracy, edited by Greg Bates (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1991), p. 47.

[3] Ibid., p. 46.

[4] James Mann, “The True Rationale? It’s a Decade Old,” Washington Post, Sunday (7 March 2004), page B02.

[5] For a detailed exposition of this dubious relationship see Ismael Hossein-zadeh, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2007), chapter 6.

[6] Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire (New York, NY: Metropolitan Books, 2004), pp. 20-21.

[7] Ibid., p. 20.

[8] Bill Christison, “The Disastrous Foreign Policies of the United States,”Counterpunch.org (9 May 2002), <http://www.counterpunch.org/christison0806.html>.

[9] Gore Vidal, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press/Nation Books, 2002), pp. 20-1.

[10] Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire (New York, NY: Metropolitan Books, 2004), p. 64.

[11] Quoted in Stephen J. Sniegoski, “The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel,” <http://vho.org/tr/2003/3/Sniegoski285-298.html>.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] William D. Hartung, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? (New York: Nation Books, 2003), p.109.

(Sobre el autor:) Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics (Drake University). He is the author of Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis (Routledge 2014), The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave–Macmillan 2007), and the Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser’s Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989). He is also a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press 2012).

sábado, 19 de julio de 2014

Versiones de la historia

Uno de los últimos ensayos del personaje conocido como “Peregrino” en el blog The Vineyard of the Saker lleva por título: “Memories, recollections, guesses and speculations about MH17” (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.ar/2014/07/memories-recollection-guesses-and.html).  MH17 es el nombre del vuelo de las líneas aéreas de Malasia derribado un par de días atrás en Ucrania, no muy lejos de la frontera con Rusia. Como suele ocurrir, no necesariamente estamos de acuerdo con todo lo que dice el Peregrino, pero lo reposteamos porque es siempre interesante. En fin, saquen ustedes sus propias conclusiones. 

"Intro and caveat 

I think that any analysis of the events surrounding the downing of MH17 should begin with the following admission: no matter what, the AngloZionists will blame Russia.  Just like 9/11, there is no way, no amount of evidence, which would affect the unanimous chorus of Imperial doubleplusgoodthinkers in their conclusion that obviously it could only have been "the Russians". So don't expect to come across The Proof which will prove that the Empire is lying because if 9/11 proved anything it is that even hard, undeniable truth can be easily ignored by the elites and their media.

Second, I have to begin my "kind of analysis" with the following disclaimer: my information on air defense issues is about 25-30 years old which means that not only could my memory fail me, but things might have changed a great deal since I last was exposed to them.  Finally, the place from which I observed air defense happening was a rather peculiar one: from a underground army command center's air defense room which included a live fused (civilian+military) image of all the air traffic over an entire continent.  I never got anywhere near a SAM site in my life, and I sure have never seen one being operated.  Still, there are a few things which I know which might be relevant to this case.  

If I got something wrong, or if things have recently changed, PLEASE CORRECT ME. 

How air defense normally works

The control of airspace is done by two completely different networks: a civilian and a military one.  The civilian one is the one people think of when they hear ATC (air traffic control).  These are the folks who manage flight plans, who talk to pilots on different altitudes, who track the aircraft during the flight and make sure that there is enough distance between them.  Depending on an airplane's altitude and what it is doing, it remains in contact with different ATCs but they all work together.  One more thing: the radars used by civilian ATC are very primitive, all they can "see" is a bearing.  What helps them is that all aircraft have a so-called "transponder" to transmit a special message which indicates their ID, speed, altitude and course.  The ATC then superimposes that info on his screen to get a pretty accurate idea of what the aircraft is doing.  The important thing about all this is that the military is normally patched straight into that data and that it can use it to supplement the data military radars acquire by themselves.  In other words, a military air defense network "sees" and "knows" everything that a civilians ATC knows and sees.

The task of military air defenses is dramatically different from the civilians ATC: the military expects to deal with aircraft who will do their utmost to remain undetected and once detected, the military air defense network has to figure out a way to hopefully shoot-down the enemy aircraft.  As a result, the kind of technology used by the military is very different.

The first "layer" of a military air defense network will be long range detection radars.  Their task is to try to detect an airborne target as far as possible. Although one type of radar can do this alone, typically data from different radars (including airborne ones) is fused to create a single picture.  Already at this point the air defense command post will be patched in into the civilians ATC and it will have all the flight plans, airline names, aircraft types and expected flight routes.  The air defense command post's first task is to separate civilians (considered neutral) from possible hostiles.  These 99% of flights are routine and regular, the folks in charge have a very good idea of what a normal sky looks like, they see the scheduled civilians aircraft doing their thing and they easily track them.  Some military radars even have the capability to detect the kind of aircraft they are seeing on their radar simply by analyzing the radar signal bounced back (typically by the aircraft's engine).  If a target is ambiguous, the military can use a very different type of radar to track that target: this target acquisition radar will operate on a different frequency, it will have a much narrower beam, and it will provide the operator with much more info about the aircraft even if the aircraft does not have a working transponder (which would be most unusual for a civilian airliner).  Again, modern armed forces have the means to fuse the data from any different radar types (including airborne radars) to calculate a solution to identify and track a target.  The next step is the send a special signal, like a password, to check if aircraft might not be one of your own.  Civilian aircraft are not capable of this kind if "electronic handshake". Finally, if the military air defense command post believes that the target his hostile, it selects the best radar and missile combination to engage the target.  Typically, this is done yet again by a highly specialized radar which sends a burst of energy to the target which is reflected by the airborne target and which is then caught either by a ground-based radar or even by the missile itself (that is called TVM track-via-missile) which then can guide itself to the target without emitting any signal (alternatively, the missile can use his own active guidance system which sends and receives radar signals).  Advanced air defense networks, such as Russia's, can automatically chose the best radar for each task, the missile most likely to hit, the number of missiles needed for the task, the most threatening target, the mode of engagement, etc.  These systems are highly integrated andhighly automated, which also means that they are much safer than more primitive systems (more about that later).  They are also highly redundant which in practical terms means that if, say, in an ideal environment a missile system like the Buk M1 is just one part of a much bigger network of systems, it can also operate almost autonomously if needed (again, more about that later).  Now we need to look at the "who had what" on the day of the tragedy.  First, let's look at 

The Russikies and their capabilities

While, obviously, they don't share with me the details of their moves, it is a pretty safe guess to say that, especially considering the war going on right across the border, the Russians literally had it all on that day: civilians radars, of course, but also long range radars (ground based and airborne), lots of advanced advanced surveillance (long range detection) radars, lots of tracking and fire control radars numerous radio and signal interception stations.  Since all the data from this integrated network of systems could be fused at the higher level command posts we can safely assume that the Russian side had something like "20/20 radar vision": just about as good as it can get.  There is no way the Russian shot down this aircraft by mistake.

What about the Ukrainians?

Here the reality is dramatically different: almost all of the Ukrainian air defense equipment is hopelessly outdated, far in excess of its normal shelf life.  The Ukie air defense systems have not trained with live firing for dacades.  Unlike the Russian who use contracted professionals on all crucial levels, the Ukies are known to be using conscripts simply due to a lack of funds.  To illustrate the bloodly mess the Ukie air defenses are, it is enough to recall here how gross incompetence, mismanagement and outdated equipment resulted in the downing of the Siberian Airlines civilian aircraft in 2001.  Since then, things in the Ukie air defenses have only gotten much worse.  Still, the Ukies did have an ATC which at the very least should have reported that a civilian airline had a flight plan which would follow the points XYZ.  I just cannot imagine a Ukie officer giving the order to shoot at an aircraft without checking for the available flight plans.  Also, as far as I know, nobody ever reported that the transponder on the aircraft did not work and, if so, then that means that the Ukie air defense crew should have been receiving a clear signal identifying the aircraft.  Let me add here that you can purchase special receivers and antennas which can receive transponder signals on the market and that they are comparatively cheap (1000 bucks range I think).  Lastly, but still an option, a Ukie air defense operator could have simply lifted the phone, called the ATC and asked who such and such aircraft was.  And even without that: when you see an aircraft flying right around 550 knots at 10'000m in a straight line in a civilian air traffic corridor, you can kinda guess that this is not a military aircraft on a bombing run.  So regardless of the state of disrepair of the Ukie air defense forces, there is just no way that they could have mistaken this airliner for a Russian military jet flying on a combat mission.  Oh, and did I mention MH17 was flying on  west to east course, not from Russia, but towards Russia?  Bottom line here for me is this: there is no way the Ukies could have shot down this aircraft by mistake.

The Novorussians now

Well, here again we truly have a dramatically different picture emerging.  First, the Novorussians have no ATC.  Second, 99% of their air defense systems are either MANPADs (man portable) or heavy machine guns.  I did see footage of some kind of air defense radar and command post, but I suspect that this was simply one surveillance radar left by the Ukies.  No data fusion here, no integrated air defense network, no long range missiles.  Except for the few Buk M-1s which they did get as a trophy when they took control a Ukie base a month or so ago.  The fact is that I am still unsure whether they really got anything operable systems at all (the Ukies claim that their soldiers had disabled them, but that might not be true).  But we probably have to assume that they got their hands on a least one operational vehicle with its own surveillance radar, engagement radar and missiles.  As I mentioned earlier, modern states would integrate the Buk into a full air defense network, but since in war time this might not be possible, it is possible for the Buk to detect, acquire and engage a target all by itself.  Frankly, I find it very unlikely that the systems the Novorussians got their hands on would have been operational.  I find it even more unlikely that they would also have the people to operate them.  Still, just to cover our bases, we have to assume that with Russian aid these systems could have been more or less fixed, and that a crew could also have been sent from Russia.  Unlikely? Far fetched?  Yes.  But, alas, not impossible.

Still, there is the flight profile issue.  The real threat for Novorussians comes from close air support (low level) and from reconnaissance (medium level) aircraft.  Not those flying at 10'000 meters.  Also, a Boeing 777 is much larger than an An-26, Su-25, Su-24 or even Su-27.  Also, ask yourself, IF you had such a capable and advanced air defense system as the Buk, would you waste it on a poorly identified target?  Probably not.  Still, I think that at least in theory the Nororussians could have shot down this aircraft.  Now let's look at the famous

Cui bono?

Well here at least the reply is unambiguous: only the junta in Kiev could have benefited from this tragedy.  For the Russians and the Novorussians, this is something between a real pain and a disaster.  Just when the Novorussians were winning without any overt help from Moscow and just when Moscow was gradually successful in denouncing the human costs of Poroshenko's murderous policies - suddenly the entire planet focuses just on one downed aircraft and the imperial corporate media blames it all on Russia.  As for Poroshenko, this disaster is God-sent: not only has everybody forgotten that much promised "surprise" turned out to be a disaster, he can now kill scores of Novorussians with no risks of that being reported in the corporate media.  Not only that, but that gives the Ukies a golden excuse to ask for ""protection" from their "aggressive and threatening neighbor".   Again, the only party who can benefit from this disaster is the junta.  So, in summary, we have this list of candidates:

1) A deliberate or mistaken Russian attack: superlatively unlikely
2) A mistaken Ukrainian attack: most unlikely
3) A deliberate Ukrainian attack: most likely
4) A mistaken Novorussian attack: possible
5) A deliberate Novorussian attack: most unlikely

I don't know about you, but to me #3 is the one blinking red.

Now let's look at some of the crazy rumors which we have heard today.

a) one or two Ukie military aircraft shadowing MH17 before it was shot down.
b) at least one parachute after MH17 was shot down.
c) an air-to-air attack.
d) an attempt as shooting down Putin's aircraft.

I don't know if any of these above are true, but what I do notice is that all of them, if true, only 'fit' scenario #3: a deliberate Ukie attack.  Nobody claimed that MH17 was shadowed by Russian fighters and the Novorussians don't have any anyway (they only have one Su-25).  If somebody was shot down (the parachutes) then it was most definitely not a Russian Air Force aircraft.  Ditto for an air-to-air attack.  As for shooting down Putin's aircraft, this seems far fetched to me, even for the crazy freak show in power in Kiev.  However, I would not put that kind of trick passed Uncle Sam who can always blame it on the Ukies.  What is sure is that the US wants Putin dead.  So maybe?

The current version of the Novorussians is an interesting one: they say that a Ukie Su-25 shot down MH17 and that they then shot down the Ukie Su-25.  Actually, this is not the most unlikely possibility.  Of course, this also means that if the Novorussians attempted to shoot down a Ukie Su-25 they might have missed and the missile might have continued towards the MH17 especially if its radar had gone active.  So a Novorussian mistake is still a "possible", at least in my mind.  If, and this is a big IF, this was a Novorussian mistake, I don't feel that we can blame them very much.  The one undeniable fact is that this disaster happened in Ukrainian ATC space and they, the Ukie ATC, had the primary responsibility to keep MH17 in a safe air corridor and not the Novorussians who had neither the technical means nor the legal obligation to do so.  Also, just a few days ago the Ukies had announced that they were closing the airspace over the combat zone to an altitude of 9600m (if I remember correctly).  If the Novorussians heard this, they could have easily concluded that MH17 was a military recon flight flying towards Donestk from Dnepropetrovsk.  Besides, I am not at all sure that the radar on the Buk M1 can differentiate between 9'600m and 10'000m or, if it can, that the operator would have been aware of the difference this could mean.

Again, keep in mind my caveat above.  I am not, repeat, not a specialist of air defenses.  But I did do some air defense and monitoring work in my past, and on the basis of that experience and of what I have heard so far is here my guess:

I would say that at this point in time I am 90% in favor of the deliberate Ukie attack theory.  The remaining 10% I would give to the mistaken Novorussian attack version.  I am more than willing to change my mind if I get new facts.

Stuff we should look for

First, the black boxes.  Even when hit, most pilots have the time to say something and that something is usually recorded and radioed.  Depending on the frequency used, that "something" should have been heard by PLENTY of receivers, not only the Ukie ATC.  But at the very least, we should have the voice and data recorders from the last minutes of MH17.

Second, Russian radar tracks.  That is a problem.  The Russian military is one of the worst offenders in terms of secrecy and short of a direct order by Putin, they are likely to be most uncooperative.  Still, these guys probably have it all: ATC chatter, pilot messages, transporter signal, exact location of the missile(s) launched, point of impact, etc.  As I said, they most likely had a 20/20 vision of the air space over Donetsk.  The trick is to get them to share it, especially with the corporate media and the "independent" experts all already clamoring that the Russians are tampering with the flight recorders.  Still, things are changing in Russia, possibly after the PR disaster following the Soviet shooting down of KAL 007 (which most definitely was a US spy mission and deliberate provocation), they are more willing to share data.  A spokesman for the Russian Air Force has already disclosed that they had recorded the signals of a Ukie BukM1 battery surveillance radar at the moment of the tragedy.  He even identified the exact Ukie unit involved.  Hopefully, as this scandal snowballs, the Kremlin will order the Russian Air Force to make more data public.  Not to convince Uncle Sam and his EU minions, of course, but at least to convince the rest of the planet.

Speaking of Uncle Sam and his EU minions.  They also know.  The US and NATO maintains a 24/7 surveillance of Ukie and Russian air space at least to the Urals, possibly even on the other side (though I am not sure).  I bet you that Obama was told who done it within 2 hours of the tragedy happening.  That info was probably shared with the Echelon countries, but not with the rest of NATO, but even they probably know thanks to their own intelligence capability (Banderastan is chock-full of EU spies not a single one of which was ever caught by the Ukie SBU since independence!).  So here again we have a 9/11 kind of situation: everybody knows, but nobody will admit it.

The last question then

There is an obvious last question which we need to ask: if the Ukies did it, could they have done so without the US knowing about it?  The answer, in case anybody had any doubts about this, is absolutely categorically and emphatically not.  No way Jose, not this regime, not one which is 110% dependent of, and submitted to, Uncle Sam.  In other words, if this was a deliberate Ukie attack, then this really was a deliberate US attack.  Not quite a "false flag", but a sneaky dirty trick, a longtime US specialty.  The typical US way works like this: organized and planned by Uncle Sam, paid for by the Saudis, executed by the Israelis.  At least that is the historical record for US dirty tricks.  That is also most likely how 9/11 was done.  Why bring in 9/11 several times at the risk of infuriating the doubleplusgoodthinking crowd yet again?  No, not just for the heck of it, but to remind everybody that the folks who killed 3000+ people on 9/11 would not hesitate for a nanosecond to kill "only" 300 or so, especially if the risk of getting caught is negligible, which in this case it is.  If in the case of 9/11 it is the entire Establishment which by stupidity or by cowardice which was made an accomplice of the crime, in this case the folks who did it will have the support of a rabidly russophobic Establishment which will not care one bit about the truth as long as it allows it to further flame the flames of hatred against Russia.

A provisional conclusion of sorts - Lasciate Ogni Speranza

This crime will never be properly investigated nor will the culprits ever be punished for it.  Oh sure, there will be plenty of books in the future who will reveal it all in minute details but, as Michel Parenti always reminds us, history is not only written by victors, it is also written by the elites, the oligarchs, the banking establishment, the 1%ers.  If anything, 9/11 has proven that our society is completely indifferent to facts and proof.  Our society is ruled by ideological dogma and political expediency.  In the case of MH17 the accepted dogma is that the Novorussians are the bad guys and the political expediency says that this latest crime cannot be blamed on the "heroic Euro-Ukrainian freedom fighters" or, even less so, on Uncle Sam.

Just as I wrote this last sentence above, I decided to check my  favorite Imperial Mouthpiece and, sure enough, I read this: "US President Barack Obama has said a surface-to-air missile fired from a rebel-held area in east Ukraine brought down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17".  See, it is that simple!  How needs flight recorders of radar tracks anyway?!  If the US President said so, then it is so.  Any other interpretation is a criminal delusion bordering on terrorism.  Who needs proof when we got both Poroshenko and Obama saying that the Russikies did it?

I am disgusted beyond words by both of these ugly, evil, clowns.

Well, I hope that that some of you will have found the exercises above useful, regardless of all my caveats.  I wish my recollection of working with air defenses was better and I wish my knowledge was not 25 year old.  As always, this is the best I can do and I share it to you, my friends, in the hope to resist the imperial propaganda machine the best I can.  If there are those amongst you who have a more recent and possibly more hands-on knowledge of these topics, I beg them to share that knowledge with the rest of us.

Kind regards and many thanks,

The Saker"

jueves, 17 de julio de 2014

Un pasito más cerca

El mundo se acercó hoy un poquito más a una situación de guerra global irreversible. Un avión Boeing 777 de la aerolínea de Malasia se acaba de estrellar en Ucrania, muy cerca de la frontera con Rusia. Lo más probable es que el avión haya sido derribado. De haber ocurrido así, obviamente se trata de una provocación. Así lo contaba hace un par de horas el diario El País:

Título: Un avión malasio con 295 ocupantes se estrella al este de Ucrania

Subtítulo: El avión cubría la ruta entre Ámsterdam y Kuala Lumpur; Kiev no descarta que haya sido abatido

Texto: Un avión Boeing 777 de las Líneas Aéreas de Malasia (Malaysia Airlines), en tránsito desde Amsterdam a Kuala-Lumpur, se ha estrellado este jueves en la región ucraniana de Donetsk, en la zona de conflicto armado entre las autoridades centrales de Kiev y los insurgentes independentistas. En el aparato viajaban 295 personas, 280 pasajeros (entre ellos numerosos niños) y 15 miembros de la tripulación. Todos ellos han perecido.

El Boeing volaba a 10.600 metros de altura y se encontraba a 60 kilómetros de la frontera rusa cuando se precipitó al vacio y cayó envuelto en una densa y enorme nube de humo negro en un campo cercano a la localidad de Shajtersk, a 80 kilómetros de Donetsk. En torno a los restos del aparato, en parte carbonizados y en llamas, quedaron esparcidos los restos mutilados de los pasajeros y sus pertenencias. El territorio del accidente está en la zona controlada por los insurgentes de la autoproclamada República Popular de Donetsk (RPD).

Las autoridades ucranianas en Kiev y los independentistas en Donetsk han intercambiado de inmediato acusaciones mutuas de haber derribado el aparato. De entrada, el suceso parece la trágica culminación de la escalada antiáerea de los últimos días entre las partes en conflicto en la zona. La compañía alemana Lufthansa, la francesa Air France, la turca Turkish Airlines y las rusas Aeroflot y Transaereo, entre otras, han decidido evitar el espacio aéreo de Ucrania.

Anton Geráschenko, el consejero del ministro del Interior de Ucrania, manifestó en Kiev que el avión había sido derribado por insurgentes independentistas mediante un complejo antimisiles Buk (un sistema sofisticado y moderno, según los especialistas rusos). Geráshenko afirmó al canal de televisión Dozhd que su departamento tenía decenas de testigos del lanzamiento de un misil en las cercanías de la ciudad de Snezhnoe (en la zona controlada por los separatistas). Geráshenko acusó también a Rusia había entregado complejos de misiles Buk a los combatientes de la RPD. Los insurgentes intentaron hacerse complejos de misiles de este tipo hace cerca de un mes en las cercanías de Lugansk, pero los equipos que consiguieron estaban averiados, según afirmaba el canal de televisión ruso Rusia 24.

Representantes de la RPD declararon a Rusia 24 que carecen de medios bélicos para derribar a un avión a la altura en que volaba el Boeing siniestrado. Alexandr Baradái, el ciudadano ruso que dirige el gobierno de la RPD, dijo que sus lanzamisiles portátiles podían alcanzar “como máximo entre 3000 y 4000 metros” y acusó a las Fuerzas Aéreas de Ucrania del suceso , al que calificó como “una provocación intencionada”. Baradái dijo que estaba dispuesto a entregar la caja negra del aparato a expertos internacionales. En Kiev, sin embargo, temen que la caja negra sea transferida a Rusia, a la que ven como parte implicada en el conflicto. El presidente ruso, Vladímir Putin, conversó con su colega norteamericano, Barack Obama, después de conocerse el siniestro. Putin trasmitió sus condolencias a las autoridades de Malasia..."

La nota de El País sigue, pero la información real es igual a cero, así que no reprodujimos el resto. Para entender este evento (que, aclaremos, sigue siendo confuso), hay que entender su contexto: primero, el gobierno ucraniano viene provocando a los rusos desde los inicios del conflicto. Las autoridades de Kiev quieren internacionalizar el conflicto porque: (a) van perdiendo; (b) en cualquier momento termina de implosionar la economía ucraniana, y (c) los secesionistas de la República de Donetsk, y pronto de toda la región de Novorossiya (Nueva Rusia) van a separarse efectivamente de Ukrania, tal como ya ocurrió en Crimea. En segundo lugar, en los últimos días las fuerzas armadas ucranianas han sufrido resonantes derrotas por parte de los separatistas de las regiones del este. Cuando se juntan estos dos datos la conclusión más obvia es que la responsabilidad recae en Kiev. Veremos. Mientras tanto, acá va un mapa de la región de Donetsk. Suponemos que la localidad de Shajtersk corresponde a la que aparece como Shakhtarskyi en el mapa. Color marrón, en sánguche entre Luhansk y Rusia. Ay, mamita.