miércoles, 29 de noviembre de 2017

El fin de la CIDH


Ya se sabe que la "Corte" Internacional de la Haya es la rama judicial de la NATO. Ideal para juzgar a reyezuelos y dictadores africanos, como así también para "demostrar" la justicia de Occidente en todo lo concerniente a la Europa del este, fundamentalmente en la ex-Yugoslavia, destrozada puntillosamente por la NATO hace un par de décadas. Algunos se cansaron de las payasadas de la "Corte", como le pasó a Slobodan Praljak (foto) horas atrás. No es que estemos defendiendo al individuo; simplemente creemos que la CIDH se acabó hoy. 

Primero vean el videíto, antes de que lo saquen de circulación: https://youtu.be/ll8-VYM5xYU. 

Y ahora, la noticia según la cuenta Zero Hedge:


Título: Convicted Croat War Criminal Dies After Drinking Poison In Hague Court

Subtítulo: A Bosnian Croat wartime commander died on Wednesday shortly after he drank poison, seconds after U.N. appeals judges upheld his 20-year sentence for war crimes against Bosnian Muslims.

Texto: Slobodan Praljak, 72, a former wartime leader, tilted back his head and took a swing from a flask or glass as the judge read out the verdict. The man’s defense lawyer then told the court that the accused had “taken poison.” The presiding judge stopped the proceedings and ordered a doctor to be called, Reuters reports.

“I just drank poison,” he said. “I am not a war criminal. I oppose this conviction.”

Praljak sat back down and slumped in his chair, a lawyer who was in the courtroom at the time said. The presiding judge suspended the hearing and called for a doctor. An ambulance was at the building and paramedics went to the courtroom.

Praljak was convicted of involvement in a campaign to drive Muslims out of Bosnia and create an ethnically pure Croat state during the Bosnian war in the 1990s sparked by the breakup of Yugoslavia. The conflict mainly saw Bosnian Muslims fighting Bosnian Serbs, but there was also deadly clashes involving Bosnian Muslims and Croats after an alliance fell apart. A total of 100,000 people died and 2.2 million were displaced in the three-year war.

Quoted by Reuters, Croatian General Marinko Kresic told Croatian state TV he had spoken to the wife of another defendant, General Miroslav Praljak, who was in The Hague. “She confirmed that he drank the poison and that he is in a very grave health condition,” he said.

Praljak died shortly after.

A UN judge who later called the site a "crime scene" said that Dutch police are investigating the incident.

As Reuters adds, the court said it would resume reading the verdict, which is also handling cases against five other defendants, including Milivoje Petkovic.

Prior to drinking the substance, Praljak had heard that his 20-year sentence for alleged war crimes in the Bosnian city of Mostar was being upheld. Praljak, who was one of six former Bosnian Croats having their appeal heard at the UN tribunal, is reported to have told the judge that he is not “a war criminal.”

The dramatic events came in the final minutes of the court’s last verdict before closing down. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), established by the United Nations in 1993, shuts its doors next month when its mandate expires. The court’s lead suspect, former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, died of a heart attack in March 2006 months before a ruling in his genocide case.

Two defendants awaiting trial committed suicide by hanging themselves in their U.N. cells, according to court documents. Slavko Dogmanovic died in 1998 and Milan Babi? was found dead in his locked cell in 2006. Last week, the same tribunal handed former Bosnian Serb general Ratko Mladic a life sentence for his role in the genocide of the Balkan Wars in the 1990s. Mladic was found guilty on 10 out of 11 charges, including the massacre of Bosnian Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995. He had pleaded not guilty on all counts.

Questions have been raised over the fairness of the international prosecution of crimes committed during the Balkan Wars. Of the 161 individuals indicted by the ICTY, the body created specifically to prosecute wartime crimes, 94 are ethnic Serbs, compared to 29 Croats, nine Albanians and nine Bosniaks. Two years ago, Russia used its UN veto right to block a resolution on the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica tragedy, saying that the draft document depicted the Serbian people as the sole guilty party in the complex armed conflict in Yugoslavia.

Guerras de religión


Posteamos una interpretación posible (una entre muchas) sobre el significado de Siria y Crimea en el renacer de la cultura ortodoxa en esas regiones y en la Europa del este. La nota es de Thierry Meyssan para Red Voltaire:


Título: De Catalina La Grande a Vladimir Putin

Epígrafe: Desde el inicio de la guerra contra Siria, en 2011, Rusia ha respaldado a este país frente lo que considera una agresión externa. Mientras la prensa occidental afirma que se trata de una «solidaridad entre dictaduras», este artículo expone las razones históricas de Rusia y observa que la victoria de Siria, que es también un triunfo de Moscú, abre una nueva etapa para la cultura ortodoxa en Europa.

Texto: Para construir la Rusia moderna, la emperatriz Catalina II –también conocida como Catalina la Grande– decidió convertir su capital, San Petersburgo, en el centro cultural más importante del mundo. Para ello enraizó el país en su base cultural ortodoxa, desarrolló el uso de la lengua francesa e invitó a su corte a los intelectuales y artistas europeos más sobresalientes de su tiempo, sin importarle que fuesen católicos, protestantes u ortodoxos, o incluso musulmanes.

Consciente de que el retroceso del cristianismo en el Medio Oriente, debido a la intolerancia del Imperio Otomano, representaba una pérdida para la ortodoxia –y por ende para Rusia– Catalina II entró en guerra contra el Sultán, anexó Crimea, transformó el Mar Negro en un mar ortodoxo e inició la liberación de la Gran Siria con la toma de Beirut  [1]. Declaró entonces que «La Gran Siria es la llave de la Casa Rusia».

Franceses y británicos rechazaron aquel sueño durante la guerra de Crimea, en 1853. También lo negaron los bolcheviques, quienes rechazaban la importancia de la ortodoxia en Rusia. En 1918, los bolcheviques le hicieron el juego a Mustafá Kemal Ataturk, por cuenta del traficante de armas Alexander Parvus, mecenas de Lenin.

El sueño de Catalina La Grande ha tenido que esperar hasta el año 2017 para alcanzar un comienzo de realización. El presidente Putin recuperó Crimea y liberó Siria –no de los otomanos sino de los yihadistas entrenados, armados y dirigidos por Francia, el Reino Unido y Estados Unidos. Rusia se ha convertido en la potencia protectora de todas las poblaciones, independientemente de la religión que profesen, desde las riberas del Nilo hasta los montes Elburz (también conocidos como Elbruz).

La cumbre de Sochi confirma ahora el papel de Rusia en el Medio Oriente ampliado (o Gran Medio Oriente). Hoy es la potencia protectora de Irán, Siria y Turquía. Recordemos de paso que estos dos últimos países, que estaban en el bando de Washington en 1991, se hallan ahora, en 2017, del lado de Moscú.

El despertar de la cultura ortodoxa tendrá importantes consecuencias en Europa. Históricamente, ese continente ha estado dividido en una zona oeste, católica y protestante, y el este ortodoxo. En el oeste de Europa, las poblaciones hablan con Dios y negocian con Él. En el este, el hombre se somete a Su Grandeza y se le adora. En el oeste de Europa, las estructuras de la familia son más desiguales mientras que en el este son más igualitarias. Desde el siglo XI, esta diferencia cultural divide Europa. Durante la guerra fría, la «Cortina de Hierro» contradecía esta división: la Grecia ortodoxa se vio anclada a la OTAN y la Polonia católica incorporada al Pacto de Varsovia. Actualmente, el proceso de extensión de la Unión Europea tiene como prioridad imponer el modelo occidental europeo a los países de cultura ortodoxa. Ya en nuestros días, es posible prever la disolución de la Unión Europea y el triunfo del modelo cultural abierto de San Petersburgo.

Los cristianos del Oriente nunca se sintieron implicados en las diferencias culturales intra-europeas. Pero los europeos las han percibido desde siempre, tanto los católicos como los protestantes, al igual que los ortodoxos. Ya en 1848, Francia concebía la idea de trasladar a los católicos y maronitas de Siria a Argelia y de exterminar a los ortodoxos. París planeaba utilizar a los cristianos árabes fieles a Roma para vigilar a los musulmanes argelinos. Al no lograrlo, acabó recurriendo a los judíos locales (mediante el decreto Cremieux, en 1870 [2]) para confiarles esa misión. Más recientemente, durante las guerras contra Irak y Siria, los europeos del oeste acogieron a numerosos cristianos del Oriente… única y exclusivamente católicos, nunca ortodoxos.

Para Siria, el resultado de la acción del presidente Putin constituye una oportunidad para volver a su propio principio fundamental, después de la experiencia de los yihadistas que pretendieron imponer su patrón cultural único a todas las poblaciones de ese país. Ese principio básico estipula que Siria es grande sólo cuando cuida de todas las poblaciones que en ella conviven, sin excepción.

Al principio, Vladimir Putin pensaba organizar en Sochi un «Congreso de los Pueblos Sirios». Finalmente, ha reconocido que en Siria, contrariamente al caso de Rusia, ninguna comunidad acapara un territorio, todas viven mezcladas en una patria única. El encuentro de Sochi será entonces un «Congreso del Diálogo Sirio».


Notas:

[1] Al igual que Jerusalén, Beirut es parte de la Siria Histórica o la Gran Siria (también designada como País de Sham). El Líbano apareció como país sólo como consecuencio de los acuerdos Sykes-Picot, durante la Primera Guerra Mundial. Un poco después se inició, con la Declaración Balfour, la formación de Israel, cuya independencia se proclamó en 1948.

[2] Con el decreto Cremieux –que porta el nombre de su autor, Adolphe Cremieux– Francia concedía la ciudadanía francesa a los «israelitas indígenas de Argelia». Nota de la Red Voltaire.


martes, 28 de noviembre de 2017

Siria: anticipando el futuro


Se suceden los análisis que tratan de anticipar el futuro de Medio Oriente cuando concluya la actual guerra en Siria. Quiénes ganan y quiénes pierden. Quiénes quedan más o menos igual. Las interpretaciones son múltiples; la que sigue es una entre muchas ideas que van largándose en la web. Fue escrita por Federico Pieraccini para el sitio Strategic Culture Foundation: 


Título: The End of the Syrian War Is the Beginning of a New Middle Eastern Order

Epígrafe: In the Middle East and beyond, we are witnessing a series of high-level political meetings between dozens of nations involved directly or indirectly in the Syrian situation. It is crucial to understand all this in order to understand the direction in which the region is going and what the new regional order is.

Texto: With the liberation of Abu Kamal on the Iraqi border, the last Syrian town controlled by ISIS, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies have completed the task of eliminating the Caliphate and its control over Syrian cities. ISIS returns to its original dimensions of being a terrorist organization without control of any territory or a city-state proclaimed as its capital.

These are important days, with political conferences about the future of the region and Syria itself occurring from Sochi to Cairo and passing through Riyadh. In Sochi, Assad met with Putin to confirm the alliance as well as Moscow’s loyalty to the Syrian State, and to also focus on a political solution. The Russian and Syrian presidents agreed on the need to involve the largest possible number of opposition groups in the reform process. In this regard, the meeting between Rouhani, Erdogan and Putin was also aimed at creating the conditions for an inclusive solution for all those who have agreed to put down arms and engage in talks with the legitimate government in Damascus. Turkey is the country that holds together the ranks of the so-called legitimate opposition, and Erdogan’s moves have confirmed that his strategy in the region is based around pivoting towards Russia through a full-fledged cooperation with Moscow. It is an almost unprecedented diplomatic victory for Russia that in two years it has managed to turn a potential opponent into one of the main guarantors of the peace process in Syria.

Riyadh is in the meantime bringing together the not-so-moderate opposition groups that are very close to Islamic extremism, a sort of spin-off of Al Nusra (Al Qaeda) and Daesh, and attempting to apply on them a makeover in an effort to rebrand them. It is important to note that recent meetings between King Salman and Putin seem to have opened some sort of dialogue with a representative of Moscow present at the Riyadh conference.

Firstly Erdogan, and then King Salman and his son Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), seem to have understood that a military defeat in Syria is now inevitable, and the latest developments have been related to the consequences resulting from the defeat of the terrorists. Turkey has much to gain from a convenient alliance with Moscow, both in terms of energy and transit along the East-West route of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and along the North-South corridor contained within the agreement between Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan and Turkey. In light of this, Russian planes have been flying over Turkey to reach Syria. A NATO country is letting Russian military aircraft fly over its airspace to reach Syria, something that would have been impossible to imagine not too long ago.

For Saudi Arabia the situation is different. While the meeting between King Salman and Putin represents an absolute novelty, the recent confirmation by MBS of his intentions to oppose the rise of Iran run counter to the possibility of pacifying the region.

The result of the war in Syria has carved out a new Middle East, where the likes of Riyadh, Tel Aviv and Washington, previously regional masters of all they surveyed, appear to have more or less been deliberately cut off from the decision-making process. While it can be argued that Washington has played out its role in the region with the defeat of Daesh, thanks to Trump's "America first" policies that resists direct involvement in conflicts, Riyadh and Tel Aviv do not seem to have any intention of accepting Tehran’s new role in the region, even as it is supported by Turkish and Russian diplomacy and even military might.

The aggression against the Syrian state initially saw a compact front comprising the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan, Israel, France and the United Kingdom. All were at the forefront of arming, training, financing, assisting and treating the injured of the tens of thousands of terrorists sent to Syria. It was a destabilization operation with few precedents in history. Already in 2014, at the pinnacle Daesh’s power, Assad's position seemed firm and immovable. According to the intentions of Western terror planners, Assad was to be expelled within the first twelve months of the conflict. The drawback was the impossibility, for a number of reasons, of NATO and its allies directly intervening a la Libya, foremost among which was Syria’s possession of a good level of air defense, as well as America’s inability to deal with the human and financial costs of yet another conflict in the region, with the inevitable escalation that would follow given Iran's involvement.

After the failure to remove Assad, the next step for Western policymakers was to deploy Daesh to create chaos and destroy the country, this diabolical force having been born as a result of America’s illegal occupation of Iraq.

Russia’s 2015 intervention in Syria, at the invitation of the legitimate government in Damascus, disrupted Western plans, bringing about the inevitable defeat of Daesh and consolidating Assad's power. There are two events between the Russian intervention and the efforts to Balkanize Syria through use of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) that served to confirm that the Iran-Syria-Russia axis was destined to prevail in the conflict. The first is Donald Trump becoming president of the United States. Leaving aside all the negatives related to his presidency, his victory has ensured that there is no direct intervention in Syria against Assad and against Russia. This is in contrast to what would have happened had Clinton won the election, the former Secretary of State prepared to trigger a regional conflict between the great powers by giving the order to shoot down Russian planes in Syria, thereby potentially kicking off World War Three.

The other event that has upset the balance of power in the region concerns the events that have occurred in Turkey over the last two years. Both the failed coup and the downing of the Russian fighter plane played an important role. The turning point was reached with the reconquering of Aleppo, which indicated a clear military failure by the opposition to overthrow Assad. Erdogan faced an unavoidable choice: support the terrorists and have to deal with a Kurdish enclave on the Syrian border; or reach a peaceful solution with the Russian Federation in order to contain the Kurdish threat and guarantee the integrity of Syria.

Erdogan has been rewarded by his choice to side with Russia and Iran, leaving Turkey in a better position than that of a couple of years ago, with him now able to influence the fate of many events in the Middle East, as well as allowing him to focus on his own national interests, in particular on the Kurds. The failure of the plan to balkanize Syria, involving the extreme attempt to declare Kurdish independence in Iraq, has only led to the end of Barzani’s reign. Hardliners committed to regime change in Damascus, such as the international coalition led by the US military and the military-industrial complex, have tried in every way possible to sabotage the SAA's fight against Daesh along the Euphrates. Saudi Arabia had even ventured to support Kurdish movements directly within Iraq; and Israel was the only country to openly support the referendum on Kurdish independence.

This strategy foundered on the opposition of Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran, which with Russian military support consolidated the front against the Saudi-Israeli-Neocons-Neoliberals. During this series of changes and upheavals, the anti-Assad front managed to alienate even a country like Qatar, which has explicit ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the neoliberal part of the American establishment. Although anti-Assad propaganda continues on state media such as Al Jazeera, the concrete effects are zero. Moreover, Qatar, following the Saudi crisis, sought to broaden its geopolitical stance, engaging directly with Moscow (there have been many contacts between the Al Thani family and the Kremlin) and Iran, a historic enemy of Riyadh.

The European component of the anti-Assad alliance is in complete disarray, with Macron in France conducting difficult mediation between MBS and Hariri in an attempt to avert further Saudi-Israeli political disasters that risk pushing Lebanon completely into the Iranian sphere of influence. In Germany, Merkel is experiencing a long wave of pervasive challenges between globalist versus national-sovereignty movements, with new elections looming. In England, the consequences and effects of Brexit are still tangible, with an unstable government and a series of difficult negotiations with the European Union. There no longer seems to be any time or resources available to invest in Syria. The falsification of reality continues through the mainstream media that belongs to the neoliberal world-wide elite, such as CNN, Al Jazeera, and the Washington Post. In addition to the usual lies fed through television and newspapers, Europeans and Americans today have no other tool at their disposal.

Trump seems to be contented to have been able to return home from his tour of Asia having secured hundreds of billions of dollars worth of extortion from allies, while not getting embroiled in the type of endless wars that even Saudi Arabia is unable to sustain, as seen with the genocide in Yemen and actions against Qatar. The Trump administration has many flaws as well as a deep aversion towards Iran, but it has no ability or intention to support Israel and Saudi Arabia in their attempt to limit Iranian influence by force. Not even the combined military forces of Israel and Saudi Arabia could pose a threat to Hezbollah let alone the Islamic Republic of Iran.

What we see is a Middle East that is trying to restore a regional order that is practical and functional. Meetings in Sochi between Turkey, Russia and Iran aim precisely to achieve this. In this scenario, Washington's absence is notable, despite attempts from Staffan de Mistura to revive the now-dead Geneva conference. Russia and its allies, after taking the military initiative, are ready to guide the diplomatic negotiations between the Assad government and opposition forces, to be held under the auspices of the trio gathered in Sochi, with the involvement of the United Nations in a role as guarantor rather than decider. The shots are called by Assad, Putin, Erdogan and Rouhani, even though this new reality will never be accepted by MBS, Netanyahu, the European governments and the US deep state (neocon/ neoliberal).

MBS's domestic actions, together with Netanyahu's threats to Iran and Hezbollah, reveal a refusal to acknowledge defeat as well as, in the case of MBS, an extreme attempt to avoid losing control of the country. For Israel, the problem is more complicated. Already in 2006 it was unable to defeat Hezbollah, and now Hezbollah is more developed, better trained, and better able to inflict damage on the Jewish State. Saudi and Israeli military leaders are more than aware that they do not have the ability to defeat Iran or Hezbollah and that only Washington's direct involvement would be able to change the course of events. This hypothesis, however, must also take into account the reality on the ground, with Moscow now allied to Tehran and Trump more than opposed to any new wars involving the US. In this situation that is chaotic for anti-Assad forces, MBS continues his work of arresting anyone opposed to him and recovering money sunk into wars in the context of the collapse of the oil price.

The new Middle Eastern order coincides with the near-end of the conflict in Syria and the intention to find a political solution to the conflict by pacifying all parties. It is a solution that is increasingly successful, especially in light of Turkey's abandonment of the anti-Assad front. Moscow is slowly replacing the US as the fulcrum in the region and beyond, solving conflicts and accompanying the progressive withdrawal of US military and economic influence in the region.

Once again, the strategic triangle between Iran, Russia and China finds itself victorious, inheriting and solving one of the most complicated conflicts since the end of World War II. Kudos to Putin, Rouhani and Xi Jinping, the new giants of the 21st century.


lunes, 27 de noviembre de 2017

Francisco va a Birmania


Francisco mueve fichas en Birmania y Bangladesh. Vaya uno a saber qué se trae entremanos, en dos países donde los católocos son ultraminoritarios. La nota es de Daniel Verdú para el diario español El País


Título: El Papa Francisco, ante el desafío asiático

Epígrafe: El Pontífice comienza este lunes un viaje a Myanmar y Bangladesh en plena crisis por el éxodo de los rohingya y la sombra de la apertura de relaciones con China como telón de fondo

Texto: El 27 de agosto, dos días después del inicio del gran éxodo de musulmanes birmanos hacia Bangladesh, el papa Francisco salió al balcón de la plaza de San Pedro durante el Angelus dominical y, con su espontaneidad habitual, expresó su solidaridad a los "hermanos rohingya" y denunció la persecución que sufrían. Hacía solo dos días que había anunciado su viaje a la región y la toma de posición sentó mal entre la comunidad budista, los militares e incluso los propios cristianos. Tanto, que las autoridades católicas del sureste asiático se permitieron sugerir al jefe de la Iglesia católica que le faltaba información y le aconsejaron que no volviera a usar esa palabra durante la visita a Myanmar y Bangladesh que comienza este lunes. Dos países situados en la periferia política, cultura, y religiosa de la Iglesia católica, pero con un alto valor estratégico en la actual geopolítica vaticana. La cuestión rohingya marcará implícitamente la agenda. Pero la alargada sombra de China e India en la región obligarán también a incontables equilibrismos diplomáticos.

En la antigua Birmania, de mayoría budista pero con 135 etnias reconocidas, los católicos son solo el 4% de la población. En Bangladesh, donde el Islam es la religión oficial, no pasan del 0,2%. Sin embargo, hay varios elementos que convierten esta visita en una importante apuesta estratégica que nadie en el Vaticano oculta. En sus horas más bajas y tras ser altamente criticada por su pasividad ante la crisis, la premio Nobel de la Paz y Consejera Estatal, Aung San Suu Kyi, se reunirá con el Papa. Un encuentro que servirá también como termómetro de su popularidad e influencia real en el país, muy diluida también con el control militar. De hecho, para no herir sensibilidades, las autoridades eclesiales —en boca del cardenal Charles Maung Bo, creado en 2015 por Francisco— pidieron a última hora también a Francisco que se reuniera con el jefe del Ejército, Min Aung Hlaing, principal responsable de la campaña militar, que sorprendentemente ha ganado popularidad con la expulsión de la etnia musulmana.

Francisco llega justo en medio de un intento de escenificar cierta normalidad. El jueves pasado, Myanmar y Bangladesh firmaron un acuerdo según el cual los más de 600.000 rohingya expulsados de Myanmar —y otros 200.000 que ya estaban en Bangladesh fruto de episodios de persecución anteriores— podrán regresar a sus casas voluntariamente. El tratado, que las organizaciones humanitarias consideran vago e inaplicable y que cuenta con el apoyo de China, llegó solo cuatro días antes del aterrizaje del Papa, que en Dhaka (capital de Bangladesh) se verá con una pequeña delegación de esta población. Y justo después, también, de que el Secretario de Estado de EE UU, Rex Tillerson, hubiese llamado la atención al Gobierno birmano tras visitar el país y se habla por primera vez de “limpieza étnica” y “posibles sanciones”. Una dureza que, como siempre en estas visitas, habrá que encontrar entre líneas en los discursos del Papa, inclinado a no perjudicar con sus posicionamientos a las minorías cristianas de los países que visita. A última hora, y pese a las reticencias birmanas, el Vaticano ha anunciado que se reunirá con una delegación de rohingyas en Dhaka.


La operación china

Pero el viaje a Myanmar, enclave comercialmente estratégico para China —madera, agua, electricidad, petróleo, gas y uranio—, puede situarse también en un contexto de apertura de las relaciones del Vaticano con el gigante asiático, rotas desde 1951, cuando Mao Zedong expulsó del país al Nuncio de la Santa Sede y a sus misioneros católicos.

Desde el pontificado de Benedicto XVI ha habido gestos continuos en esa dirección —la semana pasada se inauguró una exposición con doble sede en el Vaticano y Pekín— que hacen pensar en algunos avances. Pero hasta el momento, la complicada situación ha creado dos iglesias paralelas en China (la oficial, controlada desde Asociación Católica Patriótica, y la clandestina). En China el Gobierno no admite la autoridad del Papa para nombrar a sus representantes. Una situación incómoda para casi todos, excepto para la isla de Taiwan, que recibe del Vaticano uno de sus pocos reconocimientos internacionales. En caso de prosperar la apertura de relaciones, ellos serían los principales perjudicados.

En China, con 10 millones de católicos oficiales (de unos 40 millones de cristianos), hay ahora mismo más de 30 obispos clandestinos, elegidos por el Vaticano pero carentes del reconocimiento del Gobierno. También algunos encarcelados, como el de Mindong, Vincent Guo Xijin. El problema se genera en ambas direcciones, porque el Gobierno chino también ha nombrado otros siete obispos que el Vaticano considera ilegítimos y que han sido excomulgados por la Santa Sede. Ese es el problema principal y es posible que actualmente el Vaticano se conformase con resolver la cuestión de los nombramientos, renunciando a la de la libertad de predicación de los sacerdotes o de crear escuelas.

La operación china es clave para la Iglesia en un continente donde, después de África, más crecen los fieles y las vocaciones cristianas. Antiguos caladeros en auge como América han retrocedido con el tiempo y el catolicismo pierde terreno frente a corrientes como las evangélicas. De modo que el impulso asiático se nota también en el sacerdocio, que sube un 27,1% en Asia, mientras en Europa cae un 8%. Esa realidad se traslada poco a poco a los centros de poder de la Iglesia y el Papa, el primer Pontífice no europeo desde el siglo VIII, ha nombrado aquí más obispos que en ningún otro continente y ha configurado una curia y un colegio cardenalicio donde los purpurados del Viejo Continente ya son menos de la mitad y en el que el tradicional peso de los italianos se diluye paulatinamente. Hoy el 28% son americanos, el 13% son africanos y el 12% proceden de Asia. Ningún movimiento del Papa en esa zona tendrá un único significado.


domingo, 26 de noviembre de 2017

Unraveling


Vuelve el calor al Cono Sur, en un fin de primavera más otoñal que de costumbre. El mundo, mientras tanto, sigue andando, a los tumbos, en su loca carrera hacia un destino de supuestos nuevos equilibrios. Después de pasar revista a los 30 o 40 sitios usuales de internet, Astroboy no encontró demasiado para contar o postear. Debe ser el calor. Un comentario en el sitio web Moon of Alabama nos llamó la atención. Expresión de deseos para muchos, pesadilla para otros, realidad objetiva para el resto. Quién sabe aquello que vendrá. Lo hizo un tal “V. Arnold”; acá va:


"It's all unraveling, failing; but the slaughter goes on, as the hegemon is undeterred by its irrelevance.

The worm turns, and aliances shift and change, as the new world order re-aligns itself to the new, dynamic, realities, not western-centric any longer; that's done, likely forever.

Eurasia is the new view/reality of a co-operative alignment of countries, cultures, and interests; both political and economic, in a new view of the world majority.

And, they have the power to back it up..."



Hasta mañana

sábado, 25 de noviembre de 2017

NATO: L’Armata Brancaleone


Hace unos días posteamos una nota sobre los intentos de la Unión Europea de crear unas fuerzas armadas propias, no dependientes de la NATO. Un lector de South Front respondió a una nota similar publicada previamente por ese sitio. Se trata de “Fenrir170” quien sirvió por diez años en las fuerzas de la UE y realizó varias incursiones en Afghanistán. Su texto es contundente:


Título: Response to “The EU is creating its own Army”

Nota: This is a response to the text entitled “The EU Is Creating Its Own Army“, which was released by SouthFront on November 15, 2017

Texto: The reasons for the EU politicians trying to achieve the utopian dream of a unified EU army are solely driven by the deep problems the militaries in the EU are facing. They merely try to pretend to the outside world that nothing is wrong, while in reality most of EU militaries lost the capacity to defend their own countries in crisis, let alone deliver an effective expeditionary force outside Europe.

An example of the EU armies’ status today is the monumental failure of the Bison Drawsko NATO exercise in January 2017. It was an attempt to “show Russia NATO’s teeth”. NATO’s all available road transport capacity was insufficient as most vehicles were transported by highly vulnerable civilian rail transport. There were multiple accidents with munition transports in Poland that rendered already scarce munition unsuitable for use. A large part of the NATO vehicles was not suitable for combat, some could not move on their own. Some had potentially unsafe and questionable weapon systems, like gun barrels that exceeded their factory specifications for number of shots fired before needing to be replaced, but had not been replaced still. Gun technicians suspected hairline fractures were present. One such incident resulted in a Dutch CV90 IFV blowing off its rear end of the gun breech, launching it through the rear crew compartment with infantry still inside, and landing outside in the snow. By some wonder, nobody was seriously injured.  Vehicles like this with dangerous problems were just brought up for “show of force” as they could move on their own and had “functional” weapons. It ended up being a carefully conducted orchestra, trying to talk tough to the outside world. Most of the hardware did not work, while the ones working posed danger to its operating personnel. Logistics failed so hard and on such a massive scale that western troops could not stay out in the field and had to be relocated to local Polish barracks.

How did the EU forces become like this? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the EU militaries were in an overall good condition. There were plenty of men enlisted to fight, enough vehicles, ships, aircraft, tanks to fight and enough logistical resources to sustain combat, like spare parts, ammunition/fuel, etc. These were the armies, which could put up a decent fight in a war.

But ever since EU armies got involved in foreign interventions, the strain put on the resources proved to be massive, especially in Afghanistan where almost everything has to be flown in by air. The harsh environmental conditions, with fine dust grinding vehicles down and significantly shortening their lifespans and the intensity of full-scale combat wore the EU armies out to the point where drastic efforts had to be taken to keep operations going.

For example, at some point in time the EU militaries started dismantling perfectly good vehicles in their own countries and shipping the parts to Afghanistan in order to replace broken parts there.  The same happened to the ammunition, as the EU militaries vastly underestimated ammunition use as the Americans lied about the level of resistance they had encountered in order to draw EU armies into Afghanistan. During combat-intensive seasons, which in Afghanistan usually are the summer months, the Taliban re-activates. An ambush/encounter with Taliban forces could result in an entire convoy returning to base with its weapons almost depleted.

The NATO logistical lines could never manage the demand of the NATO forces in Afghanistan. NATO relies heavily on charter flights and aircrafts to maintain supply lines. Air transport in Afghanistan is almost the only safe way to move hardware and troops from point A to point B without getting ambushed. You can see more private Antonovs, Ilyushins, MI-26s and MI-8s than NATO cargo aircraft at some airfields in Afghanistan.

This trend has been going on for more than 10 years now, with catastrophic results. Most military capacities have been reduced to as much as 75% from what they were in the 90s.

Here is what the EU troops encounter:

Troops have to buy their own military gear and clothes, as what is supplied by the military cannot be replaced quickly enough, or is of such sub-standard quality they have to buy proper gear themselves. In addition, requisition times for replacement clothes and gear can be as long as 9 months. Most often troops buy Leatherman multi-tools, winter clothing, tactical headlights, weapon optics and tactical vests themselves out of necessity.

Spare parts are pretty much non-existent in most EU militaries. Current policy is, if a vehicle broke down, you cannibalize an identical vehicle. If an identical vehicle is not available, a requisition order is placed for the next fiscal year. Until then it just sits there, collecting dust in the meantime. When money becomes available, it is mostly spent in the first month for spares/repairs, but a large part remains defective. Germany’s submarine fleet is currently disabled. It awaits repairs. Most of Netherlands frigates remain docked in their port of Den Helder because of broken onboard fire suppression systems. The UK barely can crew their own ships and most sail with skeleton crews. The UK has just one handful of operational Eurofighters, almost all of German Tiger helicopters are grounded, and the list goes on and on.

Ammunition is also fully dried up in the EU, as all stockpiles have been expended in foreign interventions. Most EU militaries have enough munitions for basic training and for firing ranges only. During the Libya air campaign, the French resorted to using concrete practice bombs, as they had no ordnance left. When they sent a request to the rest of EU air forces for any bombs, none had any to spare. It is not just the air force. Ordnance, small arms, large caliber weapons, naval ordnance — all are used up. Ground troops just have enough for a year of training. There are no war-reserves. NATO bomb manufacturers like McDonnell Douglas, Raytheon and Lockheed have trouble keeping up with the production to supply the ongoing NATO army operations.

Actual troop numbers have been dramatically low as well. The constant foreign interventions coupled with the poor state of hardware, dishonest representation of the state of the armed forces by politicians to the outside world made many people leave the military, and at the same time, made new recruits reluctant to join a hollow, broken down military. Nowadays more troops resign than people enlist, causing a shortage of manpower across all branches of the EU militaries and a general lack of morale.

This in general is why politicians push this unified EU army program. The EU militaries are looking to compensate for serious deficiencies by exchanging “problems” among each other. For example, the Dutch “leased” 18 Leopard tanks from the Germans. The Dutch sold all their Leopard 2 tanks a while ago, but still have experienced capable crews, although it must be noted that over half left the service after being disbanded without any prior notice. On the other hand, Germany cannot man their Leopard 2 tanks because of troop shortage. So now this is presented as a “mutual cooperation and advancement of the EU army” while basically both armies have serious internal problems that make them unable to address their own defense issues and try to look for politically correct excuses while avoiding the real matters at hand.



viernes, 24 de noviembre de 2017

El juego sin fin del Imperio en Medio Oriente


Título: Syria - This U.S. Occupation - Or "Presence" - Is Unsustainable

Epígrafe: The U.S. is now occupying north-east Syria. It wants to blackmail the Syrian government into "regime change". The occupation is unsustainable, its aim is unattainable. The generals who devised these plans lack strategic insight. They listen to the wrong people.

TextoThe Islamic State no longer holds any significant ground in Syria and Iraq. What is left of it in a few towns of the Euphrates valley will soon be gone. Its remnants will be some of several terror gangs in the region. Local forces can and will hold those under adequate control. The Islamic State is finished. This is why the Lebanese Hizbullah announced to pull back all its advisors and units from Iraq. It is the reason why Russia began to repatriated some of its units from Syria. Foreign forces are no longer needed to eliminate the remains of ISIS.

In its UN Security Council resolutions 2249 (2015) for the fight against ISIS the UNSC was:

“Reaffirming its respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and unity of all States in accordance with purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, 
...
Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, ... on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL ... and entities associated with Al-Qaida ... and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria

There is no longer any "territory under the control of ISIL". Its "safe havens" have been "eradicated". The task laid out and legitimized in the UNSC resolution is finished. It is over. There is no longer any justification, under UNSC Res 2249, for U.S. troops in Syria or Iraq.

Other legal justifications, like an invitation from the legitimate governments of Syria and Iraq, could apply. But while Syria has invited Russian, Iranian and Lebanese forces to stay in its country it has not invited U.S. forces. These are now illegally occupying Syrian land in the north-east of the country. The Syrian government explicitly called it such.

(One wonder how long it will take the sanctimonious European Union to sanction the U.S. for its egregious breach of international law and for violating the sovereignty of Syria.)

According to official documents more than 1,700 U.S. troops are currently in Syria. The publicly announced number is only 500. "Temporary" forces make the up the difference. (Overall U.S. troop numbers in the Middle East have increased by 33% over the last four month. The numbers doubled in Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE. No explanation has been given for these increases.)

The U.S. troops in Syria are allied with the Kurdish YPG. The YPG is the Syrian branch of the internationally designated Kurdish terrorist organization PKK. Only about 2-5% of the Syrian population are of Kurdish-Syrian descent. Under U.S. command they now control more than 20% of Syrian state territory and some 40% of its hydrocarbon reserves. This is thievery on a grand scale.

To disguise its cooperation with the Kurdish terrorists, the U.S. renamed the group into the "Syrian Democratic Forces" (SDF). Some Arab fighters from east Syrian tribes were added to it. These are mostly former foot-soldiers of ISIS who changed sides when the U.S. offered better pay. Other fighters were pressed into service. The people of the Syrian-Arab city Manbij, which is occupied by the YPG and U.S. forces, protested when the YPG started to violently conscript its youth.

New troops were added to the SDF during the last days when ISIS fighters escaped from the onslaught of Syrian and Iraq forces in Abu Kamal (aka Albu Kamla aka Bukamal). They fled northwards towards YPG/U.S. held areas. Like other ISIS fighters the U.S. helped to escape their deserved punishment these forces will be relabeled and reused.

The Russian Ministry of Defense accused the U.S. of blocking the lower airspace over Abu Kamal while its Syrian allies were trying to liberate it. For eight days Russian high flying long range bombers had to come all the way from Russia to provide support for its troops on the ground. In a recent TV speech the leader of the Lebanese Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah, accused the U.S. troops in Syria of providing drone intelligence to ISIS in Abu Kamal. ISIS used it to shell Syrian and allied forces. Several high officers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps were killed in such attacks. Nasrallah also said that the U.S. used electronic warfare measures to disable the radios of the attacking force. He said that it rescued fleeing ISIS troops. Nasrallah's accusations are consistent with reports from the ground. (The U.S. and its allies also continue to supply other terrorist groups in north-west and the south-west of Syria.)

Neither Nasrallah nor the IRGC will forget those misdeeds. The operation commander of the IRGC, General Quasem Soleimani, recently reported to Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei:

All these crimes have been designed and implemented by US leaders and organizations, according to the acknowledgement of the highest-ranking US official who is currently president of the United States; moreover, this scheme is still being modified and implemented by current American leaders.

The U.S. has changed its rule of engagements and unofficially declared a no-fly zone for Russian and Syrian planes on the east side of the Euphrates. It says that it will attack any force that crosses the river to pursue ISIS. It is openly protecting its terrorists.

Ten days ago the U.S. Secretary of Defense General (rtd) Mattis announced U.S. intentions to illegally occupy Syria:

The U.S. military will fight Islamic State in Syria “as long as they want to fight,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Monday, describing a longer-term role for U.S. troops long after the insurgents lose all of the territory they control. 
...
“We’re not just going to walk away right now before the Geneva process has traction,” he added. 
...
Turkey said on Monday the United States had 13 bases in Syria and Russia had five. The U.S-backed Syrian YPG Kurdish militia has said Washington has established seven military bases in areas of northern Syria.


A report in today's Washington Post is more specific. The fitting headline: U.S. moves toward open-ended presence in Syria after Islamic State is routed:

The Trump administration is expanding its goals in Syria beyond routing the Islamic State to include a political settlement of the country’s civil war ..
...
With forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies now bearing down on the last militant-controlled towns, the defeat of the Islamic State in Syria could be imminent — along with an end to the U.S. justification for being there.
U.S. officials say they are hoping to use the ongoing presence of American troops in northern Syria, in support of the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), to pressure Assad to make concessions at United Nations-brokered peace talks in Geneva. 
...
An abrupt U.S. withdrawal could complete Assad’s sweep of Syrian territory and help guarantee his political survival — an outcome that would constitute a win for Iran, his close ally.

To avoid that outcome, U.S. officials say they plan to maintain a U.S. troop presence in northern Syria — where the Americans have trained and assisted the SDF against the Islamic State — and establish new local governance, apart from the Assad government, in those areas.
...
“By placing no timeline on the end of the U.S. mission . . . the Pentagon is creating a framework for keeping the U.S. engaged in Syria for years to come,” [said Nicholas Heras of the Washington-based Center for a New American Security.]


Even the propaganda writers at the Washington Post admit that there is no longer any justification for a U.S. presence in Syria. The U.S. intent is to commit blackmail: "to pressure Assad to make concessions". The method to do so is military "presence". There is no way that Syrian government and its people will give in to such blackmail. They did not fight for over six years to give up their sovereignty to U.S. intrigue. They will call the U.S. bluff.

No military handbook includes "presence" as a military mission. There are no rules for such an undefined task. The last time the U.S. used the term was in the early 1980s during the civil war in Lebanon. The task of U.S. troops stationed in Beirut was defined as showing military "presence". After such units and naval forces of the U.S. interfered on one side of the civil war, an aggrieved party took revenge against the U.S. and French military stationed in Beirut. Their barracks were blown up, 241 U.S. and 58 French soldiers died. U.S. military "presence" in Beirut ended.

The U.S. military "presence" in Syria is likewise doomed.

The U.S. alliance with the YPG/PKK pushes Turkey into an alliance with Russia, Iran and Syria. Several thousand Turkish soldiers and civilians have died due to PKK attacks. Last week Russian transports planes crossed through Turkish air space on their flights from Russia to Syria. This was a first. The U.S. had urged its NATO allies, including Turkey, to prevent such flights and Russian planes had to take the longer route through Iranian and Iraqi air space. Due to the U.S. alliance with the YPG and for many other reasons Turkey feels alienated from the U.S. and NATO. It is moving into the "resistance" camp.

The northern border between Turkey and Syria is thus closed for U.S. supplies to its forces in north-east Syria. Towards the west and south Syrian forces and their allies prohibit any U.S. supplies. Iraqi Kurdish territory to the east is for now the only way for a land supply route. But the government in Baghdad is allied with Iran and Syria and it is pushing to regain control over all the border posts of Iraq, including those still held by the Kurds and used by the U.S forces. Several Iraqi militia who fought ISIS under Iraqi government command have announced their hostility to U.S. forces. The Iraqi government may try to reign them in but they will hardly vanish. The U.S. land supply route through Iraqi-Kurdish areas can thus be closed at any time. The same goes for any air space around Syria's north-east.

The north-east of Syria is surrounded by forces hostile to the U.S. On top of that many Syrian people in the now occupied north-eastern Syria continue to be loyal to the Syrian state. Syrian, Turkish, Iranian and Hizbullah intelligence are working on the ground. There are lots of local Arabs hostile to Kurdish overbearance. The U.S. bases, outposts and all its transports in the area may soon come under sustained fire. While Russia said that it will not intervene against the U.S. allied SDF forces, many other entities have motives and means to do so.

The mission of the 1,700+ U.S. troops in north-east Syria is undefined. Their supply routes are unsecured and can be blocked by its enemies at any time. The local population is largely hostile to them. All of the surrounding countries and entities have reasons to attain the end of any U.S. presence in the area as soon as possible. It would require a ground force that is at least ten-twenty times larger to secure the U.S. presence and its communication and supply routes.

The presence is as useless and unsustainable as the southern U.S. presence at al-Tanaf.

Trump had spoken out against such occupation and interference in the Middle East:

The U.S. president [..] campaigned on a pledge to avoid getting sucked into intractable conflicts.


The military junta that controls Trump and the White House, (former) generals McMaster, Kelly and Mattis, are not acting in the interest of the United States, its citizens and troops.

They are following the call of the Zionist Jewish Institute for National Security of America which is pushing for a war on all Iran related entities and interests in the Middle East. JINSA advertises its huge influence on the higher U.S. officer corps. It is not by chance that a recent speech at the Jewish Policy Center in Washington described The U.S. Military as a Zionist Organization. But like other such wish-wash, it fails to explain why unquestioned support for a colony of east-European racist in west Asia is of "American interest".

The military mission of the U.S. occupation force in north-east Syria is undefined. It positions are not sustainable. The aim this "presence" is said to have is unattainable. There is no larger concept into which it fits.

The generals ruling the White House may be tactical geniuses in their fields. They are neophytes when it comes to strategy. They blindly follow the siren call of the Lobby only to again wreak the U.S. ship of state on the cliffs of Middle Eastern realities.

jueves, 23 de noviembre de 2017

La ruta del Norte


Seguimos analizando las implicancias de la nueva Ruta del Norte en el transporte marítimo euroasiático. William Engdahl se pregunta, en esta nota aparecida ayer en Global Research, si no estaremos ante un nuevo Canal de Suez en potencia. Acá va la nota:


Título: Huge Implications of Russia’s Northern Sea Route. An Alternative to the Suez Canal?

Epígrafe: In terms of dealing with some of the world’s harshest weather conditions no country comes close compared with Russia. Now Russia has made it a highest priority to develop a Northern Sea Route along the Russian Arctic coast to enable LNG and container freight shipments between Asia and Europe that will cut shipping time almost in half and bypass the increasingly risky Suez Canal. China is fully engaged and has now formally incorporated it into its new Silk Road Belt, Road Initiative infrastructure.

Texto: Before attending the Hamburg G20 Summit in July, China’s President Xi Jinping made a stopover in Moscow where he and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin signed the “China-Russia Joint Declaration on Further Strengthening Comprehensive, Strategic and Cooperative Partnership.” The declaration includes the Northern Sea Route as a strategic area of cooperation between China and Russia, as a formal part of China’s Belt, Road Initiative (BRI) infrastructure. For its part, Russia is investing major resources in development of new LNG ports and infrastructure along the route to service a growing maritime traffic passing through its Arctic territorial waters.

The Russian Federation, under the direct supervision of President Putin is building up the economic infrastructure that will create an alternative to the Suez Canal for container and LNG shipping between Europe and Asia. In addition, the developments are opening up huge new undeveloped resources including oil, gas, diamonds and other minerals along the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone, transversing its northernmost Siberian coastline.

Officially Russian legislation defines the Northern Sea Route as the territorial waters along the Russian Arctic coast east of Novaya Zemlya in Russia’s Arkhangelsk Oblast, from the Kara Sea across Siberia, to the Bering Straitthat runs between far eastern Russia and Alaska. The entire route lies in Arctic waters and within Russia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Preliminary geophysical studies confirm that vast oil and gas reserves exist below the sea floor along the Northern Sea Route of Russia’s EEZ waters, increasing interest of the Chinese government in joint resource development with Russia, in addition to the potentially shorter shipping times to and from Europe.For China, which sees increasing threats to its oil supply lines by sea from the Persian Gulf and via the Straits of Malacca, the Russian Northern Sea Route offers a far more secure alternative, a Plan B, in event of US Naval interdiction of the Malacca Straits.

US Geological Survey estimates are that within the Russian Arctic EEZ some 30% of all Arctic recoverable oil and 66% of its total natural gas is to be found. The USGS estimates total Arctic oil recoverable reserves to be about one-third total Saudi reserves. In short, as Mark Twain might have said, there’s “black gold in them thar’ icy waters…”

The United Nations Convention on Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), to which Russia and China are signatories, but the USA not, defines an exclusive economic zone to be an area “beyond and adjacent” to a state’s territorial waters and provides the state with “sovereign rights…[over] managing the natural resources” within the zone. China does not contest Russia’s EEZ rights, but rather seeks to cooperate in its development now formally within the BRI project.


New Shipping Lanes

The other interest in Russia’s Northern Sea Route is for more economical and faster shipping. In August this year in a test run the Russian LNG tanker, Christophe de Margerie, delivered Norwegian LNG from Hammerfest in Norway to Boryeong in South Korea in just 19 days, some 30% faster than the traditional Suez Canal route despite the fact that the vessel was forced to go through ice fields 1.2 meters thick. The Arctic Sea part of the journey was made in a record six and half days. The Christophe de Margerie is the first joint LNG tanker and icebreaker in the world, built to specification for the state-run Sovcomflot for the transportation of LNG from the Yamal LNG project in the Russian Arctic by a South Korean shipbuilder.

Russia is also cooperating with South Korea in development of the shipping capabilities of its Northern Sea Route. On November 6, Russia’s Minister for Development of the Far East, Aleksandr Galushka, met South Korea’s Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, Kim Yong-suk. The two countries agreed to pursue joint research into investments for an Arctic container line along the Northern Sea Route. The joint development will include shipping hubs to be created in each end of the Northern Sea Route–Murmansk in the west and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in the east. Murmansk, bordering the northern regions of Finland and Norway, has ice-free access to the Barents Sea year around.

Korea’s Hyundai Merchant Marine plans test sailings of container ships along the Northern Sea Route in 2020 with container ships capable of carrying 2,500-3,500 TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit, a measure of container size) on the route. In July 2016, an historical shipment of two major industrial components was made from South Korea to the new Russian Arctic port at Sabetta and from there, on the rivers Ob and Irtysh to the South Ural city of Tobolsk.


New Arctic Port Investments

Murmansk itself is site of one of Russia’s largest infrastructure projects. Major construction work is currently on going to complete the so-called Murmansk Transport Hub which includes new roads, railway, ports and other facilities on the west of the Kola Bay. Murmansk is already a key hub for reloading coal, oil, fish, metals and other cargo from the European part of Russia. It will serve as the main western gateway for the Northern Sea Route to Asia.

The Russian Federation is also completing a new port at Sabetta on the Yamal Peninsula. The Yamal Peninsula, bordering the Arctic Kara Sea, is location of Russia’s biggest natural gas reserves with an estimated 55 trillion cubic meters (tcm).By comparison, Qatar gas reserves are calculated at 25 tcm, Iran at 34 tcm. The main developer of the Sabetta Port on Yamal is Novatek, Russia’s largest independent gas producer, together with the Russian government.

Sabetta Port is also site of the major new Yamal LNG Terminal that before end of 2017 will begin transporting Yamal gas via the Northeast Sea Route to China. When at full capacity, Sabetta Port will handle 30 million tons of goods a year making Sabetta the world’s largest port north of the Arctic Circle, surpassing Murmansk. Novatek hasalready pre-sold all its production volumes for Yamal LNG Terminal gas under 15- and 20-year contracts, most to China and other Asian buyers.

Yamal LNG is far from the only area where Russia’s Novatek is cooperating with China. On November 4, Novatek announced it had signed further agreements with Yamal partners China National Petroleum Corporation and China Development Bank for the Arctic LNG 2 project that is potentially larger than the Yamal LNG project. The Arctic LNG 2 project of Novatekon Gydan Peninsula, separated from Yamal by the Gulf of Ob,is to begin construction in 1919.

The Yamal LNG Terminal is a $27 billion project whose lead owner is Russia’s Novatek. When the US Treasury financial warfare targeted Novatek and the Yamal project in 2014 following the Crimea referendum to join the Russian Federation, China lenders stepped in to provide $12 billion to complete the project after China’s state oil company, CNPC bought a 20% interest in the Yamal LNG Terminal project. The China Silk Road Fund holds another 9.9% and France’s Total 20% with Novatek having 50.1%.


Breaking the Ice, Russian-Style

Opening the potentials of Russia’s Northeast Sea Route to full commercial LNG and container freight traffic flow from the west along the Siberian Arctic littoral to South Korea and China and the rest of Asia requires extraordinary technology solutions, above all in the field of ice-breakers and port infrastructure along the deep-frozen Arctic route. Here Russia is unequalled world leader. And Russia is about to expand that leading role significantly.

In early 2016 Russia commissioned a new class of nuclear powered ice-breakers called Arktika-class operated by Atomflot, the ship subsidiary of the giant Russian state Rosatom nuclear group, the world’s largest nuclear power construction company and second largest in terms of uranium deposits producing 40% of the world’s enriched uranium.

The new Arktika icebreaker is at present the world’s most powerful icebreaker of its kind and when ready for sailing in 2019 will be able to break 3 meters of ice. A second Arktika-class nuclear icebreaker is due to sail in 2020. At present Russia has a total of 14 diesel as well as nuclear-powered icebreakers in construction in addition to the just completed Christophe de Margerie. All those 14 new icebreakers are being constructed at shipyards in the St. Petersburg area.


Rosatom to take lead

Now the Russian government is about to dramatically escalate its development of icebreaker technologies with the clear aim of developing the shipping and resources along its Northeast Sea Route passage as a national economic priority.

In 2016 President Putin made a personal priority of overseeing building up of an ultra-modern state-of-the-art shipbuilding center in PrimorskyKrai in the Russian Far East to balance the development of western yards around St. Petersburg and buildup Russia’s economic region around Vladivostok as Russia’s economy, reacting to the incalculable Washington and its sanctions, turns increasingly to self-sufficiency in vital areas.

The Far East shipbuilding is centered ona $4 billion complete reconstruction of the old Zvezda shipyard in BolshoyKamen Bay owned by the Russian state’s United Shipbuilding Corporation. PrimorskyKrai is also home to the Russian Navy’s Pacific Fleet. When the giant new Zvezda yard is ready in 2020, it will be Russia’s largest most modern civilian shipyard, focusing on large-tonnage ship construction of tankers including LNG tankers, Arctic icebreakers and elements for offshore oil and gas platforms.

On November 18 Russia’s Kommersant business daily announced that Russia’s president Putin wants to turn infrastructure development for the Northern Sea Route over to state nuclear corporation Rosatom. According to the report, Putin approved the idea, which was put to him by his prime minster, Dmitry Medvedev, and which would turn all state services for nautical activities, infrastructure development, as well as state property used along the corridor to Rosatom’s management. Among other implications the decision to make Rosatom solely responsible for the Northern Sea Route development suggests that nuclear-powered ice-breakers are to play a far larger role in the Northeast Sea Route developments.

According to the report, which has yet to be formally confirmed, the Rosatom role was proposed by Rosatom head Alexei Likhachev and Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. Rogozin, sanctioned by Washington, has been Deputy Prime Minister in charge of Defense Industry of Russia since 2011. If the new proposal becomes law, Rosatom will oversee all infrastructure and energy building along the 6,000 kilometers of the route through its arctic division.

According to the source, that will mean Rosatom oversees just about everything, from building ports, to building communications and navigation infrastructure, as well as coordination scientific research. Under the plan a new Arctic Division of Rosatom would centralize ports previously controlled by the Ministry of Transport as well as non-nuclear icebreakers operated by Rosmorport and Russia’s nuclear icebreaker fleet. The NSR Administration, the state institution responsible for safety of navigation, would also become part of this new “Arctic Division” at Rosatom. It would be a move to greatly streamline the present fragmentation of responsibility for different aspects of Russia’s Northeast Sea Route transportation development, one of the highest priorities of Moscow and a key building block in development of the China-Russia collaboration in BRI.


Taking all into account what is very clear is that Russia is developing cutting-edge technology and infrastructure in some of the most extreme climate conditions in the world, in building its economy new, and that it is successfully doing so in collaboration with China, South Korea and even to an extent with Japan, contrary to the hopes of Washington war-addicted neoconservatives and their patrons in the US military industrial complex.


miércoles, 22 de noviembre de 2017

La diplomacia del Imperio


La diplomacia del Imperio no pasa por sus mejores momentos, ciertamente. Basta escuchar unos 30 segundos a la embajadora de los EEUU en la ONU, Nikki Haley foto), para dar fe de ello. Uno se pregunta qué es lo que realmente hay detrás de esta gente. La nota que sigue habla un poco de estas cosas. Fue escrita por Thierry Meyssan para Red Voltaire:


Título: Estados Unidos sigue mostrando su incapacidad para admitir la realidad en la ONU

Epígrafe: Mientras los presidentes Putin y Trump avanzan sobre el tema sirio, los altos funcionarios estadounidenses en la ONU se empeñan en seguir probando fuerza con Rusia. Negándose a aceptar que se investigue un crimen cuyos culpables ellos designan sin pruebas, los “diplomáticos” estadounidenses ya han provocado no uno sino cuatro vetos en el Consejo de Seguridad. Para Thierry Meyssan, el comportamiento esquizofrénico de Estados Unidos en la escena internacional muestra tanto la división de la administración Trump como la decadencia del imperialismo estadounidense.

Texto: Es imposible negar que las cosas no han cambiado mucho desde el 11 de septiembre de 2001. Estados Unidos persiste en manipular la opinión pública internacional y los mecanismos de la ONU, por razones diferentes, pero mostrando siempre el mismo desdén por la verdad.

En 2001, los representantes de Estados Unidos y del Reino Unido, John Negroponte y Stewart Eldon, aseguraban que sus dos países acababan de atacar Afganistán en legítima defensa después de los atentados cometidos en Nueva York y Washington [1]. El secretario de Estado Colin Powell prometía, claro está, distribuir al Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU un completo dossier con las pruebas de la responsabilidad de Afganistán. Hoy, 16 años después de aquella promesa, seguimos esperando por esas pruebas.

En 2003, el mismo Colin Powell se presentaba ante el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU para explicar a sus miembros, en una intervención difundida por las televisiones del mundo entero, que Irak también estaba implicado en los atentados del 11 de Septiembre y que ese país estaba preparando una nueva agresión contra Estados Unidos, pero con armas de destrucción masiva [2]. Años después, cuando ya había abandonado sus funciones en el seno de la administración estadounidense, Powell reconoció ante las cámaras de una televisora de su país que las acusaciones que contenía aquel discurso eran todas falsas [3]. Hoy, 14 años después de aquel discurso, seguimos esperando que Estados Unidos se disculpe ante el Consejo de Seguridad.

Todo el mundo ha olvidado las acusaciones de Estados Unidos sobre la responsabilidad del presidente iraquí Saddam Hussein en los atentados del 11 de septiembre (antes, Washington también atribuyó aquellos atentados a Arabia Saudita y ahora los atribuye a Irán, sin haber aportado nunca pruebas contra ninguno de esos 4 países). Pero sí se recuerda el debate, que se prolongó por meses, sobre las famosas armas de destrucción masiva. En aquella época, la Comisión de Control, Verificación e Inspección de Naciones Unidas (UNMOVIC, siglas en inglés) no encontró absolutamente ningún indicio de la existencia de aquellas armas. Se produjo entonces un duro enfrentamiento entre el director de la UNMOVIC, el sueco Hans Blix, y Estados Unidos, al principio, y posteriormente entre la ONU y, en definitiva, todo el mundo occidental. Washington afirmaba que si Hans Blix no encontraba las armas de destrucción masiva era porque hacía mal su trabajo. Pero Hans Blix aseguraba que Irak nunca tuvo la capacidad necesaria para fabricar ese tipo de armas. De todas maneras, Estados Unidos bombardeó Bagdad, invadió Irak, derrocó al presidente Saddam Hussein y lo ahorcó, ocupó su país y lo saqueó.

El método estadounidense posterior al 2001 no tiene nada que ver con lo que Estados Unidos hacía antes. En 1991, el presidente George Bush padre se aseguró de poner el Derecho Internacional de su parte antes de atacar Irak. Lo hizo empujando Bagdad a invadir Kuwait y estimulando a Saddam Hussein a persistir en su error. Así obtuvo Bush padre el respaldo de casi todas las naciones del mundo. En 2003, por el contrario, George Bush hijo se limitó a mentir y a seguir mintiendo una y otra vez. Numerosos Estados se distanciaron entonces de Washington mientras que el mundo asistía a una de las manifestaciones pacifistas más grandes de toda la Historia, de París hasta Sydney y de Pekín a Ciudad México.

En 2012, el Departamento de Asuntos Políticos de la ONU redactó para Siria un proyecto de capitulación total e incondicional [4]. Su director, el estadounidense Jeffrey Feltman, ex secretario de Estado adjunto de la secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton, utilizó todos los recursos a su disposición para conformar la más amplia coalición internacional de la Historia y acusar a Siria de todo tipo de crímenes, sin que ninguno haya podido probarse.

Si los países que tienen en su poder el documento de Feltman han decidido no publicarlo es para proteger la ONU. Es, en efecto, inaceptable que los recursos de la ONU hayan sido utilizados para promover la guerra, tratándose de una organización creada precisamente para preservar la paz. Como no me atan las obligaciones que tienen los Estados, yo publico en mi libro Sous nos yeux [5] un estudio detallado de ese abyecto documento.

En 2017, el Mecanismo Conjunto de Investigación ONU-OPAQ [6], creado a pedido de la República Árabe Siria para investigar el uso de armas químicas en su territorio fue objeto de la misma oposición que ya había tenido que enfrentar Hans Blix de parte de Washington. Pero esta vez, algunos contendientes habían cambiado de bando: en 2003, la ONU defendía la paz. Ya no es así actualmente. El estadounidense Jeffrey Feltman fue mantenido en sus funciones y sigue siendo el segundo funcionario más poderoso en la jerarquía de la ONU. Ahora es Rusia la que se opone, en nombre de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, a una serie de funcionarios internacionales pro-estadounidenses.

Los trabajos del Mecanismo de Investigación se analizaron y fueron objeto de debates de manera normal durante su primer periodo, o sea desde septiembre de 2015 hasta mayo de 2017. Pero se hicieron sesgados cuando el guatemalteco Edmond Mulet reemplazó en su dirección a la argentina Virginia Gamba. La nominación de Edmond Mulet fue impulsada por el nuevo secretario general de la ONU, el portugués Antonio Guterres.

El Mecanismo de Investigación reúne en su seno a funcionarios de la ONU y de la OPAQ. Esta última organización internacional recibió en 2013 el Premio Nobel de la Paz, principalmente por su trabajo en la supervisión de la destrucción –por Estados Unidos y Rusia– del arsenal químico sirio. Pero su director, el turco Ahmet Uzumcu, ha cambiado mucho. En junio de 2015, fue invitado a Telfs Buchen (Austria) para asistir a la reunión anual del Grupo de Bilderberg, el restringido club de la OTAN.

La cuestión resulta extremadamente grave. En 2003 el enfrentamiento era entre Hans Blix y Estados Unidos, que amenazaba con intervenir militarmente contra Irak si la ONU comprobaba que Bagdad tenía armas de destrucción masiva. Pero en 2017, Rusia se opone a Edmond Mulet, quien podría avalar a posteriori la intervención estadounidense contra Siria. Porque el hecho es que Washington ya decidió, sin investigación, que Siria es responsable de un ataque con gas sarín en Khan Cheikhoun, y ya bombardeó por eso la base aérea siria de Sheyrat [7].

Si el Mecanismo de Investigación se apartara de alguna manera del discurso de Washington, eso pondría a Estados Unidos en la obligación de presentar excusas e incluso de indemnizar a Siria. Los funcionarios internacionales pro-estadounidenses consideran por tanto que su misión es determinar que Siria utilizó contra su propia población gas sarín que aún mantendría ilegalmente en la base aérea bombardeada de Sheyrat.

Desde el mes de octubre, el intercambio ha ido subiendo de tono entre ciertos funcionarios de la ONU y Rusia. Pero, la divergencia no tiene nada que ver –como pretende la prensa occidental– con las conclusiones del Mecanismo Investigador sino sólo con sus métodos ya que Moscú dio a conocer que rechaza toda conclusión obtenida mediante métodos que no se ajusten a los principios internacionales establecidos en el marco de la Convención sobre las Armas Químicas y de la OPAQ [8].

El gas sarín es un agente neurotóxico extremadamente letal para el hombre. Existen variantes de ese producto, como el clorosarín y el ciclosarín, y una versión aún más peligrosa: el VX. Todos esos productos se absorben a través de la piel y pasan directamente a la sangre. Luego de su dispersión en el entorno se degradan en semanas o meses, no sin consecuencias para la fauna que puede entrar en contacto con ellos. Cuando el sarín penetra en el suelo, a salvo de contacto con el oxigeno o la luz, puede mantenerse activo durante mucho tiempo.

Basta con ver las fotos divulgadas después del ataque de Khan Cheikhoun, que muestran varias personas recogiendo muestras sólo horas después del ataque –sin ningún tipo de traje de protección para evitar el contacto del sarín con su piel– para saber que si realmente se usó allí algún tipo de agente químico no fue sarín ni ninguno de sus derivados. Para más detalles, vale la pena ver el estudio del profesor Theodore Postol, del Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), que echa abajo uno a uno todos los argumentos de los supuestos expertos de la CIA [9].

Sin embargo, contraviniendo los principios de la Convención sobre las Armas Químicas, el Mecanismo Investigador no fue al lugar para recoger muestras, analizarlas e identificar el gas utilizado, si realmente ocurrió eso.

Al responder a las preguntas de Rusia sobre ese asunto, en mayo y junio de 2017, la OPAQ respondió que estaba estudiando las condiciones de seguridad para viajar al lugar. Pero finalmente concluyó que no era necesario hacerlo porque «la utilización de gas sarín está fuera de duda».

Por su parte, el Mecanismo Investigador estuvo en la base aérea siria de Sheyrat, donde –según Washington– estaba ilegalmente almacenado el gas sarín y donde fue cargado en los aviones que supuestamente lo utilizaron. Pero, a pesar de la insistencia de Rusia, se negó a recoger muestras.

El Mecanismo Investigador también se negó a estudiar las revelaciones de Siria sobre las entregas de gases de combate a los yihadistas por parte de las empresas Federal Laboratories y NonLethal Technologies –de Estados Unidos– y Chemring Defence UK –del Reino Unido [10].

Estados Unidos y sus aliados incluso reconocen en el proyecto de resolución que presentaron el 16 de noviembre que los funcionarios internacionales deberían realizar sus investigaciones de «una manera apropiada para la realización de su mandato» [11].

Rusia rechazó el informe del Mecanismo Investigador debido al amateurismo de sus autores y rechazó en 3 ocasiones la prolongación de su mandato. Utilizó el veto el 24 de octubre [12] y los días 16 [13] y 17 de noviembre, como ya lo había hecho antes, el 12 de abril [14] cuando Estados Unidos y Francia [15] trataron de condenar a Siria por el supuesto ataque con gas sarín. Eran la octava, novena, décima y undécima veces que Rusia utilizaba el veto sobre el tema sirio.

Se ignora por qué razón Washington ha presentado 4 veces la misma alegación al Consejo de Seguridad por vías diferentes. Ese tartamudeo ya se había producido antes, al principio de la guerra contra Siria: el 4 de octubre de 2011, el 4 de febrero de 2012 y el 19 de julio del mismo año, cuando Francia y Estados Unidos trataron de que el Consejo de Seguridad condenara lo que llamaron la represión de la primavera siria. En aquel momento Rusia aseguraba, por el contrario, que no había en Siria ninguna guerra civil sino una agresión externa. Y los occidentales siempre replicaron que iban a «convencer» a su socio ruso.

Es interesante observar que la leyenda que se repite en Occidente afirma que la guerra en Siria comenzó siendo una revolución democrática que se desvió de su rumbo y acabó bajo la dirección de los yihadistas. Pero, contrariamente a lo que se dijo entonces y a lo que aún se dice, no existe ninguna prueba de que se haya producido en Siria la menor manifestación en reclamo de democracia en 2011-2012. Todos los videos que datan de aquella época muestran manifestaciones de apoyo al presidente Assad o contra la República Árabe Siria, pero los manifestantes nunca reclaman democracia. Ninguno de esos videos incluye consignas o pancartas en reclamo de democracia. Todos los videos de supuestas «manifestaciones revolucionarias» que corresponden a aquel periodo fueron grabados los viernes a la salida de mezquitas sunnitas, ninguno se grabó otro día ni en otro lugar que no fuera una mezquita sunnita.

Es cierto que en algunos de esos videos se oyen consignas que incluyen la palabra «libertad». Pero al prestar atención se comprueba que los manifestantes no reclaman «Libertad», en el sentido occidental, sino «la libertad de aplicar la sharia». Si usted, estimado lector, encuentra un documento realmente fidedigno que me contradiga mostrando una manifestación de más de 50 personas, le agradeceré que me lo envíe y me comprometo a publicarlo.

La obstinación estadounidense en manipular los hechos podría interpretarse como una forma de alineamiento de la administración Trump con la política de los 4 últimos mandatos presidenciales. Pero esa hipótesis está en contradicción con la firma en Amman –el 8 de noviembre– de un Memorándum secreto entre Jordania [16], Rusia y Estados Unidos, y con la Declaración común de los presidentes Putin y Trump, fechada el 11 de noviembre en Da Nang, y dada a conocer al margen de la Cumbre de la APEC [17].

El primero de estos documentos no se ha publicado, pero varias indiscreciones ya han permitido saber que no tiene en cuenta la exigencia israelí de crear una zona neutral –en territorio sirio– que abarcaría 60 kilómetros más allá no de la frontera israelí sino de la línea de alto al fuego de 1967. El gobierno británico, que no deja pasar la menor ocasión de añadir leña al fuego, reaccionó haciendo publicar a través de la BBC varias fotografías satelitales de la base militar iraní de Al-Kiswah (a 45 kilómetros de la línea de alto al fuego) [18].

Como era de esperar, el primer ministro israelí Benyamin Netanyahu rechazó de inmediato el acuerdo entre los Dos Grandes y anunció que Israel se reserva el derecho a intervenir militarmente en Siria para preservar su seguridad [19], comentario que constituye una amenaza contra un Estado soberano y, por tanto, viola la Carta de las Naciones Unidas. En todo caso, todos han podido comprobar en los últimos 7 años que el pretexto de las armas destinadas al Hezbollah libanés está más que gastado. Por ejemplo, el 1º de noviembre Israel bombardeó ilegalmente una zona industrial en la región siria de Hassiyé… otra vez con el pretexto de destruir armamento destinado al Hezbollah. En realidad, el blanco del ataque era una fábrica de cobre indispensable en el restablecimiento de la red eléctrica siria [20].

La Declaración de Da Nang incluye avances bien definidos. Por ejemplo, deja establecido por primera vez que todos los sirios podrán participar en la próxima elección presidencial. Hay que recordar que los miembros de la coalición internacional violaron la Convención de Viena impidiendo que los sirios residentes en el exterior votaran en la última elección presidencial. Por su parte, la «Coalición Nacional de Fuerzas de la Oposición y de la Revolución» boicoteaba las elecciones porque estaba bajo control de la Hermandad Musulmana y esta proclama que «El Corán es nuestra ley» y que no hay espacio para elecciones en un régimen islamista.

El contraste entre, por un lado, el avance de las negociación ruso-estadounidense sobre Siria y, por otro lado, el empecinamiento del mismo Estados Unidos en negar los hechos ante el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU resulta realmente sorprendente.

Es interesante observar el desconcierto de la prensa europea, tanto ante el trabajo de los presidentes Putin y Trump como frente a la terquedad infantil de la delegación de Estados Unidos en el Consejo de Seguridad. Casi ningún medio de difusión ha mencionado el Memorándum de Amman y todos comentaron la Declaración Común Putin-Trump antes de su publicación, basándose sólo una Nota de la Casa Blanca. En cuanto a las niñerías de la embajadora estadounidense Nikki Haley en el Consejo de Seguridad, los medios europeos se limitaron a señalar unánimemente que los Dos Grandes no pudieron llegar a un acuerdo… pero sin mencionar los argumentos rusos, a pesar de que Moscú los expuso extensa y detalladamente.

Lo que puede verse es que mientras el presidente Trump trata de separarse de la política imperialista de sus predecesores, los funcionarios internacionales pro-estadounidenses de la ONU son incapaces de adaptarse a la realidad. Después de 16 años de mentiras sistemáticas, ya no logran pensar en función de los hechos sino sólo de sus obsesiones. Ya no logran dejar de creer que la realidad corresponde a lo que ellos quieren. Es el comportamiento característico de los imperios en decadencia.



Notas:

[1] Referencia: ONU S/2001/946 y S/2001/947.

[2] «Discours de M. Powell au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU», por Colin L. Powell, Réseau Voltaire, 11 de febrero de 2003.

[3] “Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief”, ABC, 8 de septiembre de 2005.

[4] «Alemania y la ONU contra Siria», por Thierry Meyssan, Al-Watan (Siria), Red Voltaire, 28 de enero de 2016.

[5] Sous nos yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump, Thierry Meyssan, Demi-Lune, 2017.

[6] La OPAQ es la Organización para la Prohibición de las Armas Químicas.

[7] «¿Y por qué Trump bombardeó Sheyrat?», por Thierry Meyssan, Al-Watan (Siria) , Red Voltaire, 2 de mayo de 2017.

[8] «Observations émises par le Ministère russe des Affaires étrangères au sujet du dossier chimique syrien», Réseau Voltaire, 23 de octubre de 2017.

[9] «El informe de la CIA sobre el “ataque químico” de Khan Shaykhun es una burda falsificación», Red Voltaire, 15 de abril de 2017.

[10] «Londres y Washington entregaron armas químicas a los yihadistas», Red Voltaire, 16 de agosto de 2017.

[11] «Projet de résolution sur le Mécanisme d’enquête conjoint Onu-OIAC (Véto russe) », Réseau Voltaire, 16 de noviembre de 2017.

[12] «Projet de résolution sur le renouvellement du Mécanisme d’enquête conjoint (Veto russe)», «Utilisation d’armes chimiques en Syrie (Veto russe)», Réseau Voltaire, 24 de octubre de 2017.

[13] «Projet de résolution sur le Mécanisme d’enquête conjoint Onu-OIAC (Véto russe)», Réseau Voltaire, 16 de noviembre de 2017.

[14] «Debate sobre el presunto incidente químico de Khan Cheikhun (veto ruso)», Red Voltaire, 12 de abril de 2017.

[15] «Évaluation française de l’attaque chimique de Khan Cheikhoun», Red Voltaire, 26 de abril de 2017.

[16] «Jordania expresa apoyo a Siria», Red Voltaire, 30 de agosto de 2017.

[17] «Declaración de los Presidentes de Rusia y Estados Unidos sobre Siria», Red Voltaire, 11 de noviembre de 2017.

[18] “Iran building permanent military base in Syria – claim”, Gordon Corera, BBC, 10 de noviembre de 2017.

[19] «Israel rechaza el plan ruso-estadounidense para la paz en Siria», Red Voltaire, 15 de noviembre de 2017.


[20] «Israel bombardea una fábrica de cobre en Siria», por Mounzer Mounzer, Red Voltaire, 3 de noviembre de 2017.