martes, 30 de septiembre de 2014

Aislados del mundo

Lo que sigue es largo, chicos, y mayormente aburrido, así que los twitteros pueden ir haciendo click. Se trata del racconto realizado por Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya sobre la discusión generada en torno a una resolución del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas, la nº 2178. La nota la publica el sitio web Strategic Culture Foundation ( el día de hoy. Los pocos que terminen de leerla van a entender por qué la Argentina está “aislada del mundo”. Claro, todo depende de qué se entiende por "mundo". En fin. Como le dijo escuetamente un taxista a Astroboy esta mañana: “Sí, la vi a la Cris en la ONU por la tele. Huevos de oro la pebeta, eh?”. “Ovarios, más bien”, acotó Astroboy, más apegado a las formalidades de género.  

Título: UNSC Resolution 2178 Unanimously Passed but Obama was Diplomatically Rebuked

Texto: The United Nations Security Council held a high-level meeting on terrorism on September 24, 2014. UN Security Council Resolution 2178, which underscored the need to prevent the travel and funding of foreign terrorists, was unanimously approved and passed by its five permanent and veto-holding members—Britain, China, France, Russia, and the US— and its elected non-permanent members--Argentina , Australia, Chad, Chile, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Nigeria, South Korea, and Rwanda—which have chairs for two-year terms.

The Syrian government hailed the passing of the resolution as verification of its claims about the nature of the anti-government forces that the US, Britain, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon’s perfidious Hariri-led March 14 Alliance have been supporting. Syrian Information Minister Omran Al-Zoubi hailed Resolution 2178 as a political victory for Syria on September 28, 2014.

The September 24 meeting was chaired by the US, which since the start of the month of September received the rotating UN Security Council presidency from Britain. Moreover, US President Barack Obama was personally chairing the situation while US Secretary of State, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, and US National Security Advisor Susan Rice all sat behind him. The resolution had been circulated before the session and approved before opening remarks and statements were made.

Presidente de los EEUU, Barak Obama; Asesora de Seguridad Nacional, Susan Rice (centro), Embajadora a las Naciones Unidas, Samantha Power 

Australia, Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Canada, Chad, Chile, France, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the former Yugoslav Republic (FYR) of Macedonia, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Qatar, Rwanda, South Korea, Turkey, and Trinidad and Tobago were all represented by either their head of state or head of government.  Archbishop Pietro Parolin, Vatican City’s Secretary of State (which is the equivalent of a prime minister) was also present, as was Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the EU’s European Council. Albania, Algeria, China, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Serbia, and New Zealand were represented at the ministerial level while Egypt, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Spain, and the UAE were represented by cabinet advisors, special envoys, and lower ranking representatives. Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar Al-Jaafari was also in attendance.

The UN Security Council Resolution 2178 is described by the US Department of State, in a factsheet it released on the same date (September 24, 2014), as a legally binding document that requires all countries to prevent foreign terrorist fighters from either entering or transiting their territories and to establish domestic laws to prosecute these foreign terrorists domestically.

Ministro de Informaciones de Siria, Omran Al-Zoubi

UN Security Council Resolution 2178, itself, states that the UN Security Council “through the resolution, decided that all States shall ensure that their legal systems provide for the prosecution, as serious criminal offences, of travel for terrorism or related training, as well as the financing or facilitation of such activities.” It goes on to say that it has been decided that all member states of the UN “shall prevent entry or transit through their territories of any individual about whom that State had credible information of their terrorist-related intentions, without prejudice to transit necessary for the furtherance of judicial processes. It called on States to require airlines to provide passenger lists for that purpose.”

Although it is de-contextualized as Argentina, China, and Russia would all stealthily point out in diplomatic terms, the content of UN Security Council Resolution 2178 in principle was sound. Therefore, it got the unanimous support of the entire UN Security Council. In practice, it is a totally different story.

Secretario Genaral de las Naciones Unidas, Ban-ki moon

Liars in High Office: A Pageantry of Dishonesty

Almost the entire meeting about UN Security Council Resolution 2178 was a pageantry of hollow rhetoric and beautiful lies. The room was filled with soulless poets. Most the noble words by the gathering of careerists had no bearing with reality. The biggest state-sponsors of terrorism were in attendance in the chamber presenting themselves as champions of justice and as adversaries of terrorism. Aside from a few comments by countries like Argentina, Russia, and Syria, the entire meeting was almost totally a fiction.

Listening to the session, one could see which countries and governments were truly independent and which countries and governments were proxies and clients of Washington. The US vassals in the chamber all catered to Washington and Obama’s ego. Washington’s vassals took turns to acknowledge Barack Obama’s leadership ad nauseum. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Australia, Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Canada, Jordan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Nigeria, Norway, Qatar, South Korea, and the FYR of Macedonia all thanked Obama for his leadership like subordinates paying homage to their overlord. If Obama did not have to leave before they talked, the representatives of the Netherlands and Morocco would have most probably saluted him for his leadership too like the leaders of Norway and Canada did in his absence. Algeria, Chad, Pakistan, Senegal, and a few other countries also thanked Obama for calling for the high-level UN Security Council meeting, but their tone was not as obsequious as those of countries like Jordan, Qatar, and NATO member Bulgaria.

Washington’s puppets and subordinates all used the same talking points that the US Department of State had been pushing for days. Their statements could have very well have been written for them by the US Department of State. This was very clear in the case of the speech made on behalf of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan by King Abdullah II. Using trademark US Department of State dramatic language, he started by calling what was happening “the fight of our times.” The Jordanian dictator pushed the US points of global reach and—using the latest catchphrase that the US Department of State has taken a shine to— called for “a holistic approach” to fighting the ISIL and other terrorist organizations. Moroccan Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane also called for the same “holistic approach” that King Abdullah II was promoting. These statements were following in John Kerry’s footsteps after he had called for a “holistic global campaign” during an earlier UN Security Council meeting on September 19, 2014.

Abdullah II pushed for absolute submission and capitulation to Washington’s new crusade in his speech. With a ridiculously somber tone, he demanded immediate action and said that “there has to be a zero tolerance policy to any country, organization, or individual that facilitates, supports, or finances terror groups or provides weapons or promotes propaganda, whether through media outlets or misusing religious clerics, that incites and helps recruits fighters to these terrorist groups.” “Countries cannot comply in one theater while making mischief in another,” he added.

While the UN Security Council several made statements about stopping the purchase of stolen oil from Iraq and Syria, one of the key facilitators, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, sat in the room. Like Obama and Cameron, Erdogan pretended that NATO member Turkey had no role in the theft of Iraqi and Syrian resources. Instead, President Erdogan took the opportunity to claim that the Syrian government was behind the creation of the ISIL death squads. The next day, on September 25, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Muallem would state that Turkey had not even stopped training and arming the death squads or stopped them from pass through the Turkish border into Syria.

Erdogan would also call for a no-fly zone in Syria. It would later be reported that this topic was discussed between Erdogan, Obama, and US Vice-President Joseph Biden.

Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani would speak after Erdogan. He too would not flinch throughout the meeting whenever the ISIL death squads and their funding were mentioned. Instead when it was his turn to speak, he pointed his finger at both Syria and Iraq as the sources of the terrorism problem. Ignoring the role that Qatar and its allies have played, the Qatari autocrat blamed both Damascus and Baghdad by saying that Syrian state repression and Iraqi state repression is what created the problems of terrorism.

Gjorge Ivanov, the president of the FYR of Macedonia, used the meeting to advocate for Euro-Atlantic expansion. President Ivanov called for the swift entry of his countries and the entire western portion of the Balkans—meaning Albania, Bosnia, the breakaway Serbian province of Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia—into NATO and the European Union as soon as possible.

When it was Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s turn to talk, he brought up sanctions. The Dutch official used the UN Security Council meeting to emphasize the importance of sanctioning states that do not comply.

Presidenta de la República Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

Argentina Exposes the Dirty Hands at the UN Security Council

Using somewhat of a Socratic approach, Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner questioned the hollowness and double-standards in the room. She did so diplomatically and in a very polite way without mentioning the US directly most the time, but she was clearly challenging the US and revlelaing its dirty hands. Along with the Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar Al-Jaafari, her statements were the harshest and pointed out how Washington was creating international instability and that its campaigns to fight terrorism were really not showing any results and only feeding a cycle of violence. Anything that would indicate the guilt of the US in fueling terrorism and nurturing the ISIL was not included in the UN Department of Information’s text on the meeting.

Once she took the microphone, President Kirchner explained that Buenos Aires saw merits in the UN Security Council Resolution 2178, but said that Argentina had several important questions and hesitations. Her questions were really criticisms of the US, at least partially. She started off by pointing out how in 2013 there was pressure on Argentina from the US Congress when it signed an agreement to cooperate with Iran to address the 1992 and 1994 terrorist attacks inside her country. She explained how Argentine dialogue with Tehran in 2013 was deemed unacceptable and that her country was slandered as a terrorist state, but how it has been okay for Washington itself to talk to the Iranians. After this Kirchner mentioned that Al-Qaeda did not emerge overnight and was trained to fight against Moscow. Then she said that the Arab Spring was spearheaded by the same type of militants that have formed the ISIL, but that these combatants were presented to the world by the US as “freedom fighters” in 2011. Perhaps she was trying to point out how ISIL’s strength and reach has been deliberately exaggerated to justify US intervention, but she then told the entire UN Security Council that Argentina did not take the ISIL threats to kill her seriously.

Kirchner went on to point out how the US has presented one new threat after another. The threat to the world was Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction a decade ago, the threat then became the Iranian nuclear energy program, then it eventually turned into Syria, and it was the ISIL death squads at the current juncture of the UN Security Council’s meeting.

Very important, President Kirchner told Obama that Washington’s methodology and methods for fighting terrorism are not right and that military force is not the answer. She said it defies logic to use the same methods that are constantly failing and making things much worse instead of solving the problem. The US approach to fighting terrorism has only made terrorism proliferate and violence spread. Cristina Kirchner then said that Israel is also a part of the problem, pointing out that the Israeli massacres of civilians has only created anger and militancy in the Middle East. She then reminded the UN Security Council that the government of Syria in 2013 was presented as a great enemy, while the people fighting it were presented as “freedom fighters” by the US. The world, however, became aware and openly admits that those so-called “freedom fighters” are terrorists she added. President Kirchner additionally asked President Obama and the UN Security Council who had armed these groups fighting inside Syria—an answer that everyone in the room knew the answer for—and then asked about the ISIL’s oil revenues and who is providing it with arms…

She concluded that Argentina will help fight global terrorism, but it had to be done in a legal framework and with respect for human rights—all of which were shots at Washington again. Looking at Obama, Kirchner concluded by pointing out that Argentine had a lot of untapped energy, but said she wondered if it was a curse because it seemed to her that all the countries with oil are riddled at problems—this was another hit at the US for its interference in the affairs of energy-rich nations.

It would be Syria that would partially answer some of Cristina Kirchner’s questions. Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar Al-Jaafari would point out that it was several of the member states gathered in the room that were disingenuously denouncing terrorism that in reality were the parties financially, technically, and diplomatically supporting the terrorists and death squads inside his country. He also pointed out how the Israeli ally of some of the US had downed a Syrian jet that was on a mission against the same terrorist forces that they claimed to be fighting.

Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de la Federación Rusa, Sergei Lavrov 

Russia and China Diplomatically Point the Finger at the US

Although Russia and China approved UN Security Council Resolution 2178, they have very different agendas and made it clear that a global campaign on terrorism has to be led by the United Nations and the UN Security Council and not by the US government and Pentagon.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called for an end to double-standards. Lavrov also called for an end to the illegal oil trade of stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil and an end to the dissemination of weapons from post-Jamahiriya Libya. The Russian official called for a UN forum to be convened for the task of honestly analyzing how terrorism has proliferated in North Africa and the Middle East. He pointed out to the NATO bombing of Libya and the support that some of the members of the UN provided for the anti-government fighters in Syria.

Sergey Lavrov’s point was simple. Russia was asking for the United Nations to look at the roots of terrorism and not just to respond to their symptoms by fighting terrorist groups militarily after they emerge as threats. Foreign Minister Lavrov was asking the UN Security Council to examine how the ISIL was created. In other words, he wanted the UN to acknowledge the role of the US and its allies in creating the death squads and terrorist movements ravaging Iraq and Syria.

Like his Russian counterpart, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called for also looking at the root causes of terrorism. Foreign Minister Yi emphasized that the United Nations and the UN Security Council had to coordinate the “global war on terror.” Although he did not state it explicitly, what Yi meant was that Washington should not call the shots, because it would misuse the campaign for its own interests.

Taking a diplomatic jab at Washington like his Russian counterpart did before him; Wang Yi called for consistency and an end to double-standards. China’s position was that international law and norms must be followed.

Who is a terrorist and who is not? Like so many international agreements and documents, such as the Geneva Communiqué concerning Syria (which was created on June 30, 2012), there will be different interpretations of Resolution 2178. The US and other members of the UN will use it to suit their own interests. There are universal and categorical definitions of what foreign terrorist fighters are. For example, Washington could use it designate Hezbollah fighters in Syria as foreign terrorist fighters while Russia and China will use it contest support for the militant separatists in the North Caucasus and East Turkistan.

The Beginning of a New Phase in the post-9/11 Inquisition?

South Korean president Park Geun-hye—the daughter of South Korean dictator, military strongman, and US puppet Park Chung-hee—stated that the US and its allies need to go after “cyber and nuclear terrorism” when it was her turn to address the UN Security Council. She advocated for tighter controls over the internet as a means of fighting terrorism. Prime Minister David Cameron also said that websites must be controlled, blocked, and removed. There was what appeared to be a general call for policing social media in the chamber for combating terrorism.

Rehashing the main points and entire sections of his speech to the UN General Assembly from two days earlier, on September 22, Cameron said that those he described as preachers of hate needed to be dealt with firmly. He clarified that this included “non-violent” people who believed that Muslims were being persecuted and said that the roots of the problems included the worldviews that the tragic events of 9/11 and the London 7/7 attacks were staged. Schools and universities would need to be cleared of groups and individuals that had these views.

David Cameron declared that a new security regime was being put into place in Britain to seize passports, force restraints of movement on people evaluated as risk, and even keep citizens from returning to their own homelands. Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper also said that Canada was doing the same thing and revoking citizenships.

Not only are the steps that Prime Minister Cameron and Prime Minister Harper presented unconstitutional in their own countries, they will be used by self-declared democracies to hold their own citizens in undisclosed conditions or indefinite detention and imprisonment once they have their citizenships removed. Citizenships will be removed to evade and get around the legally guaranteed rights of citizens for due justice—non-citizens are not treated equally under the law. The revoking of citizenships can also be used to push dissidents opposing and challenging government policies.

The so-called defenders of “freedom of speech” are also opening the door for more intrusive censorships, especially when Cameron advocates for going after individuals that believe that the US and British governments are involved in the murder of their own citizens. Moreover, David Cameron advocated for the removal of the beheading videos being uploaded onto the internet by the ISIL.

Cameron’s demands were made purportedly, because of the violent nature of these videos. For many years, videos of this nature have been uploaded onto the internet and it has never been questioned by either the US or Britain or many of their allies? Why now, after all these years? Could it be because enough people are asking embarrassing questions about the videos and the circumstances behind them? This is why a campaign had started earlier in the US to prevent US citizens from watching the videos. The Times even conceded on August 25, 2014 in an article by Deborah Haynes that the video of James Foley was staged by writing it “was probably staged, with the actual murder taking place off-camera, according to forensic analysis.”

Believe or think otherwise that the beheading of Foley, which was seen on the video, was not his actual death, the point is that there is more to the demands for this type of censorship. Nothing was demanded when Nicholas Berg was executed in 2004 or after years of videos being posted of hundreds of Syrians being beheaded.

What is happening is a new phase of the inquisition or inquisitorial mentality that emerged after the tragic events of September 11, 2001 (9/11). No one is allowed to question the legitimacy of the witch hunts and increasing control over movement and lives that is being done in the name of fighting terrorism and security. “Fear and insecurity prevail over common sense,” is the way that Michel Chossudovsky fittingly describes the inquisitorial process.

Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de la República Popular China, Wang Yi

While the whole structure of this post-9/11 inquisition is based on warped narratives and lies, everyone has to pay lip service to the same lies; everyone is forced to work within the boundaries of the consensus and boundaries drawn by the inquisition. This is exactly what happened on September 24, 2014 at the UN Security Council. The gathered world leaders paid lip service to fight against terrorism without addressing those really behind it and supporting the death squads, which is why the meeting was truly a pageantry of lies and disregard. Even those that are opposed to US foreign policy were forced to criticize and challenge Washington within the framework of the consensus, never directly pointing the finger at it for being the author of the instability and death squads in Iraq and Syria.

Hypocrisy prevails in the United Nations and inside the UN Security Council. Only Argentina, China, Russia, and Syria raised their voices to challenge the false record being created to carry on the global inquisition. Buenos Aires, Beijing, and Moscow, however, all had to, more or less, challenge the US within the framework of the consensus that Washington was navigating and heavily influencing. While Syria was more open in its criticism, President Kirchner, Foreign Minister Lavrov, and Foreign Minister Ye were more subtleand diplomatic.

lunes, 29 de septiembre de 2014


La siguiente entrevista al líder prorruso Igor Bezler (foto), de las fuerzas Armadas de Nueva Rusia, ofrece una vívida pincelada de lo que debe ser el ánimo de muchos en la región del Donbass (Donetsk + Luhansk) en estos días. Originalmente pulicada en el sitio web del bloguero ruso que se dio a conocer como “Coronel Cassad”, la versión española de la misma, realizada por Luis López, apareció hoy en el sitio Vamos entonces a la entrevista:

Título: Bezler: “No tomo prisioneros nazis”

Epígrafe: Entrevista con el comandante de la defensa de Gorlovka, General Bezler, distintivo de llamada “Bes” (que significa “Demonio” en Ruso).


¿Por qué Bes?
- Mi apodo desde niño. Quizás por ser travieso.

Strelkov  fue a Slavyanks, el nombre de la ciudad es en sí simbólico, llamada así por Caterina la Grande. Usted vino a Gorlovka. ¿Por qué Gorlovka?
- Me gusta la ciudad, es hermosa.

Es buscado en Ucrania como un saboteador de la Dirección de Inteligencia de Rusia. El servicio de seguridad de Ucrania lo considera el criminal de estado más peligroso acusado de no solo el desarme de las unidades militares en Crimea, los servicios de seguridad y la policía, pero también del establecimiento de una red de agentes. ¿Es esto cierto?
- Crimea me reconoció una medalla y una cruz: Crimea, no Rusia. No desarme unidades militares —ellos mismo abrieron las puertas porque estaban cansados de la independencia amarilla-azul, o más bien, la anarquía oligarca-gangster. Fuimos muy amables, el resultado de una buena crianza. Voy a dejar el resto sin comentar.

¿Les llega la ayuda humanitaria?
- No siempre, ahora esta mejorando.

¿Como va a lidiar con el invierno? Uno no solo vive de ayuda humanitaria.
No voy a adivinar, soy realista. Ucrania esta esperando por limosnas de Occidente, nada se sembró, por lo tanto, no hay nada que cosechar. Con morteros y bombas Kiev destruyó la Donbass que alimenta el país, quemó sus campos, asesinó sus residente o los expulsó de su nativa tierra Rusa solo porque ellos eran Rusos quienes no querían practicar dogmas uniatas y no querían ser esclavos de los Polacos y los Alemanes —Ellos tienen una mentalidad diferente. En el nivel sacro no somos tan obedientes como los Ucranianos Occidentales. El equipo de manufactura de las plantas de Kharkov y Zaporozhye ha sido transportado a las regiones occidentales deteniendo la producción. La maquinaria debe estar trabajando, de otra forma es solo chatarra, idiotas! Nadie detuvo la guerra y las putas serviles de los EE.UU, no ucranianas de sangre, que tomaron el poder, van a luchar hasta el último Ucraniano! Todo funciona en nuestras ciudades: minas, fábricas , infraestructura, guarderías para niños, escuelas, farmacias, excepto las que producen anfetaminas. Combatimos las drogas, crimen y corrupción. Pero Gorlovka no es todo Donbass. Será duro, pero somos Rusos, nos mantendremos, mientras el resto de Ucrania sufrirá, esto es realmente un hecho.

Usted es un militar, por tanto, con pensamiento sistémico. Pero una sola persona no puede con una ciudad enorme, especialmente mientras se toman decisiones militares, los expertos de la industria se necesitan.
Ellos están presentes. Mantuvimos el personal existente, solo los destetamos de recibir sobornos y robar — resultaron ser buenos estudiantes. El señor Klep se mantuvo como alcalde con derechos de firma y sello. Estoy cuidando de él (Nota del autor: Él está bajo custodia) — rapado, vestido a la moda de nuestros tiempos, el entona el himno de la Unión Soviética en la mañana, se levanta a las 6 y va a la cama a las 22:30. Está siendo limpiado moralmente — no esta robando, no recibe sobornos, le retorna a la gente lo que ha robado y esta construyendo carreteras. Lo seguirá haciendo hasta que se reeducado. Debe aprender por sí mismo lo que significa vivir por sus propios medios. Se convirtió en un patriota —ordenó colocar banderas Rusas por toda la ciudad, dejar todos los ingresos internos, para mantener los sueldos de la milicia en las compañías donde solían trabajar. Nuestro alcalde se preocupa.

¿Cómo evalúa a las autoridades actuales en Kiev?
¿Cómo evalúas a los traidores? Ellos tendrán sus Juicios de Nuremberg. Me arrepiento solo de haberle dado dos bofetadas a Petr Poroshenko mientras lo sacaba del edificio del Consejo Supremo a la estación del tren en Simferopol. Ellos solo saben robar y dividir, es su crianza gangster. Se les enseñó desde la infancia — mira su biografía. Viciados e inadecuados, con la mentalidad de pequeños especuladores, no pueden ser hombres de estado, y punto.

Las autoridades en Kiev martillan en la cabeza de la gente que esta es una guerra patriótica Ucraniana en la cual están combatiendo una agresión Rusa. ¿A quien estás combatiendo?
Nosotros luchamos contra fascistas. Estamos luchando contra la oligarquía financiera global e industrial, para la cual Ucrania es solo un medio para conseguir su principal objetivo — destruir Rusia, Rusos y Eslavos.  El plan consiste en hacer enfrentar Eslavos unos contra otros, de tal manera que se destruyan a sí mismos. Si caemos, todas las naciones estarán de rodillas, porque ninguna nación, o pueblo pueden resistirse excepto Rusia. Durante el golpe de estado, con el himno de la Alemania fascista de fondo, la multitud mató y mutiló miembros del Berkut, Ucranianos que se mantuvieron fieles a su juramento. ¿Quienes llegaron al poder? Los cómplices de Yanukovych saqueando el país, cómplices de Kravchuk, Kuchma y Yushchenko — solo se diferencian en la escala de robo. Las personas con los cerebros lavados cantan ante sus maestros —”Rusia invadió”. Si Rusia envía solo una división, al día siguiente sus tropas estarán en Lvov. Mas precisamente, en la antigua ciudad de Lemberg. Los banderosos de hoy necesitan entender esto.También, no deben olvidar que nosotros recordamos la masacre de Volhynia de Polacos, tiroteos a judíos y las cámaras de Gas, Khatyn y muchas otras donde sus padres y abuelos mancharon sus manos de sangre. Todas esas generaciones envenenadas con el odio de todo Bandera. Mercenarios están luchando contra nosotros —Americanos, Anglosajones, Árabes, Suizos — todo tipo de basura. ¿Quieren nuestra tierra? Bueno, esta los tomará y los enterrara entonces, no hay elección.

¿Tiene Ucranianos en sus unidades?
Casi toda mi gente es local, no los clasifico en Ucranianos, Rusos, Chechenos, Armenios, Judíos y así sucesivamente. Todos son igual de importantes para mí, luchando contra los descendientes de los Nazi. No fuimos nosotros quienes vinimos a Rovno, Zhytomyr a matar, robar y violar, destruir casas, quemar campos, incendiar plantas. En su crueldad ellos eclipsaron a los Nazi durante la ocupación de Donbass. Incluso no fueron los Alemanes quienes cometieron esas atrocidades, fueron los nacionalistas Ucranianos quienes sirvieron en la policía y los Sonderkommandos.

¿Hay extranjeros en la milicia?
Por supuesto que hay, ellos luchan junto a nosotros hombro a hombro: los Serbios, los Españoles, los Franceses y los Alemanes, quienes genuinamente odian el fascismo y la actual hegemonía de los Estados Unidos. Esas son personas de conciencia que aún existen en Europa. Una vez detuvimos a un Alemán en un puesto de control, me lo trajeron. “¿Quien es Usted? ¿A donde va? ¿Por que?” El contesto que vino por su esposa, quien está en Lugansk, y su amado gato. Claramente el gato es importante,así que vino. El mira mi rifle de asalto, saca 40.000 euros de su bolsillo y me pide que se lo venda. El dice “esto es todo lo que tengo, te lo daré todo por el rifle, quiero combatir fascistas”. Al mismo tiempo llega una llamada desde la oficina de Merkel. Uno de sus asesores grita histéricamente que hemos capturado a un ciudadano Alemán y demanda su liberación inmediata. Yo le digo: “Yo lo haría, pero él no quiere eso”. “¿Que quiere?” el que llama pregunta. “El quiere unirse a la milicia”, le respondo. Sigue un silencio eterno y una voz calmada pregunta: “¿Lo puedo escuchar de él?” “No hay problema”, le digo, dándole el teléfono al Alemán. El Alemán va: “Soy un sargento de las fuerzas de defensa, un comandante de la tripulación de tanque Leopard 2 solicitando me de 3 tanques, entonces, en dos días estaré en Kiev”. En respuesta pitidos cortos y no más llamadas. Le di el rifle al Alemán como un regalo por su discurso. El esta ahora en la milicia, es un excelente soldado, solo que Frau Merkel no le envió tanques.

¿Tienen grandes bajas?
Para mi cada “doscientos” es una pérdida de un ser querido, incluso si no lo conoces personalmente. Pero, esta es una guerra y cualquier cosa puede pasar. En cuanto a estadísticas, nuestras bajas son diez veces menores que las Ucranianas. Acabamos con casi todos los aviones y vehículos armados del Ejército Ucraniano, tienen miles de muertos y heridos, a quienes las autoridades declaran desertores para evitar el pago a los familiares. Solo nuestro batallón especial no ha sufrido pérdidas, tiene reabastecimiento constante.

¿Cuál batallón?

¿Cuantos? ¿Que les ha pasado?
Suficientes. En general solo mantenemos a los oficiales —para intercambio de prisioneros. Reclutas y soldados son regresados a sus familiares o transferidos al centro regional. No tomo prisioneros nazis — no hay tiempo para reeducar bestias ideológicas. Ellos no son tímidos cuando lidian con nosotros, ¿Por qué debemos ser nobles con ellos? Ellos vienen a nosotros con una espada, y por una espada han de perecer, nosotros seguimos el mandato de Alexander Nevsky.

¿Como se ven a las autoridades de Kiev en los intercambios de prisioneros?
Kiev no los necesita del todo. Siempre lo encuentra bastante desagradable. Nosotros acordamos intercambiar a Olga Kulygina, Ph.D en Biología, capturada por las fuerzas Ucranianas como una saboteadora, en las oficinas de los Servicios de Seguridad Ucranianos, pero a último momento Kiev cambio de parecer. Ellos pueden crear tantos coroneles como quieran, pero Olga tiene más valor. Es bueno que ellos intercambien muchos de los suyos por uno de los nuestros. De todas maneras intercambiamos a Olga, por 17(!) oficiales y un ciudadano Georgiano. Ellos siempre intercambian los nuestros sobre tres, cuatro o más de los suyos — los nuestros valen varias veces mas y estamos muy orgullosos. La impresión general es que Kiev solo quiere soldados muertos, porque ellos tendrán más problemas con esos que aún están vivos cuando vengan las primeras heladas.


No desesperen, chicos. Empieza a llegar la Glasnost a Occidente. Falta la Perestroika, aunque presumimos que es lo que sigue. Leemos en Russia Today en español:

Título: Experiodista alemán: los medios de Alemania están comprados por EE.UU. y la OTAN

Epígrafe: El nuevo libro de Udo Ulfkotte, un experiodista alemán con 17 años de experiencia, revela la práctica extendida de los pagos a los medios alemanes por parte de EE.UU. y la OTAN para promover su agenda, y se ha convertido en un éxito de ventas.

Texto: La obra de Ulfkotte, llamada 'Gekaufte Journalisten' ('Periodistas comprados'), ofrece una multitud de casos, nombres y ejemplos de manipulación de la opinión pública alemana orquestada por la Embajada de EE.UU. en Alemania y varias entidades internacionales. 

El autor muestra un alto nivel de autocrítica, ya que admite haber recibido dinero de los servicios de inteligencia de EE.UU. por enfocar varios temas desde un cierto punto de vista. Así, algunos medios alemanes no son más que sucursales del servicio de propaganda de la OTAN, afirma el experiodista.

Para los que creen en la libertad de los medios alemanes será un choque

"Mucha gente que no sabe mucho sobre cómo funciona el periodismo en Alemania o en Occidente en general se sorprenderá. Para los que todavía creen en la independencia y la libertad de nuestros medios leer este libro, sin duda alguna, será un choque", comenta a RT el redactor jefe del periódico alemán 'Zuerst', Manuel Ochsenreiter. 

Ahora 'Periodistas comprados' es un éxito de ventas en Alemania, ya que mucha gente está interesada en el estado del periodismo alemán por las tensiones vigentes sobre todo entre Rusia y la UE. Como afirma un comentario sobre el libro, esto sería porque "la diversidad de opiniones solo es simulada: a veces las 'noticias' [en Alemania] son un puro lavado cerebral".

domingo, 28 de septiembre de 2014

Funciones del Emirato

Interesante artículo de Thierry Meyssan del día de hoy:

Título: ¿Quiénes son los miembros del «Emirato Islámico»?

Texto: Mientras la opinión pública occidental trata de nadar en un verdadero océano de información sobre la formación de una supuesta coalición internacional para la lucha contra el «Emirato Islámico», es este último el que va cambiando discretamente de forma. Sus principales jefes ya no son árabes sino georgianos y chinos. Para Thierry Meyssan, esta mutación demuestra que el objetivo a largo plazo de la OTAN es utilizar el «Emirato Islámico» en Rusia y China. Es por eso que esos dos países están obligados a intervenir desde ahora en contra de los yihadistas, antes de que estos vuelvan para sembrar el caos en sus países de origen.

El «Emirato Islámico» comenzó haciendo ostentación de su origen árabe. Esta organización surgió de «al-Qaeda en Irak», que no luchaba contra los invasores estadounidenses sino contra los chiitas iraquíes. Luego se convirtió en «Emirato Islámico en Irak» y posteriormente en «Emirato Islámico en Irak y el Levante» (EIIL). En octubre de 2007, las fuerzas terrestres de Estados Unidos ocuparon en Sinjar al menos 606 fichas de miembros extranjeros de esa organización, fichas que fueron cuidadosamente analizadas por expertos de la Academia Militar estadounidense de West Point.

Sin embargo, días después de la ocupación de la fichas, el emir al-Baghdadi declaró que su organización contaba solamente con 200 combatientes y que todos eran iraquíes. Esa mentira es comparable a las de las demás organizaciones terroristas que operan en Siria y que declaran que entre sus miembros sólo hay «algunos extranjeros», cuando el Ejército Árabe Sirio estima en al menos 250 000 el número de yihadistas extranjeros que han pasado por Siria en los 3 últimos años. En todo caso, el califa Ibrahim (nuevo nombre del emir al-Baghdadi) ahora reconoce que su organización se compone ampliamente de extranjeros y agrega que el territorio sirio ya no es para los sirios sino para “sus” yihadistas.

Según las fichas ocupadas en Sinjar, un 41% de los terroristas extranjeros miembros del «Emirato Islámico en Irak» ostentaban la nacionalidad saudita, un 18,8% eran libios y solamente un 8,2% eran sirios. Si relacionamos esas cifras con la población de cada uno de los países mencionados veremos que la población libia ha proporcionado 2 veces más combatientes que la de Arabia Saudita y 5 veces más que la de Siria.

En cuanto a los yihadistas sirios, aunque son originarios de diversas regiones de Siria, el 34,3% venían de Deir ez-Zor, ciudad que desde que el «Emirato Islámico» tuvo que retirarse de Raqqa, se convirtió en capital del Califato.

En Siria, la particularidad de Deir ez-Zor es que su población se compone mayoritariamente de árabes sunnitas organizados en tribus y de una minoría de kurdos y armenios. Y, hasta ahora, Estados Unidos sólo ha logrado destruir Estados como los de Afganistán, Irak y Libia, o sea en países cuya población está organizada en tribus. Pero ha fracasado en todos los demás países. Desde ese punto de vista, Deir ez-Zor en particular y el noreste de Siria en general pudieran ser potencialmente conquistados. Pero no sucede lo mismo con el resto de la República Árabe Siria, como ya se ve desde hace 3 años.

Bajo el nombre de Abu Omar al-Shishani, un sargento de la inteligencia militar georgiana, cuyo verdadero nombre es Tarkhan Batirashvili, se ha convertido en uno de los principales jefes del «Emirato Islámico».

Desde hace dos semanas, se ha iniciado una purga entre los oficiales provenientes del Magreb. Los tunecinos que tomaron el aeropuerto militar de Raqqa, el 25 de agosto de 2014, fueron arrestados por desobediencia, juzgados y ejecutados por orden de sus superiores. El «Emirato Islámico» tiene intenciones de restar protagonismo a sus combatientes árabes y promover a los chechenos amablemente puestos a su disposición por los servicios secretos georgianos.

En el centro de la foto, Abu Anisah al-Khazakhi, el primer yihadista chino del «Emirato Islámico» muerto en combate, no era uigur sino kazajo.

Y ahora aparece un nuevo tipo de yihadistas: los yihadistas chinos. Desde junio de 2014, Estados Unidos y Turquía han introducido en el noreste de Siria cientos de yihadistas chinos traídos incluso con sus familias. Algunos se convierten de inmediato en oficiales. Se trata principalmente de miembros de la etnia uigur, o sea chinos de la República Popular China pero musulmanes sunnitas turcófonos.

Es por lo tanto evidente que, a largo plazo, el «Emirato Islámico» extenderá sus actividades a Rusia y China y que esos dos países son los blancos finales de sus acciones.

Así que seguramente seremos testigos de una nueva operación de propaganda de la OTAN: su aviación empujará a los yihadistas fuera de Irak pero los dejará instalarse en Deir ez-Zor. La CIA proporcionará dinero, armas, municiones y datos de inteligencia a los «revolucionarios moderados» (sic) del Ejército Sirio Libre (ESL), quienes cambiarán entonces de casaca para ser utilizados bajo la bandera del «Emirato Islámico», como ha venido sucediendo desde mayo de 2013.

John McCain se reúne con el estado mayor del Ejército Sirio Libre. Durante el encuentro conversa precisamente con Ibrahim al-Badri, el hoy autoproclamado califa Ibrahim. El hombre con gafas que aparece en la foto es el general Salim Idris.

En aquel momento, el senador estadounidense John McCain penetró ilegalmente en territorio sirio, donde se reunió con el estado mayor del ESL. Según puede verse en la foto tomada como prueba del encuentro, entre los miembros del estado mayor del Ejército Sirio Libre estaba en aquel momento un tal Abu Yussef, oficialmente buscado por el Departamento de Estado estadounidense bajo el nombre de Abu Du’a, quien en realidad no era otro que el actual califa Ibrahim. O sea, el mismo individuo era al mismo tiempo jefe moderado en el ESL y jefe extremista en el «Emirato Islámico».

Ya en posesión de esta información, cada cual podrá apreciar el verdadero valor del documento que el embajador sirio Bachar al-Jaafari presentó al Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU el 14 de julio de 2014. Se trata de una carta del 17 de enero de 2014 en la que el general Salim Idriss, comandante en jefe del ESL, escribe lo siguiente:

«Le informo por medio de la presente que las municiones enviadas por el estado mayor a los dirigentes de los consejos militares revolucionarios de la región este deben ser distribuidas, conforme a lo convenido, entregando 2 tercios a los jefes de guerra del Frente al-Nusra, y que el tercio restante se repartirá entre los militares y los elementos revolucionarios para la lucha contra las bandas del EIIL. Le agradeceremos que nos envíe los comprobantes de la entrega del conjunto de municiones, precisando las cantidades y características, debidamente firmados personalmente por los dirigentes y jefes de guerra, para que podamos transmitirlos a los socios turcos y franceses.»

En otras palabras, dos potencias miembros de la OTAN (Turquía y Francia) enviaron volúmenes de municiones y especificaban que dos tercios eran para el Frente al-Nusra (clasificado como miembro de al-Qaeda por el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU) y que el otro tercio era para que el Ejército Sirio Libre luchara contra el «Emirato Islámico»… cuyo jefe era miembro del estado mayor del propio Ejército Sirio Libre.

La realidad es otra: el Ejército Sirio Libre desapareció del terreno y en realidad dos tercios de las municiones estaban destinadas a al-Qaeda mientras que el otro tercio era para el «Emirato Islámico».

Gracias a ese dispositivo, que podríamos llamar de “casaca reversible”, la OTAN podrá seguir lanzando contra Siria sus hordas de yihadistas mientras sigue afirmando que lucha contra ellos.

Pero cuando la OTAN haya extendido el caos a todo el mundo árabe, incluso en el territorio de su aliado saudita, enfilará el «Emirato Islámico» contra las dos grandes potencias en desarrollo, que son Rusia y China. Es por eso que esas dos potencias deberían intervenir desde ahora y acabar con el embrión de ejército privado que la OTAN está reuniendo y entrenando en el mundo árabe. De no hacerlo ahora, Moscú y Pekín pronto tendrán que enfrentarse a ese ejército de todas maneras… pero será en suelo ruso y chino.


Conmueve leer el texto que sigue. Fue posteado por “Nahiasanzo” para el sitio web Slaviangrad (, cuyo lema es, ya lo hemos dicho, una frase de Vyacheslav Molotov: “Nuestra ira no tiene límites”. El artículo original es de Dmitry Sokolov-Mitrich, y la traducción de Carlos Ramírez Powell. Quién lo escribe? Un ruso, claro.

Título: La Rusia que perdieron

Texto: Amábamos a América. Lo recuerdo, la amábamos. Cuando éramos adolescentes, creciendo a principios de los años noventa; la mayoría de mis amigos de la misma edad ni siquiera nos cuestionábamos nuestra actitud a la civilización occidental. Era grandiosa, ¿Como podía ser de otro modo?

A diferencia de nuestros abuelos, e incluso nuestros padres, no pensábamos que el derrumbe de la URSS -La “Mas grande catástrofe del siglo XX”- como un desastre. Para nosotros era el principio de una larga travesía. Finalmente saldríamos del cascarón soviético a conocer el mundo- Sin límites y “Cool”. Finalmente podríamos saciar nuestra sed de estímulos sensoriales. Habíamos nacido, tal vez no en el lugar apropiado pero sí en el momento oportuno -O por lo menos eso pensábamos. Es difícil de creer ahora pero incluso la Iglesia Ortodoxa emergiendo de la supervisión comunista era para nosotros equivalente al triunfo de los valores liberales occidentales. La celebración del milésimo aniversario del bautismo de Rusia y el primer concierto de los Scorpions en Moscú con tour “Vientos de cambio” era, para nosotros, parte del mismo proceso.

La guerra en Iraq e incluso la fragmentación de Yugoslavia en su mayor parte nos pasó desapercibida de alguna manera. Y no era solo que fuésemos jóvenes y despreocupados. Yo, por ejemplo ya había sido entrenado en el “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, en el Departamento Internacional. Estaba monitoreando la fuente informativa Reuters en Inglés que venía repleta de Izetbegovic, Karadzic y Mladic, pero de alguna manera no me tomaba estos acontecimientos seriamente. Sucedían en algún lugar remoto, y no en nuestra área. Y, por supuesto, la guerra en los Balcanes no encajaba en ninguna narrativa anti-occidental desde mi perspectiva. Los croatas mataban serbios, los bosnios mataban serbios y los serbios mataban a ambos. -¿Por qué culpar a América de esto?

En 1990 votamos por los demócratas “Yakoblo”, Fuimos a las barricadas de la Casa Blanca del lado de las fuerzas democráticas, mirábamos al recién nacido “CANAL” y escuchábamos a la radio “Eco de Moscú”. Mis primeros artículos periodísticos siempre usaban el término: “Mundo civilizado” y creíamos firmemente que verdaderamente era civilizado. Para mediados de los años noventa aparecieron los primeros Euro-escépticos en nuestras filas, Pero estaban más bien en la categoría de Abogados del Diablo.  Yo personalmente compartía el cuarto con Pedro el comunista y Arseniy el monárquico. Mis vecinos en el dormitorio me despedían todas las noches con la conseja: Adiós, regresa a tu manicomio”.

El primer golpe severo a nuestra orientación pro-occidental en la vida fueron los acontecimientos de Kosovo. Fue un shock; nuestros lentes color de rosa se hicieron añicos. El bombardeo de Belgrado fue, para mi generación, lo que el ataque de las torres gemelas del  once de septiembre fue para los americanos. Nuestra visión del mundo giró 180º a la par del avión del primer  ministro Yevgeny Primakov que en ese momento volaba sobre el Atlántico rumbo a Estados Unidos y que al enterarse del inicio de la agresión dio la orden de regresar a Rusia.

En eso días no había propaganda masiva del Estado. Los listos conductores liberales de la NTV  repetían explicaciones de que bombardear una ciudad europea era un poco exagerado, por supuesto, pero que Milosevic era el más gran bastardo en la Historia reciente, Así que se lo merecía, no era un asunto mayor. El programa satírico televisivo “Muñecos”  describía los acontecimientos como un buen pleito de barrio donde un vecino borracho atormentaba a “Miss Kosovo” y nadie en la casa podía ayudarla excepto su amante de torso poderoso y cara de Bill Clinton. Mirábamos, pero ya no creíamos. Ya no era chistoso. Yugoslavia fue una demostración de lo que nos podía pasar en un futuro relativamente cercano.

Luego viene Irak, Afganistán, La separación final de Kosovo, la “Primavera Árabe”, Libia, Siria -Todo esto era sorprendente, pero ya no nos estremecía. Se habían perdido las ilusiones: Nos quedaba más o menos claro lo que era el Occidente. Pero a pesar de eso, después de todo, vivíamos en el mismo planeta… El mito del “Malvado americano, buen europeo” permanecía; los miedos inducidos por Kosovo  se fueron desvaneciendo. El compromiso iba más o menos en el siguiente tenor: Si, ser los mejores amigos con estos tipos es imposible, pero tenemos que trabajar juntos. Después de todo, ¿Con quién más vamos a trabajar?

El desfile de las “revoluciones de color” parecían ser travesuras menores hasta el final. Pero el EuroMaidan y la guerra civil que le siguió puso en claro que: “El proceso democrático” desprovisto  de reglas y procedimientos y lanzado en territorio enemigo -no era un juguete geopolítico sino una verdadera arma de destrucción masiva. Es el único tipo de arma que puede ser utilizado en contra de un Estado poseedor de armas nucleares. Todo es muy sencillo: cuando aprietas un botón y lanzas un misil nuclear a cruzar el océano, con seguridad recibirás uno idéntico de regreso. Pero cuando lanzas una reacción en cadena de caos en territorio enemigo, no se te puede echar la culpa. ¿Agresión? ¿De qué agresión hablas? ¡Este es un proceso democrático! ¡El eterno deseo del pueblo por la libertad!

Vemos la sangre y los crímenes de guerra, los cadáveres de mujeres y niños, todo un país deslizándose a los años cuarenta del siglo veinte. -Y el mundo occidental, que amábamos tanto, nos asegura que nada de esto está pasando. La Misma cultura que nos dio a Jim Morrison, Mark Knopfler, y los Beatles, no lo ve. Los descendientes de Woodstock, Incluso los que ahí estuvieron; los hippies entrados en años que en su momento cantaron “All you need is love” tantas veces, no lo ven. Incluso los considerados alemanes de la generación de la posguerra, que intentaron con tanto ahínco hacer penitencia por los pecados de sus padres, no lo ven.

Fue un shock más fuerte que el de Kosovo. Para mí y muchos miles de rusos de edad madura, que venimos al mundo con el sueño americano en nuestras cabezas, el mito del “Mundo civilizado”. Se colapsó completamente. El horror ensordece. Ya no hay más “Mundo civilizado”. Y no solo es que se esfumaron los ideales de juventud, sino que es una seria amenaza. La humanidad ha perdido sus valores, se ha convertido en una horda de predadores, y una  gran guerra es solo cuestión de tiempo.

Hace veinte años no fuimos derrotados. Nos rendimos. No perdimos en el campo militar, sino culturalmente. Auténticamente solo queríamos ser como ellos. El Rock-n-roll logró mucho más que todas las bombas nucleares. Hollywood era mucho más fuerte que las amenazas y los ultimatums. El rugido de las Harley Davidsons durante la guerra fría era mucho más estruendoso que el de los aviones cazas y los bombarderos.

¡América, Que tonta fuiste! Todo lo que tenías que hacer era esperar veinte años  -Y  hubiéramos sido tuyos para siempre. Veinte años de vegetarianismo – y nuestros políticos te habrían regalado  las ojivas nucleares; incluso estrechando tus manos con gratitud por aceptarlas. ¡Que bendición resultó ser el que fueses tan insensata, América!

¡Ni siquiera nos conoces! Le gritábamos al Kremlin estas consignas entre otras, al Kremlin hace solo dos años. Desde entonces, gracias a ti América, El número de aquellos que quieren ir a las plazas ha caído dramáticamente. Parlotean sinrazones de nosotros, piensan tonterías de nosotros, piensan tonterías de nosotros; y como resultado de ello, cometen error tras error. Alguna vez fuiste un país ‘cool’, América. Tu superioridad moral se ciñó sobre Europa después de la primera guerra mundial y se reforzó después de la segunda. Sí, tuviste tu Hiroshima, tu Vietnam, el KKK y el closet lleno de esqueletos, como cualquier imperio. Pero por un tiempo toda esa mierda no llegó a esa masa crítica que convierte  al vino en vinagre. Le mostraste al mundo como vivir por el valor de la creatividad y la libertad artística. Hiciste de lugares maravillas económicas: Alemania, Japón, Corea del Sur y Singapur. Pero has cambiado mucho desde entonces.  Hace tiempo que no escribes canciones que hagan eco en el mundo. Despilfarras tu principal bien -la superioridad moral. Y ese bien tiene una característica muy nefasta: no puede ser restaurada.

Comienzas a morir lentamente, América. Y si crees que me alegro de ello -Te equivocas. Un gran cambio de época siempre viene acompañado de mucha sangre, y no me gusta la sangre. Incluso nosotros, el pueblo que vivimos el ocaso de nuestro imperio, podríamos explicarte lo que estás haciendo mal. Pero no te lo vamos a decir. Averígualo por tu cuenta.

sábado, 27 de septiembre de 2014


Desorden en El Cairo, Egipto, Agosto de 2013

No queda claro qué cosa es peor en este artículo de Ian Bremmer reproducido hoy en El País: si el desorden mundial, el desorden mental de Kissinger al comentar el desorden mundial, o el desorden mental de Bremmer al intentar buscar orden donde no lo hay. En fin, pasen y vean; acá va.

Título: Hacia un nuevo desorden mundial

Epígrafe: Henry Kissinger sostiene que el deterioro del liderazgo de Estados Unidos dividirá el planeta en esferas regionales de influencia. Pero falta saber cómo evolucionará China y cuál será el papel de India y Alemania

Texto: En su nuevo libro, el exsecretario de Estado Henry Kissinger afirma que “el caos amenaza” el orden mundial “junto a una interdependencia sin precedentes” entre países. Tiene toda la razón. La globalización de la economía mundial ha ido acompañada de amenazas que traspasan las fronteras: “La propagación de las armas de destrucción masiva, la desintegración de Estados, las consecuencias de la destrucción medioambiental, la persistencia de conductas genocidas y la difusión de las nuevas tecnologías”. Sin embargo, al tiempo que la prosperidad y los problemas mundiales están cada vez más entrelazados, aumentan también los conflictos geopolíticos entre naciones-estado tradicionales.

El principal motor de toda esa volatilidad es el deterioro del orden mundial encabezado por Estados Unidos, lo que llamo el G-cero, la idea de que vivimos un vacío de poder creciente en el mundo, sin que ningún país ni grupo de países pueda llenarlo a corto plazo. Estados Unidos tiene cada vez menos voluntad y menos poder de influencia, precisamente cuando más importante es un liderazgo internacional. Ya no tiene la excepcional capacidad para organizar la agenda y las instituciones mundiales que tenía, y no existe ninguna estrategia eficaz para intentar recuperarlo. Esa circunstancia refuerza y conecta los conflictos geopolíticos que parecen surgir hoy en todas partes, como en el Mar del Sur de China, Ucrania, Irak y Siria.

Si no abordamos esos problemas, ¿qué ocurrirá en este mundo desordenado? Kissinger imagina algo que en definitiva es realpolitik, pero a escala regional, en vez de mundial. Vivimos en un mundo de regiones, en el que distintos países tienen distintas esferas de influencia, a veces contrapuestas y a veces no. Es una perspectiva completamente verosímil y, a juzgar por los hechos recientes, parece que nos encaminamos en esa dirección. Será un mundo de vencedores y vencidos, en el que unas regiones mantendrán el orden y la estabilidad mejor que otras. Al hemisferio occidental no le iría mal, dado su aislamiento de las zonas geopolíticas más calientes. Para Eurasia y Oriente Próximo, el futuro está más lleno de conflictos, en un mundo sin normas ni árbitros comunes. La zona de más incertidumbre es Asia, con el máximo potencial pero con la posibilidad de sufrir los conflictos más graves.

Ahora bien, debemos poner en duda una hipótesis fundamental en la que se basa la predicción de Kissinger: ¿tiene sentido olvidarse de la dimensión global? Es razonable pensar que el orden mundial va a dividirse en esferas regionales de influencia. Si tuviera que definirme, seguramente estaría de acuerdo, pero sin poner la mano en el fuego. Sobre todo, por la enorme incertidumbre que envuelve el futuro de las relaciones entre Estados Unidos y China.

Independientemente de lo que ocurra en los próximos años, está claro que Estados Unidos y China seguirán siendo durante bastante tiempo las dos potencias de mayor tamaño e influencia. Son los dos países que más peso económico tienen en el mundo; en el futuro tendrán también seguramente el mayor peso cultural, político y ciberbélico (para no hablar del poder militar convencional). El libro anterior de Kissinger, On China, demuestra que es muy consciente de la enorme y creciente influencia del país asiático. En mi opinión, hay dos posibles situaciones que impedirían la existencia de un mundo de regiones: que las relaciones entre Estados Unidos y China mejoren de manera radical, o que se estropeen del todo.

Si los dos gigantes logran empezar a coordinarse ante muchas de las crisis internacionales, la fragmentación del mundo en regiones de influencia que predice Kissinger no se produciría. La entente EE UU-China podría alimentar una estructura organizativa de carácter global. En el caso opuesto, el antagonismo entre los dos podría agudizarse tanto que las diversas esferas de influencia en el mundo acabaran por repartirse entre dos opciones radicalmente contrarias que obligarían a muchos países a elegir. Esa situación sería mucho más conflictiva y tendría ramificaciones geopolíticas de guerra fría.

China no está preparada aún para inclinarse hacia un lado u otro: sigue considerándose un país pobre y está emprendiendo una transformación económica histórica. Pero esa transformación, tenga éxito o no, cambiará el papel de China en el mundo, y, si bien tendrá profundas repercusiones en el ámbito geopolítico de China, que es Asia, serán más amplios los interrogantes, aún sin respuesta, sobre si el resultado podría ser un verdadero Nuevo Orden Mundial.

¿Qué lugar le corresponde a India en ese futuro? En muchos sentidos, a India le interesa que las predicciones de Kissinger, aunque pesimistas, resulten ciertas. India es el típico elemento de equilibrio regional; le beneficia un mundo que no tenga un marco global restrictivo. En un mundo de regiones, India puede diversificar y proteger sus intereses estableciendo múltiples pactos y fomentando unas sólidas relaciones de trabajo entre los países occidentales, los grandes mercados emergentes y otros países de la zona. En una situación de posible conflicto entre Estados Unidos y China, a India le sería difícil elegir entre la proximidad y la importancia económica de China y los valores y el sistema de gobierno de Estados Unidos. Incluso en un orden de colaboración entre los dos, India podría salir perjudicada, porque China tendría una influencia desproporcionada en Asia. A medida que los dos países más poblados del planeta sigan creciendo, aumentarán las disputas por los recursos naturales, el agua y los alimentos. India podría ser víctima de acuerdos entre Estados Unidos y China que implicaran concesiones norteamericanas a cambio del apoyo chino en las cuestiones mundiales más acuciantes.

Hay otros dos ámbitos en los que tampoco estoy totalmente de acuerdo con las afirmaciones de Kissinger.

He explicado cómo podríamos ver un orden global en vez de regional. Por otro lado, podría ocurrir que las instituciones de gobierno se descompusieran en estructuras incluso por debajo del nivel regional. Con peligros todavía presentes y sin una coordinación mundial para afrontarlos, los atentados terroristas, la guerra cibernética, las epidemias y las consecuencias del rápido cambio climático —con unos Gobiernos sin la capacidad ni la coordinación necesarias para reaccionar— podrían minar las estructuras regionales e incluso nacionales. Es lo que ya está sucediendo en Irak, Libia, Yemen y Afganistán (para no hablar de los países de África occidental asolados por el ébola). ¿Se extenderá esa tendencia durante los próximos decenios? Es posible, sobre todo si aumentan el vacío de liderazgo global y las desigualdades entre ricos y pobres.

En segundo lugar, Kissinger se muestra resignado ante la idea de que Europa no es capaz de cambiar de verdad. Cree que se ha propuesto “sobrepasar el Estado” con un proyecto supranacional y que eso “provoca un vacío interno de autoridad y un desequilibrio de poder en sus fronteras”. Kissinger insiste todavía en su famosa afirmación de que Europa “no tiene una dirección” ni un número de teléfono al que llamar. Aunque sigue siendo verdad, la Alemania de Merkel ofrece muchos argumentos para ser la que atienda la llamada. En un orden mundial más disfuncional y volátil, las peticiones de que Alemania asuma el liderazgo se multiplicarán. De aquí a un tiempo, una UE encabezada por Alemania podría cambiar por completo la orientación de Europa, quizá para reforzar la relación transatlántica o quizá para debilitarla y acercarse mucho más a China.

Kissinger acierta al describir la evolución del orden mundial y cómo está hoy descomponiéndose. Sus predicciones indican lo que es más probable que suceda. Pero, con la tremenda volatilidad geopolítica que se cierne en el horizonte, sospecho que no vamos a tener la certeza que a él le gustaría.

viernes, 26 de septiembre de 2014


Notita suelta publicada esta mañana en Zero Hedge. Es de Michael Snyder, del blog "Economic Collapse". Recuerden que el "trillion" de la nomenclatura inglesa equivale a nuestro billón. La imagen de arriba les da una idea del espacio que ocupa un billón de dólares (la flecha a la izquierda señala la silueta de una persona, puesta como referencia espacial). Recuerden esta nota cada vez que un típico clasemediero argentino les hable de la "inseguridad financiera" de este país y otros de la región.

Título: 5 U.S. Banks Each Have More Than 40 Trillion Dollars In Exposure To Derivatives

Texto: When is the U.S. banking system going to crash? I can sum it up in three words. Watch the derivatives. It used to be only four, but now there are five "too big to fail" banks in the United States that each have more than 40trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives. Today, the U.S. national debt is sitting at a grand total of about 17.7 trillion dollars, so when we are talking about 40 trillion dollars we are talking about an amount of money that is almost unimaginable. And unlike stocks and bonds, these derivatives do not represent "investments" in anything. They can be incredibly complex, but essentially they are just paper wagers about what will happen in the future. The truth is that derivatives trading is not too different from betting on baseball or football games. Trading in derivatives is basically just a form of legalized gambling, and the "too big to fail" banks have transformed Wall Street into the largest casino in the history of the planet. When this derivatives bubble bursts (and as surely as I am writing this it will), the pain that it will cause the global economy will be greater than words can describe.

If derivatives trading is so risky, then why do our big banks do it? The answer to that question comes down to just one thing. Greed.

The "too big to fail" banks run up enormous profits from their derivatives trading. According to the New York Times, U.S. banks "have nearly $280 trillion of derivatives on their books" even though the financial crisis of 2008 demonstrated how dangerous they could be...

"American banks have nearly $280 trillion of derivatives on their books, and they earn some of their biggest profits from trading in them. But the 2008 crisis revealed how flaws in the market had allowed for dangerous buildups of risk at large Wall Street firms and worsened the run on the banking system."

The big banks have sophisticated computer models which are supposed to keep the system stable and help them manage these risks. But all computer models are based on assumptions. And all of those assumptions were originally made by flesh and blood people.

When a "black swan event" comes along such as a war, a major pandemic, an apocalyptic natural disaster or a collapse of a very large financial institution, these models can often break down very rapidly.

For example, the following is a brief excerpt from a Forbes article that describes what happened to the derivatives market when Lehman Brothers collapsed back in 2008...

"Fast forward to the financial meltdown of 2008 and what do we see? America again was celebrating. The economy was booming. Everyone seemed to be getting wealthier, even though the warning signs were everywhere: too much borrowing, foolish investments, greedy banks, regulators asleep at the wheel, politicians eager to promote home-ownership for those who couldn’t afford it, and distinguished analysts openly predicting this could only end badly. And then, when Lehman Bros fell, the financial system froze and world economy almost collapsed. Why?

The root cause wasn’t just the reckless lending and the excessive risk taking. The problem at the core was a lack of transparency. After Lehman’s collapse, no one could understand any particular bank’s risks from derivative trading and so no bank wanted to lend to or trade with any other bank. Because all the big banks’ had been involved to an unknown degree in risky derivative trading, no one could tell whether any particular financial institution might suddenly implode."

After the last financial crisis, we were promised that this would be fixed. But instead the problem has become much larger. When the housing bubble burst back in 2007, the total notional value of derivatives contracts around the world had risen to about 500 trillion dollars. According to the Bank for International Settlements, today the total notional value of derivatives contracts around the world has ballooned to a staggering 710 trillion dollars ($710,000,000,000,000). And of course the heart of this derivatives bubble can be found on Wall Street.

What I am about to share with you is very troubling information. I have shared similar numbers in the past, but for this article I went and got the very latest numbers from the OCC's most recent quarterly report. As I mentioned above, there are now five "too big to fail" banks that each have more than 40 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives...

JPMorgan Chase
Total Assets: $2,476,986,000,000 (about 2.5 trillion dollars)
Total Exposure To Derivatives: $67,951,190,000,000 (more than 67 trillion dollars)

Total Assets: $1,894,736,000,000 (almost 1.9 trillion dollars)
Total Exposure To Derivatives: $59,944,502,000,000 (nearly 60 trillion dollars)

Goldman Sachs
Total Assets: $915,705,000,000 (less than a trillion dollars)
Total Exposure To Derivatives: $54,564,516,000,000 (more than 54 trillion dollars)

Bank Of America
Total Assets: $2,152,533,000,000 (a bit more than 2.1 trillion dollars)
Total Exposure To Derivatives: $54,457,605,000,000 (more than 54 trillion dollars)

Morgan Stanley
Total Assets: $831,381,000,000 (less than a trillion dollars)
Total Exposure To Derivatives: $44,946,153,000,000 (more than 44 trillion dollars)

And it isn't just U.S. banks that are engaged in this type of behavior. As Zero Hedge recently detailed, German banking giantDeutsche Bank has more exposure to derivatives than any of the American banks listed above...

Deutsche has a total derivative exposure that amounts to €55 trillion or just about $75 trillion. That’s a trillion with a T, and is about 100 times greater than the €522 billion in deposits the bank has. It is also 5x greater than the GDP of Europe and more or less the same as the GDP of… the world.

For those looking forward to the day when these mammoth banks will collapse, you need to keep in mind that when they do go down the entire system is going to utterly fall apart. At this point our economic system is so completely dependent on these banks that there is no way that it can function without them. It is like a patient with an extremely advanced case of cancer. Doctors can try to kill the cancer, but it is almost inevitable that the patient will die in the process. The same thing could be said about our relationship with the "too big to fail" banks. If they fail, so do the rest of us. We were told that something would be done about the "too big to fail" problem after the last crisis, but it never happened. In fact, as I have written about previously, the "too big to fail" banks have collectively gotten 37 percent larger since the last recession.

At this point, the five largest banks in the country account for 42 percent of all loans in the United States, and the six largest banks control 67 percent of all banking assets. If those banks were to disappear tomorrow, we would not have much of an economy left. But as you have just read about in this article, they are being more reckless than ever before.

We are steamrolling toward the greatest financial disaster in world history, and nobody is doing much of anything to stop it. Things could have turned out very differently, but now we will reap the consequences for the very foolish decisions that we have made.

jueves, 25 de septiembre de 2014

Opina Sergei Glaziev

A Astroboy le encantan esos análisis estratégicos que te dicen lo que va a pasar en el mundo de acá a unos cuantos años, con especificaciones precisas para cada etapa, aunque luego no se cumpla nada. Por ello, reproducimos el siguiente post aparecido en el sitio del amigo Peregrino (, en el que reproduce una nota de Sergei Glaziev (foto de arriba) para Russia in Global Affairs ( Sergei Glaziev es consejero del Presidente de la Federación Rusa, Vladimir Putin, y miembro de la Academia de Ciencias de Rusia. Pasemos a la nota. Te advertimos que puede no gustarte, especialmente lo referente a la necesidad de construir una coalición social-conservadora. 

Título: How to Lead a Coalition and Avoid a Global Conflict 

Resumen: The world needs a coalition of sound forces advocating stability – a global anti-war coalition with a positive plan for rearranging the international financial and economic architecture on the principles of mutual benefit, fairness, and respect for national sovereignty. 

Texto: U.S. actions in Ukraine should be classified not only as hostile with regard to Russia, but also as targeting global destabilization. The U.S. is essentially provoking an international conflict to salvage its geopolitical, financial, and economic authority. The response must be systemic and comprehensive, aimed at exposing and ending U.S. political domination, and, most importantly, at undermining U.S. military-political power based on the printing of dollars as a global currency.

The world needs a coalition of sound forces advocating stability —in essence, a global anti-war coalition with a positive plan for rearranging the international financial and economic architecture on the principles of mutual benefit, fairness, and respect for national sovereignty. 


This coalition could be comprised of large independent states (BRICS); the developing world (most of Asia, Africa, and Latin America), which has been discriminated against in the current global financial and economic system; CIS countries interested in balanced development without conflicts; and those European nations not prepared to obey the disparaging U.S. diktat. The coalition should take measures to eliminate the fundamental causes of the global crisis, including: 

* the uncontrolled issuance of global reserve currencies, which allows issuers to abuse their dominant position, thus increasing disproportions and destructive tendencies in the global financial and economic system;

* the inability of existing mechanisms regulating banking and financial institutions to ward off excessive risks and financial bubbles;

* an exhausted potential for growth within the prevailing technology-based economic system and lack of conditions for creating a new one, including insufficient investment for the broad use of basic technological solutions.

Conditions must be created to allow the national fiscal authorities to lend money for building an economy based on new technologies and carrying out economic modernization, and to encourage innovation and business activities in areas of potential growth. The issuers of reserve currencies must guarantee their stability by capping the national debt and payment and trade balance deficits. Also, they will have to use transparent mechanisms for issuing currencies and ensure free exchange for all assets trading in their countries. 

Another important requirement issuers of global reserve currencies should meet is compliance with fair rules of competition and non-discriminatory access to financial markets. Other countries observing similar restrictions should be able to use their national currencies as an instrument of foreign trade and currency and financial exchanges, and allow their use as reserve currencies by partner countries. It would be advisable to group national currencies seeking the status of global or regional reserves into several categories depending on the issuers’ compliance with certain standards. 

In addition to introducing rules for issuers of global reserve currencies, measures should be taken to strengthen control over capital flows to prevent speculative attacks that destabilize international and national currency and financial systems. Members of the coalition will need to forbid transactions with offshore jurisdictions and make refinancing inaccessible to banks and corporations created with offshore residents. The currencies of countries that fail to follow these rules should not be used in international settlements. 

A major overhaul of international financial institutions is necessary to ensure control over the issuers of global reserve currencies. Participating countries must be represented fairly, on objective criteria, such as their share in global production, trade, and finances; their natural resources; and population. The same criteria should be applied to an emerging basket of currencies for new SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) that can be used as a yardstick for determining the value of national currencies, including reserve currencies. Initially, the basket could contain the currencies of those coalition members that agree to observe these rules. 

Such ambitious reforms will require proper legal and institutional support. To this end, the coalition’s decisions should be given the status of international commitments; and UN institutions, relevant international organizations, and all countries interested in reforms should be broadly involved. 

In order to encourage application of socially important achievements of a new technological mode globally, countries will have to devise an international strategic planning system of socio-economic development. It should provide long-term forecasts for scientific and technological development; define prospects for the global economy, regional associations and leading countries; look for ways to overcome disproportions, including development gaps between industrialized and emerging economies; and set development priorities and indicative targets for international organizations. 

The U.S. and other G7 countries will most likely reject the above proposals for reforming the international currency and financial system without discussion out of fear that they could undermine their monopoly, which allows them to issue world currencies uncontrollably. While reaping enormous benefits from this system, leading Western countries limit access to their own assets, technologies, and labor by imposing more and more restrictions. 

If the G7 refuses to “make room” in the governing agencies of international financial organizations for the anti-war coalition, the latter should master enough synergy to create alternative global regulators. 

* The BRICS could serve as a prototype and take the following measures to maintain economic security:

* create a universal payment system for BRICS countries and issue a common payment card that would incorporate China’s UnionPay, Brazil’s ELO, India’s RuPay, and Russian payment systems;

* build an interbank information exchange system similar to SWIFT and which is independent from the United States and the European Union;

* establish its own rating agencies.


Russia will have a leading role in building a coalition against the U.S. since it is most vulnerable and will not succeed in the ongoing confrontation without such an alliance. If Russia fails to show initiative, the anti-Russian bloc currently being created by the U.S. will absorb or neutralize Russia’s potential allies. The war against Russia the U.S. is inciting in Europe may benefit China, because the weakening of the U.S., the European Union, and Russia will make it easier for Beijing to achieve global leadership. Also, Brazil could give in to U.S. pressure and India may focus on solving its own domestic problems. 

Russia has as much experience of leadership in world politics as the U.S. It has the necessary moral and cultural authority and sufficient military-technical capabilities. But Russian public opinion needs to overcome its inferiority complex, regain a sense of historical pride for the centuries of efforts to create a civilization that brought together numerous nations and cultures and which many times saved Europe and humanity from self-extermination. It needs to bring back an understanding of the historical role the Russian world played in creating a universal culture from Kievan Rus’, the spiritual heir to the Byzantine Empire, to the Russian Federation, the successor state of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. Eurasian integration processes should be presented as a global project to restore and develop the common space of nations from Lisbon to Vladivostok, and from St. Petersburg to Colombo, which for centuries lived and worked together. 


A new world order could be based on a concept of social-conservative synthesis as an ideology that combines the values of world religions with the achievements of the welfare state and the scientific paradigm of sustainable development. This concept should be used as a positive program for building an anti-war coalition and establishing universally understandable principles for streamlining and harmonizing social, cultural, and economic relations worldwide. 

International relations can be harmonized only on the basis of fundamental values shared by all major cultures and civilizations. These values include non-discrimination (equality) and mutual acceptance, a concept declared by all confessions without dividing people into “us” and “them.” These values can be expressed in notions of justice and responsibility, and in the legal forms of human rights and freedoms. 

The fundamental value of an individual and equality of all people irrespective of their religious, ethnic, class, or other background must be recognized by all confessions. This stems, at least in monotheistic religions, from the perception of the unity of God and the fact that every faith offers its own path to salvation. This outlook can eliminate violent religious and ethnic conflicts and permit every individual to make a free choice. But there must be legal mechanisms in place to enable confessions to participate in public life and resolve social conflicts. 

This approach will help neutralize one of the most destructive means of chaotic global warfare employed by the U.S.—the use of religious strife to incite religious and ethnic conflicts that develop into civil and regional wars. 

The role of religion in molding international politics will provide the moral and ideological basis for preventing ethnic conflicts and resolving ethnic contradictions using national social policy instruments. Various religions can also be engaged in charting social policy, thus providing a moral framework for government decisions, restraining the attitude of permissiveness and laxity that dominates the minds of the ruling elites in developed countries, and bringing back an understanding of the authorities’ social responsibility to society. As the shaken values of the welfare state gain strong ideological support, political parties will have to acknowledge the importance of moral restrictions that protect the basic principles of human life. 

The concept of social-conservative synthesis will lay the ideological groundwork for reforming international currency, financial, and economic relations on the principles of fairness, mutual respect for national sovereignty, and mutually advantageous exchanges. This will require certain restrictions on the freedom of market forces that constantly discriminate against most people and countries by limiting their access to wealth. 

Liberal globalization has undermined the ability of countries to influence the distribution of national income and wealth. Transnational corporations uncontrollably move resources that were previously controlled by national governments. The latter have to trim back social security in order to keep their economies attractive to investors. State social investments, the recipients of which no longer have a national identity, have lost their potency. As the U.S.-centered oligarchy gets hold of an increasingly greater part of income generated by the global economy, the quality of life is dwindling in open economies and the gap in access to public wealth is widening. In order to overcome these destructive tendencies, it will be necessary to change the entire architecture of financial and economic relations and restrict the free movement of capital. This should be done in order to prevent transnationals from evading social responsibility, on the one hand, and to even out social policy costs shared by national states, on the other. 

The former means eliminating offshore jurisdictions, which help evade tax obligations, and recognizing the nation states’ right to regulate transborder movement of capital. The latter would mean establishing minimal social criteria to ensure accelerated improvement of social security in relatively poor countries. This can be done by creating international mechanisms for balancing out living standards, which, in turn, will require proper funding. 

Acting along the concept of a social-conservative synthesis, the anti-war coalition could move to reform the global social security system. A fee of 0.01 percent of currency exchange operations could provide funding for international mechanisms designed to even out living standards. This fee (of up to $15 trillion a year) could be charged under an international agreement and national tax legislation, and transferred to the authorized international organizations which include the Red Cross (prevention of and response to humanitarian catastrophes caused by natural disasters, wars, epidemics, etc.); the World Health Organization (prevention of epidemics, reduction of infantile mortality, vaccination, etc.); ILO (global monitoring of compliance with safety regulations and labor legislation, including wages not less than the subsistence level and a ban on the use of child and compulsory labor; labor migration); the World Bank (construction of social infrastructure facilities – water supply networks, roads, waste water disposal systems, etc.); UNIDO (transfer of technologies to developing countries); and UNESCO (support of international cooperation in science, education and culture, cultural heritage protection). Spending should be made according to the budgets approved by the UN General Assembly. 

Another task to tackle is the creation of a global environmental protection system financed by polluters. This can be done by signing an international agreement establishing across-the-board fines for pollution and earmark them for environmental protection under national legislation and under the supervision of an authorized international organization. Part of this money should be committed to global environmental activities and monitoring. An alternative mechanism can be based on trade in pollution quotas under the Kyoto Protocol. 

An important aspect is the creation of a global system for eliminating illiteracy and ensuring public access to information and modern education throughout the world. This will require standardizing minimum requirements for comprehensive primary and secondary education and subsidizing underdeveloped countries with revenue generated by the tax mentioned above. There must be a universally accessible system of higher education services provided by leading universities in major industrialized countries. The latter could assign admission quotas for foreign students selected through international contests and paid for from the same source. Simultaneously, the participating universities could set up a global system of free distance learning for all individuals with secondary education. UNESCO and the World Bank could commit themselves to creating and supporting the necessary information infrastructure, while drawing funds from the same source. 


The growing gap between rich and poor countries is threatening the development and the very existence of humanity. The gap is created and sustained by national institutions in the U.S. and allied countries that arrogate certain international economic exchange functions proceeding from their own interests. They have monopolized the right to issue the world’s currency and use the revenue for their own benefit, giving their banks and corporations unlimited access to loans. They have monopolized the right to establish technical standards, thus maintaining technological supremacy of their industry. They have imposed upon the world their own international trade rules that require all other countries to open up their markets and limit substantially their own ability to influence the competitiveness of their national economies. Finally, they have forced the majority of countries to open up their capital markets, thus ensuring the domination of their own financial tycoons, who keep multiplying their wealth by exercising a currency monopoly. 

It is impossible to ensure a sustainable and successful socio-economic development without eliminating the monopoly on international economic exchange used for private or national interests. Global and national restrictions can be imposed to support sustainable development, harmonizing global public affairs, and eliminating discrimination in international economic relations. 

In order to ward off a global financial catastrophe, urgent measures need to be taken to create both a new, safe, and efficient currency and a financial system based on the mutually advantageous exchange of national currencies. This new system would exclude the appropriation of global seniority in private or national interests. 

To level out socio-economic development opportunities, emerging economies need free access to new technologies, conditioned on their promise not to use them for military purposes. Countries that agree to such restrictions and open up information about their defense budgets will be exempted from international export control constraints and receive assistance in acquiring new developmental technologies. 

An international mechanism to prevent multinational companies from abusing their monopoly power on the market could ensure fair competition. The WTO could exercise anti-trust control under a special agreement binding for all member states. This would allow economic entities to demand elimination of monopoly power abuses by transnational corporations and seek compensation for losses from such abuses by imposing sanctions against the entities at fault. Apart from overstated or understated prices, quality falsifications, and other typical examples of unfair competition, the payment of wages below the ILO-defined minimum regional subsistence level should also be regarded as an abuse. In addition, there should be reasonable price regulation for the products and services of global and regional natural monopolies. 

Because of unequal economic exchanges, countries should be allowed to retain the right to regulate their national economies in order to equalize socio-economic development levels. In addition to WTO mechanisms protecting domestic markets from unfair foreign competition, such equalizing measures could also be achieved by encouraging scientific and technological progress and providing state support to innovation and investment activities; establishing a state monopoly on the use of natural resources; introducing currency controls to limit capital flight and prevent speculative attacks on national currencies; retaining government control over strategic industries; and using other mechanisms to boost competitiveness. 

Fair competition in the IT sector is essential. Access to the global information networks must be guaranteed to all people throughout the world as both information consumers and suppliers. This market can be kept open by using stringent antitrust restrictions that will not allow any one country or group of countries to become dominant. 

To ensure that all parties to the global economic exchange observe international and national rules, there must be penalties for violators under an international agreement that would enforce court rulings regardless of their national jurisdiction. However, one should be able to appeal a ruling in an international court whose judgment will be binding on all states. 

Binding rules and penalties for non-compliance (alongside penalties for breaking national laws) would give international agreements priority over national legislation. Countries that break this principle should be restricted from participating in international economic activities by excluding their national currencies from international settlements, imposing economic sanctions against residents, and limiting those operations on international markets. 

In order to enforce all of these fundamental changes in international relations, a strong coalition will have to be created, capable of overcoming the resistance of the U.S. and G7 countries, which reap enormous benefits from their dominance on global markets and in international organizations. This coalition should be ready to use sanctions against the U.S. and other countries that refuse to recognize the priority of international obligations over national regulations. Rejecting the U.S. dollar in international settlements would be the most effective way to coerce the U.S. into being cooperative. 

The anti-war coalition should offer a peaceful alternative to the arms race as a means of encouraging a new round of technological development. This alternative would lie in broad international cooperation geared towards solving global problems that require concentration of resources for creating cutting-edge technologies. For example, there is no ready-made solution to protect the planet from threats stemming from deep space. Developing such solutions will require technological breakthroughs that can be achieved by combining the efforts of leading countries and by sharing costs. 

The paradigm of sustainable development rejects war as such. Instead of confrontation and rivalry, it is based on cooperation and collaboration as a means of concentrating resources in promising areas of scientific and technological research. Unlike the arms race provoked by geopolitics, it can provide a better scientific and organizational basis for managing a new technological mode. The latter will drive the development of healthcare, education, and culture, which can hardly be spurred by defense expenditures. These non-productive sectors and science will account for as much as a half of GDP in major industrialized countries in upcoming years. Therefore, a forward-looking solution would include shifting the focus of government attention from defense spending to humanitarian programs, primarily in medicine and bioscience. Since the state pays more than half of health, education, and science expenditures, such a shift would facilitate systematic management of socio-economic development and curb destructive trends. 

* * * 

A new election cycle will begin in the U.S. in 2017 that is likely to be underscored by anti-Russian rhetoric as the ideological basis for the world war Washington is trying to unleash in a bid to retain its power. By that time, the crisis in the American financial system may have resulted in budget spending cuts, devaluation of the dollar, and declining living standards. 

Domestic problems and foreign policy crises will cause the U.S. government to ramp up its aggressive tactics, while at the same time weakening its positions. If Russia mobilizes its intellectual, economic, and military potential, it will have a chance to get through conflicts in 2015-2018 in view of the fact that the U.S. and its allies will still not be prepared for direct aggression. 

Russia will face the most dangerous period in the early 2020s when industrialized countries and China are expected to begin their technological modernization and the U.S. and other Western countries will emerge from financial depression and make a technological leap forward. But Russia may dramatically fall behind technologically and economically in 2021-2025, which will impair its defense capabilities and spur internal social and ethnic conflicts in much the same way as what happened in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. These conflicts will be fomented both from outside and inside, using social inequality, development gaps between regions, and economic problems. In order to avoid the worst possible scenario leading to the disintegration of the country, Russia will need to adopt a systemic domestic and foreign policy for strengthening national security, ensuring economic independence, improving international competitiveness, boosting economic development, mobilizing society, and upgrading the defense industry. 

By 2017, when the U.S. starts threatening Russia openly and on all fronts, the Russian army should have modern and effective weapons, Russian society should be consolidated and confident of its strength, intellectuals should be in control of the new technological mode, the economy should be growing, and Russian diplomacy should succeed in building a broad-based anti-war coalition capable of pooling efforts in order to stop American aggression.