Mientras tanto, en Yemen...

Los tipos son de contextura delgada, baja estatura, poco corpulentos, con o sin barba, desaliñados. Usan unos trajes con pollera, arriba un saco sucio, cinturones anchos de cuero, un trapo en la cabeza y sandalias descosidas en los pies. Viven en el país más pobre del mundo árabe y uno de los países más pobres del mundo: Yemen. Son los houthis, uno de los pueblos más guerreros de la Tierra, y están a punto de derrotar al país más rico de Medio Oriente: Arabia Saudita. Lo cuenta, en la nota que sigue, Federico Pieraccini para el sitio web Strategic Culture Foundation:


Título: Three Saudi Brigades Reportedly Annihilated In Devastating Houthi Offensive In Saudi Arabia

Texto: Many may have hitherto been led to believe that the Houthis were a ragtag armed force lacking in sophistication. Many, seeing the drone and missile attacks on Saudi oil plants, may have declared it to be a false-flag attack carried out by Riyadh to boost Aramco’s market value; either that or it was an operation carried out by Iran or even Israel.

On Saturday September 28, the Houthis put paid to such speculation by confirming what many, like myself, have been writing for months; that is, that the asymmetrical tactics of the Houthis, combined with the conventional capabilities of the Yemeni army, are capable of bringing the Saudi kingdom of Mohammed Bin Salman to its knees.

The Yemeni army’s missile forces are able to carry out highly complex attacks, no doubt as a result of reconnaissance provided by the local Shia population within the Kingdom that is against the House of Saud’s dictatorship. These Houthi sympathisers within Saudi Arabia helped in target identification, carried out reconnaissance within the plants, found the most vulnerable and impactful points, and passed this intelligence on to the Houthis and Yemeni army. These Yemeni forces employed locally produced means to severely degrade Saudi Arabia’s crude-oil-extraction and processing plants. The deadly strikes halved oil production and threatened to continue with other targets if the Saudi-conducted genocide in Yemen did not stop.

On Saturday 29 the Houthis and the Yemeni army conducted an incredible conventional attack lasting three days that began from within Yemen’s borders. The operation would have involved months of intelligence gathering and operational planning. It was a far more complex attack than that conducted against Aramco’s oil facilities. Initial reports indicate that the forces of the Saudi-led coalition were lured into vulnerable positions and then, through a pincer movement conducted quickly within Saudi territory, the Houthis surrounded the town of Najran and its outskirts and got the better of three Saudi brigades numbering in the thousands and including dozens of senior officers as well as numerous combat vehicles. This event is a game changer, leaving the US, Mike Pompeo and the Israelis and Saudis unable to lay the blame on Iran as all this took place a long way from Iran.

The large-scale operation was preceded by Yemeni rocket artillery targeting Jizan airport, with 10 missiles paralyzing any movements to and from the airport, including denying the possibility of air support for the encircled troops. The Houthis also hit the King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh in a key operation that targeted Apache helicopters, forcing them to leave the area. Nearby military bases were also targeted so as to cut off any reinforcements and disrupt the chain of command. This led to the Saudi forces fleeing in disorganization. Images shown by the Houthis show a road in the middle of a valley on the outskirts of Najran with dozens of Saudi armored vehicles trying to flee while being attacked from both sides by Houthi RPGs together with heavy and light weapons. Visual confirmation of the debacle can be seen in the number of casualties as well as in the number of prisoners taken. Images show lines of Saudi prisoners walking under Yemeni guard towards prison camps. This is something extraordinary to behold: the Saudi army, the third largest purchaser of weapons in the world, getting comprehensively walloped by one of the poorest countries in the world. The numbers say it all: the Houthis were able to control more than 350 kilometers of Saudi territory. Given that the Saudi military budget is almost 90 billion dollars a year, this achievement is made all the more extraordinary.

Houthi forces employed drones, missiles, anti-aircraft systems, as well as electronic warfare to prevent the Saudis from supporting their troops with aviation or other means to assist their trapped men. Testimony from Saudi soldiers suggest that efforts to rescue them were half-hearted and of little effect. Saudi prisoners of war accuse their military leaders of having left them prey to their opponents.

The Yemeni army and the Houthis were within less than 10 days able to inflict a devastating blow to both the credibility of US defense systems and the Saudi military. They did this by employing creative methods suitable for the objective at hand.

They initially revealed the internal vulnerability of the Kingdom through such a level of penetration into Saudi Arabia that they were able to conduct internal reconnaissance through the assistance of infiltrators or local collaborators so as to know exactly where to hit the oil installations for maximum effect and damage.

They subsequently demonstrated their technical and cyber capabilities through an asymmetrical operation employing drones of various types as well as electronic warfare to blind the US Patriot system’s radars, in the process halving Saudi Arabia’s oil production for a period of time Aramco is yet to determine.

Finally, the most surprising and astounding aspect of these recent events is this most recent Yemeni ground operation that was carried out in hostile territory and succeeded in surrounding three brigades consisting of thousands of men and their equipment. Thousands of Yemeni soldiers loyal to Ansarullah (Houthis) took part in this successful operation, supported by drones, ground-attack aircraft and air-defense batteries. Such capabilities are ordinarily better associated with well-trained and well-equipped militaries rather than militaries coming from the Third World.

The Houthis issued a clear message to Riyadh when they hit its oil installations. They effectively let it be known that they had the means and capability to damage the Kingdom irreparably, leading ultimately to the overthrow of the House of Saud.

The Yemeni army spokesman announced, after hitting the Saudi oil facilities, that they would stop all offensive actions using drones and missiles, leaving it up to Riyadh to decide whether things stopped there and they sat down at the negotiating table to end the conflict, or whether Saudi Arabia was in the mood for more of the same treatment.

Mohammed bin Salman would no doubt have received manifold reassurances from the Americans, explaining away the failure of the Patriot systems and assuring him that more American assistance was on the way; and that it would, moreover, be impossible to come to an agreement with the Houthis, especially given that they are considered to be a proxy of the Iranians (a debunked lie); not to mention, of course, the huge loss of prestige that would befall the Saudis, Israelis and Americans were such a capitulation to occur.

There is already talk in Riyadh of receiving new supplies of the THAAD system (similarly useless against Houthi asymmetrical warfare) and other very expensive American air-defense systems. It is too bad for the Saudis that the US has nothing like the Pantsir and the Russian BUK systems, which allow for a multi-layered air defense, ideal for defending against small, low-flying drones and missiles that are difficult to intercept with such systems as the Patriot and THAAD.

Instead of starting peace talks to stop the ongoing genocide in Yemen and being hit again by the Houthis in response, Mohammed bin Salman and his advisors seem to have seen it fit to commit further war crimes in Yemen.

Faced with such intransigence, the Houthis went ahead with a new attack even more devastating for Saudi morale and discombobulating for Western policy-makers. Thousands of men and their equipment were either killed, wounded, or taken captive in a pincer movement reminiscent of the DPR and LNR’s actions in Ukraine in 2015 where Kiev’s forces was similarly surrounded and destroyed.

Usually such pincer movements require thorough reconnaissance to determine where best to surround the enemy. Furthermore, air support and air-defense systems would be necessary to ward off American and Saudi responses. In addition to all this, troops and their equipment are needed together with the necessary training for such assaults that require coordination as well as quick and effective execution of orders. All these requirements were met as a result of the excellent preparation and knowledge of the terrain by the Yemeni army and the Houthis.

If the attack on Saudi oil facilities had such an impact, then the even more dramatic attack of this last Saturday will have forced Mohammed bin Salman and his American allies to face a very harsh reality. Saudi Arabia, it will now need to be recognized, does not have the capacity to defend its borders from Yemen, leaving the Houthis and the Yemeni army free to enter Saudi territory at will while showing little regard for the opinion and feelings of the Saudis and Americans.

This is a triple checkmate for the Houthis against Riyadh.

- Firstly, they showed that they had enough local support within Saudi Arabia to have ready internal saboteurs in the event of an all-out war with Iran or Yemen.

- Then they showed they have the capacity to cripple Saudi Arabia’s oil production.

- Ultimately, Yemen’s conventional forces could redraw the boundaries between Saudi Arabia and Yemen in the latter’s favor should Yemeni leaders decide to invade and occupy a strip of Saudi territory to secure a buffer zone, given that Saudi forces have been violating Yemen’s sovereignty and massacring civilians willy nilly for the last five years.


It bears reflecting on the significance of these events. The third-biggest arms spender in the world is incapable of defeating the poorest Arab country in the world. It is, moreover, incapable of protecting its national interest and borders from this impoverished Arab country. The Houthis are showing to the world what a poor but organized and motivated armed force can do using asymmetrical methods to bring one of the best-equipped militaries in the world to its knees. This conflict will be studied all over the world as an example of how a new means of warfare is possible when technological and cyber capabilities are democratized and available to those who know how to use them appropriately, as the Houthis have shown with their use of drones and electronic warfare.

With the Houthis enjoying a high level of leverage, through a combination of missile capabilities, the holding of many prisoners of war, and saboteurs spread throughout Saudi Arabia (apropos, a strange fire occurred in Jeddah on Sunday at the Al-Haramain railway station), it may be time for Riyadh to accept the tragic consequences of this useless war and sit down at the negotiating table with Ansarullah.

Washington and Tel Aviv will try in every way to prevent such negotiations. But if Mohammed bin Salman and his family wish to save their kingdom, it is better to start talking to the Houthis immediately. Otherwise it is only a matter of time before another attack by Ansarullah leads to the complete collapse and ruin of the House of Saud and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Geopolítica digital y estándares de la nueva era

Mientras que a los rusos les gusta hablar de un nuevo orden en las relaciones internacionales (lean el post anterior), los chinos prefieren hablar de plata. (Los dos hablan de la misma cosa, claro está). Posteamos acá una nota aparecida hoy en el sitio web del Global Times, de origen chino. Por si a alguno se le ocurre pensar que el Global Times es un diario heterodoxo, le recordamos que pertenece al Diario del Pueblo, órgano del Partido Comunista Chino. Acá va:


Título: Beijing needs to prepare for emergence and development of a new global monetary system

Texto: With increasing risk aversion in the global financial market, 2019 marks the beginning of a new bull market in gold. Thus far this year, the spot gold price is up by more than 20 percent, and is the most popular safe-haven asset in 2019. As investors are buying into gold, central banks of more than 30 countries including China and Russia have also increased their gold holdings. According to the latest statistics, by the end of August, China's gold reserves reached 62.45 million ounces, with a market value of about $95.5 billion. August also marked the ninth consecutive month that China increased its gold reserves.

After experiencing unprecedented monetary easing, asset prices have already risen to a very dangerous level. Some believe that China's increase in its gold reserves and the rising ratio of gold reserves to its foreign exchange reserves represents its efforts to diversify international reserve assets. Compared with the international average, China's proportion of gold in international reserve assets is relatively low. As of the end of March, the global average was 13.5 percent, while China's was only 2.5 percent. Therefore, China has reason to increase its gold holdings.

However, from the perspective of the world financial system and geo-economic evolution, asset diversification may only be part of the cause behind the pursuit of gold by global central banks. In fact, as the US tends to be conservative and the dollar is increasingly "politicized," many countries have considered "de-dollarization" for the global monetary system. Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, recently said that the world's reliance on the US dollar "won't hold" and needs to be replaced by a new international monetary and financial system based on many more global currencies.

But could the change in the dollar and the pursuit of gold mean that the international monetary system will return to the "gold standard" system? While gold will still play an important role in the era of credit money, the development of modern politics, economy and society, the development of global investment and trade, and the deepening globalization will inevitably require the continuous expansion of the international monetary and credit systems. The "gold standard" cannot meet such needs. Today's monetary system is more likely to be a floating gold-based foreign exchange standard system so as to meet the needs of credit and trading expansion. In the meantime, it should be noted that currencies have strong geopolitical attributes that represent and reflect geopolitical influence. Modern geopolitics is actually geo-capitalism, and currencies have gradually evolved to be financial symbols loaded with geopolitics.

Another change in the international monetary system is the rise of digital currency. The development of internet technology and the digital economy means that the anchor of currencies needs new credit symbols while getting rid of the "gold standard." Digital currency will become an important credit carrier in the international monetary system in the future. A variety of digital currencies launched by multinationals based on their own corporate credit are posing challenges to central banks. In fact, digital currency will also be an external form (like gold coins, banknotes) of geo-currency, which will compete with the sovereign currencies of various central banks, reflecting the influence of geo-capital. Its rise will be an inevitable trend in the "post-gold standard" era.

As a rising economic power, China also needs to prepare for changes in the international monetary system during the "post-gold standard" era. While maintaining close ties with the US dollar, China's monetary system should pursue diversification or multiple-support from the gold standard, digital currency, the dollar and a basket of other currencies. The US dollar remains the major geo-currency. Particularly in the case of global excess liquidity and increasing risk, de-dollarization is not a realistic choice. Meanwhile, increasing gold reserves should be seen as a strategic measure aimed at enhancing the ability to cope with various risks and maintaining the stability of yuan credit. 

Additionally, by swapping with other major currencies, China could increase its reserves of a basket of currencies. This is not necessary to deal with geopolitical changes, but also offers financial tools and expands the space for diversified trade and investment cooperation. China still needs to facilitate the yuan's internationalization and continuously enhance its geographical influence so as to create market space for the development of China's geo-currency.

Furthermore, China needs to be prepared for the development of digital currency so that it can support the yuan. While actively establishing its own sovereign digital currency system, China should consider encouraging the development of a market-oriented digital currency to adapt to changes in the digital field and the formation of a new "digital geopolitics."

The growing interest in gold from financial markets and central banks not only indicates the market's risk-aversion sentiment, but also means that the dollar-dominated, international monetary system is developing toward the geo-currency system. Under these circumstances, China needs to make adjustments to keep up with the currency development trend while still maintaining deep ties with the US dollar.

Relaciones internacionales después del Imperio

Lo que sigue es un ensayo del ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de la Federación Rusa, Sergei Lavrov; fue publicado ayer en la revista Russia in Global Affairs. Acá va:



Título:  World at a Crossroads and a System of International Relations for the Future

Texto: These days, the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly opens up. So does a new international “political season”.

The session begins at a highly symbolic historical moment. Next year we will celebrate two great and interconnected anniversaries – the 75th Anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic and Second World Wars, and the establishment of the UN.

Reflecting on the spiritual and moral significance of these landmark events, one needs to bear in mind the enormous political meaning of the Victory that ended one of the most brutal wars in the history of mankind.

The defeat of fascism in 1945 had fundamentally affected the further course of world history and created conditions for establishing a post-war world order. The UN Charter became its bearing frame and a key source of international law to this day. The UN-centric system still preserves its sustainability and has a great degree of resilience. It actually is kind of a safety net that ensures peaceful development of mankind amid largely natural divergence of interests and rivalries among leading powers. The War-time experience of ideology-free cooperation of states with different socioeconomic and political systems is still highly relevant.

It is regrettable that these obvious truths are being deliberately silenced or ignored by certain influential forces in the West. Moreover, some have intensified attempts at privatizing the Victory, expunging from memory the Soviet Union’s role in the defeat of Nazism, condemning to oblivion the Red Army’s feat of sacrifice and liberation, forgetting the many millions of Soviet citizens who perished during the War, wiping out from history the consequences of the ruinous policy of appeasement. From this perspective, it is easy to grasp the essence of the concept of expounding the equality of the totalitarian regimes. Its purpose is not just to belittle the Soviet contribution to the Victory, but also to retrospectively strip our country of its historic role as an architect and guarantor of the post-war world order, and label it a “revisionist power” that is posing a threat to the well-being of the so-called free world.

Interpreting the past in such a manner also means that some of our partners see the establishment of a transatlantic link and the permanent implanting of the US military presence in Europe as a major achievement of the post-war system of international relations. This is definitely not the scenario the Allies had in mind while creating the United Nations.

The Soviet Union disintegrated; the Berlin Wall, which had symbolically separated the two “camps,” fell; the irreconcilable ideological stand-off that defined the framework of world politics in virtually all spheres and regions became a thing of the past – yet, these tectonic shifts unfortunately failed to bring the triumph of a unifying agenda. Instead, all we could hear were triumphant pronouncements that the “end of history” had come and that from now on there would be only one global decision-making center.

It is obvious today that efforts to establish a unipolar model have failed. The transformation of the world order has become irreversible. New major players wielding a sustainable economic base seek to increase their influence on regional and global developments; they are fully entitled to claim a greater role in the decision-making process. There is a growing demand for more just and inclusive system. The overwhelming majority of members of the international community reject arrogant neocolonial policies that are employed all over again to empower certain countries to impose their will on others.

All that is greatly disturbing to those who for centuries have been accustomed to setting the patterns of global development by employing exclusive advantages. While the majority of states aspire to a more just system of international relations and genuine rather than declarative respect for the UN Charter principles, these demands come up against the policies desighned to preserve an order allowing a narrow group of countries and transnational corporations to reap from the fruits of globalization. The West’s response to the ongoing developments reveals true worldview of its proponents. Their rhetoric on liberalism, democracy and human rights goes hand in hand with the policies of inequality, injustice, selfishness and a belief in their own exceptionalism.

“Liberalism”, that the West claims to defend, focuses on individuals and their rights and freedoms. This begs the question: how does this correlate with the policy of sanctions, economic strangulation and overt military threats against a number of independent countries such as Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea or Syria? Sanctions directly strike at ordinary people and their well-being and violate their social and economic rights. How does the bombing of sovereign nations, the deliberate policy of destroying their statehood leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and condemning millions of Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians and representatives of other peoples to innumerable suffering add up to the imperative of protecting human rights? The reckless Arab Spring gamble destroyed the unique ethnic and religious mosaic in the Middle East and North Africa.

In Europe, the proponents of liberal concepts get along quite well with massive violations of the Russian-speaking population rights in a number of EU and EU-neighboring countries. Those countries violate multilateral international conventions by adopting laws that infringe language and education rights of ethnic minorities.

What is “liberal” about visa denials and other sanctions imposed by the West on residents of Russia’s Crimea? They are punished for their democratic vote in favour of reunification with their historical homeland. Does this not contradict the basic right of the people to free self-determination, let alone the right of the citizens to freedom of movement enshrined in international conventions?

Liberalism, or rather its real undistorted essence, has always been an important component of political philosophy both in Russia and worldwide. However, the multiplicity of development models does not allow us to say that the Western “basket” of liberal values has no alternative. And, of course, these values cannot be carried “on bayonets” – ignoring the history of states, their cultural and political identities. Grief and destruction caused by “liberal” aerial bombings are a clear indication of what this can lead to.

The West’s unwillingness to accept today’s realities, when after centuries of economic, political and military domination it is losing the prerogative of being the only one to shape the global agenda, gave rise to the concept of a “rules-based order.” These “rules” are being invented and selectively combined depending on the fleeting needs of the people behind it, and the West persistently introduces this language into everyday usage. The concept is by no means abstract and is actively being implemented. Its purpose is to replace the universally agreed international legal instruments and mechanisms with narrow formats, where alternative, non-consensual methods for resolving various international problems are developed in circumvention of a legitimate multilateral framework. In other words, the expectation is to usurp the decision-making process on key issues.

The intentions of those who initiated this “rules-based order” concept affect the exceptional powers of the UN Security Council. A recent example: when the United States and its allies failed to convince the Security Council to approve politicized decisions that accused, without any proof, the Syrian government of using prohibited toxic substances, they started to promote the “rules” they needed through the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). By manipulating the existing procedures in flagrant violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, they managed (with the votes of a minority of the countries participating in this Convention) to license the OPCW Technical Secretariat to identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons, which was a direct intrusion in the prerogatives of the UN Security Council. One can also observe similar attempts to “privatize” the secretariats of international organizations in order to advance interests outside of the framework of universal intergovernmental mechanisms in such areas as biological non-proliferation, peacekeeping, prevention of doping in sports and others.

The initiatives to regulate journalism seeking to suppress media freedom in an arbitrary way, the interventionist ideology of “responsibility to protect”, which justifies violent “humanitarian interventions” without UN Security Council approval under the pretext of an imminent threat to the safety of civilians are part of the same policy.

Separately, attention should be paid to the controversial concept of “countering violent extremism”, which lays the blame for the dissemination of radical ideologies and expansion of the social base of terrorism on political regimes that the West has proclaimed undemocratic, illiberal or authoritarian. This concept provides for direct outreach to civil society over the head of legitimate governments. Obviously, the true goal is to withdraw counterterrorism efforts from beneath the UN umbrella and to obtain a tool of interference in the internal affairs of states.

The introduction of such new concepts is a dangerous phenomenon of revisionism, which rejects the principles of international law embodied in the UN Charter and paves the way back to the times of confrontation and antagonism. It is for a reason that the West is openly discussing a new divide between “the rules-based liberal order” and “authoritarian powers.”

Revisionism clearly manifests itself in the area of strategic stability. The US torpedoing first the ABM Treaty and now the INF Treaty (a decision that enjoys unanimous NATO members’ support) have generated risks of dismantling the entire architecture of nuclear arms control agreements. The prospects of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (The New START) are vague – because the US has not given a clear answer to the Russian proposal to agree to extend the New START beyond its expiry date in February 2021.

Now we are witnessing alarming signs that a media campaign in the United States is being launched to lay the groundwork for abandoning the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (which has not been ratified by the United States). This calls into question the future of this treaty, which is vital for international peace and security. Washington has embarked upon the implementation of its plans to deploy weapons in outer space, rejecting proposals to agree on a universal moratorium on such activities.

There is one more example of introducing revisionist “rules”: the US withdrawal from the  Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program, a multilateral agreement approved by the UN Security Council that is of key importance for the nuclear non-proliferation.

Yet another example is Washington’s open refusal to implement unanimous UN Security Council resolutions on the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the economic field, the “rules” consist of protectionist barriers, sanctions, abuse of the status of the US dollar as the principle means of payment, ensuring competitive advantages by non-market methods, and extraterritorial use of US laws, even towards the United States’ closest allies.

At the same time, our American colleagues are persistently trying to mobilise all of their foreign partners to contain Russia and China. Simultaneously they do not conceal their wish to sow discord between Moscow and Beijing and undermine multilateral alliances and regional integration projects in Eurasia and Asia-Pacific that are operating outside of the US oversight. Pressure is exerted on those countries that do not play by the rules imposed on them and dare make the “wrong choice” of cooperating with US “adversaries”.

So, what do we have as a result? In politics, erosion of the international legal basis, growth of instability and unsustainability, chaotic fragmentation of the global landscape and deepening mistrust between those involved in the international life. In the area of security, blurring of the dividing line between military and non-military means of achieving foreign policy goals, militarization of international relations, increased reliance on nuclear weapons in US security doctrines, lowering the threshold for the use of such armaments, the emergence of new hotbeds of armed conflicts, the persistence of the global terrorist threat, and militarization of the cyberspace. In the world economy, increased volatility, tougher competition for markets, energy resources and their supply routes, trade wars and undermining the multilateral trade system. We can add a surge of migration and deepening of ethnic and religious strife. Do we need such a “rules-based” world order?

Against this background, attempts by Western liberal ideologues to portray Russia as a “revisionist force” are simply absurd. We were among the first to draw attention to the transformation of the global political and economic systems that cannot remain static due to the objective march of history. It would be appropriate to mention here that the concept of multipolarity in international relations that accurately reflects emerging economic and geopolitical realities was formulated two decades ago by the outstanding Russian statesman Yevgeny Primakov. His intellectual legacy remains relevant now as we mark the 90th anniversary of his birth.

As is evident from the experience of recent years, using unilateral tools to address global problems is doomed to failure. The West-promoted “order” does not meet the needs of humankind’s harmonious development. This “order” is non-inclusive, aims to revise the key international legal mechanisms, rejects the principle of collective action in the relations between states, and by definition cannot generate solutions to global problems that would be viable and stable in the long term rather than seek a propaganda effect within an electoral cycle in this or that country.

What is being proposed by Russia? First of all, it is necessary to keep abreast of the times and recognise the obvious: the emergence of a polycentric world architecture is an irreversible process, no matter how hard anyone tries to artificially hold it back (let alone send it in reverse). Most countries don’t want to be held hostage to someone else’s geopolitical calculations and are determined to conduct nationally oriented domestic and foreign policies. It is our common interest to ensure that multipolarity is not based on a stark balance of power like it was at the earlier stages of human history (for example, in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century), but rather bears a just, democratic and unifying nature, takes into account the approaches and concerns of all those taking part in the international relations without an exception, and ensures a stable and secure future.

There are some people in the West who often speculate that polycentric world order inevitably leads to more chaos and confrontation because the “centers of power” will fail to come to terms among themselves and take responsible decisions. But, firstly, why not try? What if it works? For this, all that is necessary is to start talks on the understanding that the parties should seek a balance of interests. Attempts to invent ones’ own “rules” and impose them on all others as the absolute truth should be stopped. From now on, all parties should strictly comply with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, starting with the respect for the sovereign equality of states regardless of their size, system of government or development model. Paradoxically, countries that portray themselves as paragons of democracy actually care about it only as they demand from other countries to “put their house in order” on a West-inspired pattern. But as soon as the need arises for democracy in intergovernmental relations, they immediately evade honest talk or attempt to interpret international legal norms at their own discretion.

No doubt, life does not stand still. While taking good care of the post-WWII system of international relations that relies on the United Nations, it is also necessary to cautiously though gradually adjust it to the realities of the current geopolitical landscape. This is completely relevant for the UN Security Council, where, judging by today’s standards, the West is unfairly overrepresented. We are confident that reforming the Security Council shall take into account interests of the Asian, the African and the Latin American nations whilst any such design must rest upon the principle of the broadest consensus among the UN member states. The same approach should apply to refining the world trade system, with special attention paid to harmonizing the integration projects in various regions.

We should use to the fullest the potential of the G20, an ambitious, all-encompassing global governance body that represents the interests of all key players and takes unanimous decisions. Other associations are playing a growing role as well, alliances projecting the spirit of a true and democratic multipolarity, based on voluntary participation, consensus, values of equality and sound pragmatism, and refraining from confrontation and bloc approaches. These include BRICS and the SCO, which our country is an active member of and which Russia will chair in 2020.

It is evident that without collective effort and without unbiased partnership under the central coordinating role of the UN it is impossible to curb confrontational tendencies, build up trust and cope with common threats and challenges. It is high time to come to terms on uniform interpretation of the principles and norms of international law rather than try to follow the old saying “might goes before right”. It is more difficult to broker deals than to put forward demands. But patiently negotiated trade-offs will be a much more reliable vehicle for predictable handling of international affairs. Such an approach is badly needed to launch substantive talks on the terms and conditions of a reliable and just system of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasia. This objective has been declared multiple times at the top level in the OSCE documents. It is necessary to move from words to deeds. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) have repeatedly expressed their readiness to contribute to such efforts.

It is important to increase our assistance to the peaceful resolution of numerous conflicts, be it in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America or the post-Soviet space. The main point is to live up to the earlier arrangements rather than to invent pretexts for refusing to adhere to the obligations.

As of today, it is especially relevant to counter religious and ethnic intolerance. We urge all the nations to work together to prepare for the World Conference on Interfaith and Inter-Ethnic Dialogue that will be held in Russia in May 2022 under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the UN. The OSCE that has formulated a principled position condemning anti-Semitism should act with equal resolve toward Christianophobia and Islamophobia.

Our unconditional priority is to continue providing assistance to the unhindered formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership, a broad integration framework stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific that involves the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and all other countries of the Eurasian continent, including the EU countries. It would be unwise to contain the unifying processes or, worse still, to put up fences. It would be a mistake to reject the obvious strategic advantages of the common Eurasian region in an increasingly competitive world.

Consistent movement towards this constructive goal will allow us not only to keep up the dynamic development of the national economies and to remove obstacles to the movement of goods, capital, labor and services, but it will also create a solid foundation of security and stability throughout the vast region from Lisbon to Jakarta.

Will the multipolar world continue to take shape through cooperation and harmonization of interests or through confrontation and rivalry? This depends on all of us. Russia will continue to promote a positive and unifying agenda aimed at removing the old dividing lines and preventing the appearance of new ones. Russia has advanced initiatives to prevent an arms race in outer space, establish efficient mechanisms for combating terrorism, including chemical and biological terrorism, and to agree upon practical measures to prevent the use of cyberspace for undermining national security or for other criminal purposes.

Our proposals to launch a serious discussion on all aspects of strategic stability in the modern era are still on the table.

There have been ideas floated recently to modify the agenda and update the terms. The proposed subjects for discussion vary between “strategic rivalry” and “multilateral deterrence.” Terminology is negotiable, but it is not terms but the essence that really matters. It is now much more important to start a strategic dialogue on the existing threats and risks and to seek consensus on a commonly acceptable agenda. Yet another outstanding statesman from our country, Andrey Gromyko (his 110th birth anniversary we mark this year) said wisely: “Better to have ten years of negotiations than one day of war.”

Eran los sindicatos, estúpido/a

Si alguna vez te preguntaste cuál es la agenda oculta detrás de las "políticas de identidad", conviene que leas esta nota de Björn Seelmann para el sitio web Sott.net: 


Título: 9/11, Identity Politics And The Coming Storm

Texto: The events of 9/11, and the wars they unleashed, were the work of a ruthless cabal seeking to 'shape reality' in US society and beyond. Serving as a catalyst, 9/11 artificially introduced an 'us versus them' mentality upon everyone, ultimately affecting every fracture line - every social, ethnic and religious division - in society. Quite how much of what has followed since that fateful day was intended by the perpetrators is difficult to gauge, but they certainly had their reasons, and those reasons were informed by megalomaniac visions of world domination and mass social engineering.

Those of us who lived through 9/11 watched in horror as it triggered the 'Clash of Civilizations', embroiling the Western world in a 'clash' of values with the Muslim world, 'justifying' torture, terrorism, wars of aggression, the pillaging of government treasuries, and massive state surveillance. Some of us thought, if we just expose the hand behind 9/11 and the subsequent 'war on terror', we can stave off calamity.

But this endeavor, it turns out, is beyond us. The full horror of 9/11 has since 'progressed' to cause profound economic malaise in the West, and most recently encompass (and devour) the broader 'Culture Wars'. Those who reacted to 9/11 by taking refuge in 'our Western values' believed that at least from here, we can defend the West from the Rest. But those values - reflected in what was once 'common sense' - have been hijacked and corrupted from within, then turned against everyone and everything.

With the battlefront now raging literally everywhere, from school bathrooms to the halls of power, chaos and conspiracy thrive, with manipulators and ideologues using the media to stir up a war of all against all and encouraging the worst behaviors in people - ostensibly to 'express their individuality', but really to euthanize their conscience and force their submission. The fate of humanity hangs in the balance.


Order of Choas

This horrific mural at Denver Airport is titled "Order of Chaos". Could this be a sign of times to come?

While 'the cabal' is not necessarily a single organization or group of people with one common goal in mind, honest research cannot fail to notice the similarities between elites past and present, the commonality of their tactics for getting what they want (power and money), and the manner in which their competing interests tend to fold into, and reinforce, one another. In many respects, the metaphor of an octopus is apropos, although it falls short because no one human agency - as yet anyway - appears to control it all.

One of the greatest tools at their disposal is the tactic of terrorizing populations through false-flag attacks, then manipulating peoples' emotional reactions and thus directing public action. Without this, it's doubtful we would be in the mess we're in. False-flag operations were a thing pre-9/11, and their revelation as fact back then sheds light on the elites' current use of that strategy.

Operation Gladio was carried out with a view to corralling people to turn to the State and demand greater security, while framing 'communists' for terrorist atrocities in order to keep western European countries away from the temptation of Soviet 'influence'. As Vassilis Ephremidis, a Greek MEP, said during a European Parliament debate about Gladio on November 22nd, 1990:

"Mr. President, the GLADIO system has operated for four decades under various names. It has operated clandestinely, and we are entitled to attribute to it all the destabilization, all provocation and all the terrorism that have occurred in our countries over these four decades, and to say that, actively or passively, it must have had an involvement. It was set up by the CIA and NATO which, while purporting to defend democracy, were actually undermining it and using it for their own nefarious purposes."

We are obviously no longer living through the Cold War (current attempts to introduce a new version of it notwithstanding), so the association between terror and communism or anything 'Left' isn't what it used to be. Post-9/11, of course, Muslims became associated with terror, and the same essential 'Gladio game' expanded in intensity and complexity, generating the booming global industries of 'Jihadi, Inc.' and 'anti-terror security'.

But that isn't the only 'switcheroo' that has taken place. In March this year, New Zealand was hit by a multi-site terror attack in which two Christchurch mosques were targeted in a killing spree, ostensibly committed by a lone self-proclaimed 'conservative' concerned with the preservation of 'Western values'. This lunatic in turn cited as inspiration the 'crusader' who claimed sole responsibility for a multi-site terror attack in Norway in 2011, when a mass shooting on the island of Utoya laid waste to dozens of children of that country's liberal elite at the same time that a bomb went off in downtown Oslo.

Note that that lunatic said he did so in the name of protecting Europe from mass immigration, specifically from Muslim-majority countries. Note also that he did so years before such immigration became an issue in Europe.

And so what was once being done largely for geopolitical purposes - 'keeping Europe onside' against the Soviets - seamlessly folded into, or expanded out into - something similar, yet more dreadful in its consequences. The writers of this 'script' today alternately ascribe atrocities to 'Islamic' or 'Right-wing' terrorism, meaning 'the enemy' is both out there and 'among us', both 'the Muslim' who would attack us and the (local, and, in the West, typically white) 'men who would defend us'. The insidious manipulation of narratives has placed Westerners in a terrible bind; to call out the 'Muslim other' is to defend the 'evil among us', a predicament that is causing confusion and hatred, civil dissension and major social strife.

The cabal's efforts to create, finance and arm 'rebels' in the Middle East and beyond was instrumental in causing the immigration crisis, opening borders to all comers without any serious effort to weed out radicals, while at the same time supporting jihadists in Syria and elsewhere. No one disputes that, although it's open for debate to what extent it was an intended outcome. Given that that is what is happening, however, blackmailed and corrupt government leaders are willfully playing a double-game, permanently changing populations and cultural norms in the West, and doing so with flagrant disregard for their own citizens' wishes.

International organizations funded by George Soros are inciting people (mostly Africans) to abandon their homeland, to uproot themselves, and come to Europe. They're being duped by lies, false promises of a better life, more money, and better living conditions. Indeed, living conditions in Europe might be better in terms of money (for now), but at what cost to both the migrants and the indigenous populations?

The media is of course significantly responsible for this madness. On the one hand, journalists love reporting that migrants receive government and 'NGO' funding, and - often - unusually preferential treatment (some migrants in France are even lodged in castles while French citizens are living in the street). This of course angers honest hard-working people, who are left wondering why their government chooses to help the 'Other' over its own people.

On the other hand, the media under-reports or suppresses stories of assaults and rapes committed by migrants, which makes people even angrier. Those who oppose or even question mass migration are immediately condemned as far-right 'white supremacists'. A minority of them may very well be at this point, but the majority are just desperate and clinging to the last thing that feels real and right in the midst of all this chaos - their national identity, and their roots in the local community.

Anger and discontent among the masses is apparently what this cabal is aiming for. They're sowing seeds which might lead to some form of civil war.


Enter Identity Politics

If the only source of social division was the issue of mass migration, people would take sides accordingly, elections would reflect the majority's wishes, and the issue would likely be solved or its effects at least mitigated. But the direct consequences of 9/11 have had the indirect effect of amplifying the Culture War in other spheres.

Adding more fuel to the fire, the widespread and repeated promotion of identity politics, 'social justice' campaigns and strange new ideologies, supposedly motivated by a desire to REDUCE divisions in society, have actually INCREASED divisions, watering down what might otherwise have been focused popular resistance against entrenched corporate elites and their masters' agenda for world hegemony.

Mark Crispin, a professor of media studies from New York University, notes:

"It's interesting to note that Ford and Rockefeller and the other foundations with strong CIA connections started giving grants in the early 70s to study race and gender. It was a sudden move towards identity politics by these organisations and the theory is that the reason they did this was to balkanize the left and to prevent it from pursuing any kind of a class or economic analysis."

Identity politics was introduced to ensure that the polarization of society can never 'settle' into its natural state during times of crisis: the great majority of people more or less united by common understandings against a pathological elite whose time is up. What we see instead is that great majority polarized against itself, in myriad ways.

Race, gender, sexuality, social justice, 'MY group'... so-called intersectionality and 'what's in it for me' - and not personal responsibility - is the criteria that determines how many credits I get from the government and how much kudos I get from my social media 'friends'. ALL your misfortunes exist because of that 'Other' over there (here's looking at you, whitey), so don't even think about finding common ground and analyzing the real causes of social upheaval.

The Left which, in general, is in the ascendancy these days while the Right is vilified, has a habit of doubling-down and becoming even more extreme in its rhetoric and policies. This is inevitably influencing the political Right to become more extreme in response. Push people against the wall and certain elements will rise up.

What's more, the primary target of identity politics seems to be white people in general. To listen to the media, only whites can be guilty of hate speech and hate crimes, and only minorities can be 'offended'. The New York Times' Sarah Jeong can openly brag that she enjoys "being cruel to old white men," compare "dumbass f*cking white people" to dogs, and wish for whites to "all go extinct soon."

A Muslim Congresswoman can openly suggest that people be "more fearful of white men" than radical jihadists and propose racial profiling of ALL white males. The BBC openly turns down applicants because they are white and only "ethnic minority backgrounds" are permitted.

Taking their cue from elites, people across society are mimicking this 'anti-racist' racism. In this video an angry mob of colored students in UC Berkeley forcefully brought back segregation - "No Whites Allowed Day" - preventing white people from accessing campus. This has actually become common practice at other universities across the US.

Identity politics is completely inconsistent with a society that is actually tolerant, which is why the cabal is pushing for an ever more diverse and multicultural society, thus sowing the seeds of chaos and - they believe - cementing their control for eternity. This ideology, followed to its conclusion, will destroy the center ground and lead to anarchy. Cyberpunk 2020, a role-playing game first published in 1988, predicted today's social-political landscape with unnerving accuracy:

Recently the US military released a video about how they are preparing to protect the privileged few from this anarchic society in the near future (like, by 2030). Author John Whitehead describes it as follows:

"The chilling five-minute training video, obtained by The Intercept through a FOIA request and made available online, paints an ominous picture of the future — a future the military is preparing for — bedeviled by 'criminal networks', 'substandard infrastructure', 'religious and ethnic tensions', 'impoverishment, slums', 'open landfills, over-burdened sewers', a 'growing mass of unemployed', and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have-nots."

It takes a lot of mental clarity and stoicism to resist the push towards polarization and misdirected anger, and to see the bigger picture and the cabal's game: enticing people into picking up the banner for one 'side' and thus divide us against ourselves.

When everyone is 'required' to pick a side, everyone polarized this way becomes a puppet serving the cabal's agenda of divide-and-conquer. It's their game. Sooner or later, we the people must realize that our fight is not with each other, but with the psychopaths at the 'top' that would happily sit back and see us throttle each other (metaphorically, and perhaps literally) to avoid full public exposure of their depraved experiment in social engineering.

Juegos

¿A qué juega el Reino Unido? Difícil decirlo en esta etapa caótica de la historia europea. Lo que claramente comenzó como caballo de Troya en los comienzos de su integración al proyecto europeo, parece terminar sin pena ni gloria como chivo expiatorio y ejemplo negativo para cualquier país que a esta altura quiera salirse de la Unión. En el medio, claro, están los matices. Al respecto, nos gustó la siguiente nota de Thierry Meyssan para Red Voltaire: 



Título: Brexit, Unión Europea y democracia

Epígrafe: La política de Boris Johnson se sitúa, para Thierry Meyssan, en perfecta continuidad ‎con la historia británica. Si en vez de utilizar como referencia las declaraciones ‎de campaña del primer ministro británico analizamos más bien sus escritos, veremos ‎que la política de Boris Johnson está determinada, más que por un deseo de ‎independencia económica, sobre todo por el temor ante la instauración de un Estado ‎supranacional continental.‎

Texto: En el momento de la disolución de la URSS, Francia y Alemania trataron de preservar sus lugares ‎en el mundo resolviendo el problema de su estatura ante el gigante estadounidense. Decidieron ‎entonces reunificar las dos Alemanias y fundirse juntas [Francia y la nueva gran Alemania] en un ‎Estado supranacional: la Unión Europea. Con la experiencia que ya tenían de cooperación entre los ‎Estados, creyeron que sería posible construir ese gran Estado supranacional a pesar del dictado ‎del entonces secretario de Estado James Barker, que imponía una ampliación forzosa de la UE hacia ‎el este. ‎

Durante los debates sobre el Tratado de Maastricht, los gaullistas franceses opusieron el ‎‎«supranacionalismo europeo» al «soberanismo». Para ellos, el marco nacional era la ‎democracia y la escala europea significaba burocracia. Para vencer la resistencia de los gaullistas, ‎el presidente francés Francois Mitterrand y el canciller alemán Helmut Kohl comenzaron por crear ‎la confusión entre el soberanismo democrático (sólo el pueblo es soberano) y el soberanismo ‎nacionalista (la nación es el único marco conocido para ejercer un poder democrático). Luego ‎asimilaron toda forma de «soberanismo» al «chauvinismo» (el hecho de considerar que sólo ‎lo nacional es bueno y de despreciar todo lo que venga del extranjero). ‎

Se adoptó el Tratado de Maastricht y ese documento transformó un sistema de cooperación ‎entre Estados en un Estado supranacional (la Unión Europea), a pesar de que ni siquiera existía ‎algo que pudiese llamarse «nación europea». ‎

Se reescribió la Historia, tanto para hacer creer que el nacionalismo es la guerra como para borrar ‎las huellas de las políticas chauvinistas antirrusas. Francia y Alemania crearon un canal de ‎televisión binacional llamado Arte, cuyos programas debían presentar el nazismo y el sovietismo ‎como dos regímenes totalitarios resultantes de un mismo nacionalismo. Se creó ‎deliberadamente la confusión entre el nacionalismo alemán y el racialismo nazi –a pesar de que el ‎racialismo nazi es incompatible con la idea nacional germánica, que no se basa en la raza sino en ‎la lengua. Y se borraron también las huellas de los esfuerzos que hizo la URSS por sellar una ‎alianza antinazi. Se modificó asi el significado del Pacto de Munich y del Acuerdo Molotov-‎Ribbentrop [1].‎

Treinta años más tarde, las instituciones “europeas” concebidas entre 6 países y desarrolladas ‎entre 12 están resultando imposibles de sostener a la escala de 28 países, cosa que ‎Estados Unidos ya había anticipado. La Unión Europea se ha convertido en un gigante ‎económico… pero sigue sin existir la “nación europea” y los Estados miembros de la UE han ‎perdido su soberanía nacional pero siguen sin tener una ambición política común. ‎

Para tener una idea del error cometido pregunte usted a un soldado del embrión de “ejército ‎europeo” si está dispuesto a «morir por Bruselas» y vea su cara de asombro. Los soldados ‎están dispuestos a dar la vida por su país… pero no por la Unión Europea. ‎

El mito que afirma que «la Unión Europea es la paz» aportó a la UE el premio Nobel de la Paz ‎en 2012, pero:

- Gibraltar sigue siendo una colonia británica en suelo español [2];‎

- Irlanda del Norte es también una colonia británica en suelo irlandés;

- y, sobre todo, el norte de Chipre sigue bajo la ocupación militar del ejército turco ‎ [3].‎


Francia y Alemania creyeron que, con el paso del tiempo, las particularidades británicas ‎determinadas por la historia se disolverían en el Estado supranacional. Olvidaron que el ‎Reino Unido no es una República igualitaria sino una monarquía parlamentaria clasista. ‎

Debido a los restos de su imperio colonial en Europa occidental, el Reino Unido nunca pudo ‎integrar el proyecto franco-alemán de Estado supranacional. Rechazó además varios elementos ‎importantes del Tratado de Maastricht, como su moneda supranacional, el euro. La lógica ‎interna del Reino Unido empujaba irresistiblemente ese país a fortalecer su alianza con ‎Estados Unidos, cuya cultura comparten parte de sus élites. Es por eso que la administracion ‎Bush se planteó, en el año 2000, la inclusión del Reino Unido en el Tratado de Libre Comercio del ‎América del Norte (TLCAN) y la posibilidad de organizar su salida de la Unión Europea [4].‎

El hecho es que el parlamento británico nunca optó por uno de los dos lados del Atlántico. Hubo ‎que esperar al referéndum de 2016 para que el pueblo británico escogiera, optando por el Brexit. ‎Pero la eventual salida británica de la Unión Europea volvió a abrir una herida que se había ‎olvidado. La creación de una frontera aduanal entre la República de Irlanda e Irlanda del Norte ‎pone en peligro el acuerdo de paz, conocido como ‎«Acuerdo del Viernes Santo»‎, entre la ‎República de Irlanda y el Reino Unido, acuerdo que no fue concebido para resolver un problema ‎sino sólo para congelarlo.‎

El sistema político británico se basa en la bipolaridad. Esto se ve físicamente en el salón donde ‎se reúne la Cámara de los Comunes, donde los diputados no se sientan en un hemiciclo sino ‎frente a frente. El hecho es que el Brexit plantea simultáneamente dos cuestiones ‎existenciales: ser o no ser miembro de la Unión Europea y mantener o no la colonización de Irlanda ‎del Norte. Durante los 3 últimos años, todos hemos podido comprobar que la Cámara ha sido ‎incapaz de llegar a una decisión de la mayoría sobre alguna de las 4 opciones posibles. Esta ‎situación ha afectado gravemente la economía británica. Según un informe confidencial de ‎‎Coalition, las comisiones bancarias se ganan cada vez menos en la City londinense y cada vez ‎más en Wall Street. ‎

El sistema político británico es pragmático. Nunca fue pensado como sistema político y nunca ha ‎llegado a tener reglas escritas [5]. Es resultado de miles de años de enfrentamientos y de correlaciones de fuerza. ‎Según el estado actual de la tradicional constitucional, el monarca sólo hace uso del poder si está ‎en juego la supervivencia de la nación [6]. Es por eso que la reina decidió ‎suspender (eufemísticamente «prorrogar») el parlamento para dar a su primer ministro la ‎posibilidad de desbloquear la situación. Normalmente, la reina sólo puede suspender ‎el parlamento por razones técnicas (como una elección, por ejemplo) pero no para poner la ‎democracia entre paréntesis. ‎

Resulta extremadamente interesante observar la emotiva reacción que la decisión de la reina ‎provocó en el Reino Unido. Todos los que se opusieron al Brexit se dan cuenta ahora de que ‎han pasado 3 años en discusiones estériles y que han alcanzado los límites de la democracia. ‎Algunos, incluso en la Europa continental, descubren con asombro que la democracia implica la ‎igualdad entre todos los ciudadanos y que, por consiguiente, es incompatible con un sistema que ‎sigue siendo una monarquía clasista. ‎

El error de apreciación sobre el cual se asienta todo esto nos remite además a la creación de las ‎instituciones europeas basadas en el modelo concebido precisamente por Winston Churchill. ‎Para Churchill no se trataba de unir democracias ni de crear un Estado supranacional ‎democrático sino de evitar el surgimiento de una potencia hegemónica en el continente europeo. ‎O sea, impedir que Alemania lograra levantarse nuevamente y, al mismo tiempo, poner a Europa ‎en condiciones de enfrentarse a la Unión Soviética [7]. Al contrario de lo que proclaman los eslóganes que tan hábilmente utilizó, ‎el objetivo de Churchill no era oponerse al modelo comunista sino continuar la política que ya ‎había aplicado durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial: debilitar a las dos principales potencias ‎continentales –Alemania y la URSS– a las que dejó luchar solas una contra otra desde junio ‎de 1941 hasta septiembre de 1943, sin implicar en la lucha ni un solo ejército británico. ‎

Así que no es sorprendente que el presidente francés Francois Mitterrand, quien había participado ‎con Winston Churchill en el Congreso Fundador realizado en La Haya en 1948, nunca se ‎preocupara por el déficit de democracia del Estado supranacional que él mismo concibió con el ‎canciller alemán Helmut Kohl a raíz de la disolución de la URSS. ‎

‎Boris Johnson es un típico producto del Eton College, aunque parte de ‎su educación se desarrolló en Estados Unidos –renunció a la ciudadanía estadounidense ‎en 1996 para tratar de entrar a la Cámara de los Comunes. Es un discípulo de dos grandes ‎personalidades del Imperio británico. Primeramente, de Benjamin Disraeli, el primer ministro de la ‎reina Victoria. Johnson hereda de Disraeli su concepción del llamado Conservatism One Nation, ‎según la cual la riqueza confiere a quien la posee una responsabilidad social –la élite (upper ‎class) tiene la obligación de dar trabajo a las clases pobres para que cada cual se mantenga en ‎su lugar. La otra personalidad es Winston Churchill, sobre quien incluso escribió un libro [8]. ‎

Theresa May se planteó sucesivamente 3 modos diferentes de compensar la salida de la Unión ‎Europea: convertir el Reino Unido en el agente cambiario del yuan chino en Occidente, fortalecer ‎la «relación especial» con Washington [9] y redinamizar ‎el Commonwealth (Global Britain). ‎

Boris Johnson se sitúa en la continuidad de esos modelos aunque focalizándose en la «relación ‎especial» con Estados Unidos y echándose en brazos del presidente Trump en el G7, aunque ‎no comparte los puntos de vistas del estadounidense, ni en economía, ni en política internacional. ‎También es lógico que haya mentido descaradamente contra Rusia en el momento del caso ‎Skripal [10] y que no sólo quiera sacar al Reino Unido de la Unión ‎Europea, sin importar el precio a pagar por ello, sino también, y sobre todo, sabotear la ‎aventura supranacional continental. ‎

Si Boris Johnson logra mantenerse como primer ministro, la política internacional de la ‎‎«pérfida Albión» consistirá en servir de consejera a Washington y en provocar conflictos entre la ‎Unión Europea y Rusia. ‎


Notas:

[1] «Petite leçon d’histoire à Justin Trudeau», por Michael Jabara ‎Carley, Strategic Culture Foundation (Rusia) y Réseau Voltaire, 7 de septiembre de 2019 (Este ‎artículo está actualmente en proceso de traducción al español).

[2] «La Unión Europea ve ahora Gibraltar ‎como una “colonia” del Reino Unido», Red Voltaire, 3 de febrero ‎de 2019.

[3] «Cerca de 200 000 chipriotas no podrán ‎votar en las elecciones europeas», Red Voltaire, 16 de mayo de 2019.

[4] The ‎Impact on the U.S. Economy of Including the United Kingdom in a Free Trade Arrangement With ‎the United States, Canada, and Mexico, United States International Trade Commission, 2000.

[5] El Reino Unido no tiene una Constitución escrita. Nota de la ‎‎Red Voltaire.

[6] «La reina Isabel II suspende el ‎Parlamento británico», Red Voltaire, 29 de agosto de 2019.

[7] «Discours de Fulton sur le “rideau de fer”» y «Discours de Winston Churchill sur les États-Unis d’Europe», por Winston Churchill, Réseau Voltaire, 5 de marzo y 19 de septiembre ‎de 1946.

[8] The ‎Churchill Factor: How One Man Made History, Boris Johnson, Riverhead Books (2014).

[9] “Theresa May addresses US Republican leaders”, por Theresa May, Voltaire Network, 27 de enero de 2017.

[10] «Los expertos militares británicos contradicen a Theresa May», ‎‎Red Voltaire, 3 de abril de 2018; «Caso Skripal, ¿la mentira que colma la copa?», por Michael Jabara Carley, Strategic Culture Foundation (Rusia), ‎‎Red Voltaire, 28 de abril de 2018.

Mientras tanto, en Siria...

El gobierno sirio parece haber retomado la iniciativa en su cruenta lucha contra los fanáticos islámicos estacionados en uno de sus últimos reductos: la Gobernación de Idlib, en el norte de ese país. Si logra vencerlos habrá, probablemente, ganado la guerra. La nota que sigue es de Eric Zuesse para el sitio web Strategic Culture Foundation:


Título: How Syria Defeated the 2012-2019 Invasion by US & Al-Qaeda

Texto: On August 31st, the brilliant anonymous German intelligence analyst who blogs as “Moon of Alabama” headlined “Syria – Coordinated Foreign Airstrike Kills Leaders Of Two Al-Qaeda Aligned Groups”, and he reported that,“Some three hours ago an air- or missile strike in Syria’s Idleb governorate hit a meeting of leaders of the al-Qaeda aligned Haras-al-Din and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) aka Jabhat al-Nusra. Both were killed. It is likely that leaders of other Jihadist groups were also present. The hit completely destroyed a Haras al-Din guesthouse or headquarter. The Syrian Observatory says that more than 40 people were killed in the strike. The hit will make it much easier for the Syrian army campaign to liberate Idleb governorate.”

At long last, Syria’s army and Russia’s air force are no longer being threatened with World War III by the US and its allies if they proceed to destroy the tens of thousands of Al-Qaida-led jihadists whom the US had helped to train and arm (and had been protecting in Syria ever since December 2012) in order to overthrow Syria’s non-sectarian Government and replace it by a fundamentalist-Sunni Government which the royal Sauds who own Saudi Arabia would appoint. All throughout that war, those Al-Qaeda-led ‘moderate rebels’ had been organized from the governate or province of Idlib (or Idleb). But now, most (if not all) of their leadership are dead.

Turkey’s leader Tayyip Erdogan had hoped that he would be allowed both by Russia’s Vladimir Putin and by the United States’ Donald Trump to grab for Turkey at least part of Idlib province from Syria. But now, he is instead either participating in, or else allowing, Syria’s army and Russia’s air force, to slaughter Idlib’s jihadists and restore that province to Syria. On 9 September 2018, Russia and Iran had granted Turkey a temporary control over Idlib, and Erdogan then tried to seize it permanently, but finally he has given it up and is allowing Idlib to become restored to Syria. This turn-around signals Syria’s victory against its enemies; it’s the war’s watershed event.

Here is the history of how all that happened and how Syria is finally a huge and crucial step closer to winning its war against the invaders (which had originally been mainly Al Qaeda, US, Turkey, Qatar, and the Sauds,, but more recently has been only Al Qaeda and US):

I reported, back on 10 September 2018, that:

—
Right now, the Trump Administration has committed itself to prohibiting Syria (and its allies) from retaking control of Idlib, which is the only province that was more than 90% in favor of Al Qaeda and of ISIS and against the Government, at the start of the ‘civil war’ in Syria. Idlib is even more pro-jihadist now, because almost all of the surviving jihadists in Syria have sought refuge there — and the Government freely has bussed them there, in order to minimize the amount of “human shield” hostage-taking by them in the other provinces. Countless innocent lives were saved this way.

Both Democratic and Republican US federal officials and former officials are overwhelmingly supportive of US President Trump’s newly announced determination to prohibit Syria from retaking control of that heavily jihadist province, and they state such things about Idlib as:

It has become a dumping ground for some of the hardcore jihadists who were not prepared to settle for some of the forced agreements that took place, the forced surrenders that took place elsewhere. … Where do people go when they’ve reached the last place that they can go? What’s the refuge after the last refuge? That’s the tragedy that they face.

That happened to be an Obama Administration official expressing support for the jihadists, and when he was asked by his interviewer “Did the world fail Syria?” he answered “Sure. I mean, there’s no doubt about it. I mean, the first person who failed Syria was President Assad himself.”
—

Idlib city, incidentally, had also been the most active in starting Syria’s ‘civil war’, back on 10 March 2012 (that’s a news-report by Qatar, which had actually helped to finance the jihadists, whom it lionized as freedom-fighters, and Qatar had also helped the CIA to establish Al Qaeda in Syria). Idlib city is where the peaceful phase of the “Arab Spring” uprisings transformed (largely through that CIA, Qatari, Saudi, and Turkish, assistance) into an armed rebellion to overthrow the nation’s non-sectarian Government, because that’s where the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda was centered. On 29 July 2012, the New York Times headlined “As Syrian War Drags On, Jihadists Take Bigger Role” and reported that “Idlib Province, the northern Syrian region where resistance fighters control the most territory, is the prime example.” (Note the euphemism there, “resistance fighters,” not “jihadists,” nor “terrorists.” That’s how propaganda is written. But this time, the editors had slipped up, and used the honest “Jihadists” in their headline. However, their news-report said that these were only “homegrown Muslim jihadists,” though thousands of jihadists at that time were actually already streaming into Idlib from around the world. Furthermore, Obama lied and said that the people he was helping (the al-Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, and the al-Thani family who own Qatar) to arm, were not jihadists, and he was never called-out on that very blatant ongoing lie.) But the US-allied, Saud-and-Thani-financed, massive arms-shipments, to the Al-Qaeda-led forces in Syria, didn’t start arriving there until March 2013, around a year after that start. And, then, in April 2013, the EU agreed with the US team to buy all the (of course black-market) oil it could that “the rebels” in Syria’s oil region around Deir Ezzor were stealing from Syria, so as to help “the rebels” to expand their control in Syria and thus to further weaken Syria’s Government. (The “rebels,” in that region of Syria, happened to be ISIS, not Al Qaeda, but the US team’s primary target to help destroy was actually Syria, and never ISIS. In fact, the US didn’t even start bombing ISIS there until after Russia had already started doing that on 30 September 2015.)

A week following my 10 September 2018 news-report, I reported, September 17th, about how Erdogan, Putin, and Iran’s Rouhani, had dealt with the US alliance’s threat of going to war against Russia in Syrian territory if Russia and Syria were to attack the jihadists in Idlib:

—

As I recommended in a post on September 10th, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan jointly announced on September 17th, “We’ve agreed to create a demilitarized zone between the government troops and militants before October 15. The zone will be 15-20km wide,” which compares to the Korean DMZ’s 4-km width. I had had in mind the Korean experience, but obviously Putin and Erdogan are much better-informed about the situation than I am, and they have chosen a DMZ that’s four to five times wider. In any case, the consequences of such a decision will be momentous, unless US President Donald Trump is so determined for there to be World War III as to stop at nothing in order to force it to happen no matter what Russia does or doesn’t do.

What the Putin-Erdogan DMZ decision means is that the 50,000 Turkish troops who now are occupying Idlib province of Syria will take control over that land, and will thus have the responsibility over the largest concentration of jihadists anywhere on the planet: Idlib. It contains the surviving Syrian Al Qaeda and ISIS fighters, including all of the ones throughout Syria who surrendered to the Syrian Army rather than be shot dead on the spot by Government forces.

—

However, after Erdogan got control over Idlib, he double-crossed Putin and Rouhani, by trying to solidify his control not only over Idlib but over adjoining portions of Syria, I headlined on 14 July 2019 “Turkey Will Get a Chunk of Syria: An Advantage of Being in NATO”, and reported:

Turkey is already starting to build infrastructure even immediately to the north and east of Idlib in order to stake its claim to a yet larger portion of Syria than just Idlib. This might not have been part of the deal that was worked out by Russia’s Putin, Iran’s Rouhani, and Turkey’s Erdogan, in Tehran, on 9 September 2018, which agreement allowed Turkey only to take over — and only on a temporary basis — Idlib province, which is by far the most pro-jihadist (and the most anti-Assad) of Syria’s 14 provinces. Turkey was instead supposed to hold it only temporarily, but the exact terms of the Turkey-Russia-Iran agreement have never been publicly disclosed.

Turkey was building in those adjoining Syrian areas not only facilities from two Turkish universities but also a highway to extend into the large region of Syria to the east that was controlled by Kurdish separatist forces which were under US protection. In July 2019, Erdogan seems to have been hoping that Trump would allow Turkey to attack those Kurdish proxy-forces of the US.

For whatever reason, that outcome, which was hoped for by Erdogan, turned out not to be realized. Perhaps Trump decided that if the separatist Kurds in Syria were going to be allowed to be destroyed, then Assad should be the person who would allow it, not he; and, therefore, if Erdogan would get such a go-ahead, the blame for it would belong to Assad, and not to America’s President.

Given the way Assad has behaved in the past — since he has always sought Syrian unity — the likely outcome, in the Kurdish Syrian areas, will be not a Syrian war against Kurds, but instead some degree of federal autonomy there, so long as that would be acceptable also to Erdogan. If Erdogan decides to prohibit any degree of Kurdish autonomy across the border in Syria as posing a danger to Turkish unity, then Assad will probably try (as much as he otherwise can) to accommodate the Kurds without any such autonomy, just like in the non-Kurdish parts of the unitary nation of Syria. Otherwise, Kurdish separatist sentiment will only continue in Syria, just as it does in Turkey and Iraq. The US has backed Kurdish separatism all along, and might continue that in the future (such as after the November 2020 US Presidential election).

Finally, there seems to be the light of peace at the end of the nightmarish eight-year invasion of Syria by the US and its national (such as Turkey-Jordan-Qatar-Saud-Israel) and proxy (such as jihadist and Kurdish) allies. Matters finally are turning for the better in Syria. The US finally appears to accept it. America’s threat, of starting WW III if Russia and Syria try to destroy the jihadists who have become collected in Syria’s Idlib province, seems no longer to pertain. Maybe this is because Trump wants to be re-elected in 2020. If that’s the reason, then perhaps after November of 2020, the US regime’s war against Syria will resume. This is one reason why every US Presidential candidate ought to be incessantly asked what his/her position is regarding the US regime’s long refrain, “Assad must go”, and regarding continued sanctions against Syria, and regarding restitution to Syria to restore that nation from the US-led war against it. Those questions would reveal whether all of the candidates are really just more of the same actual imperialistic (or “neocon”) policies, or whether, perhaps, one of them is better than that. Putin has made his commitments. What are theirs? Will they accept peace with Russia, and with Iran? If America were a democracy, its public would be informed about such matters — especially before the November 2020 ‘elections’, and not merely after they are already over.