MANUEL RAPOSO Who gains from a war in Europe? U.S. targets supply of Russian gas to UErope

Manuel Raposo, Jornal Mudar de Vida, 20-2-2022
Translated by John Catalinotto
Original: A quem interessa a guerra na Europa?

At this moment, the events in Ukraine are shrouded in the cloud of smoke that characterizes war propaganda. Official positions, rather than clarifying facts and reporting the progress of negotiations, aim to crush their opponents’ arguments and convince public opinion to back one side of the dispute. 

                An invigorating kick for the Pindostan (USA) 

To understand the role of each of the adversaries, what each of them wants, and how far they can go, we must explore the origins of what is now an extreme conflict. 

Background

Most recently, it all started with two goals shared by the European Union and the United States. One is the economic expansion of the EU (led by its major powers, particularly Germany) to the east. The so-called Eastern Partnership aimed to draw into the European orbit countries as diverse as Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine – all on Russia’s southern and western borders. 

A second purpose is military expansion of the Western bloc, using NATO to complete the encirclement of Russia’s borders. And it is especially here that the interest of the U.S. as the hegemonic power, in this case, has led to a marriage with the economic ambitions of the EU. 

A setback

When it comes to Ukraine, the Eastern Partnership suffered a setback when Russia offered economic advantages to the then-Kiev government which thwarted European advances. The EU and U.S. response was the 2014 coup d’état, backed by Ukrainian fascist militias, which brought a “collaborating” president to power, followed by a bloody persecution of the Russian-origin population. 

OLMEDO BELUCHEPanama’s 1964 popular anti-imperialist explosion

 Olmedo Beluche, The Panama News, 8/1/2022
Translated by John Catalinotto, Workers World 

On January 9, 1964, a true popular revolution in the full sense of the word caused a turning point in U.S. policy in Panama, when 60 years of accumulated contradictions exploded. The mass action shattered the dream of riches that the Panamanian oligarchy had painted in 1903 to impose what they called an “independent” state. 

In reality, Panama was a “protectorate,” that is, a U.S. colony, and then the disgraceful Hay Bunau Varilla Treaty [of November 1903, that] handed over the canal to the U.S., “as if they [the U.S.] were sovereign.” 

It should be remembered that the grandparents of our oligarchy, since 1903 felt comfortable with the colonial situation, believing themselves to be Yankees at heart. The popular sectors, on the other hand, found it difficult to find clarity in the construction of their own political project. Nevertheless, from the beginning the masses devoted themselves to the defense of sovereignty, because they understood that the prosperity of the country and their own prosperity depended on it. 

Read more

Above graphic shows photo from Jan. 22, 1964 issue of Workers World: Youth Against War and Fascism in solidarity with Panamanian struggle. New York, Jan. 14, 1964.

 

JORGE MAJFUDBy sea and by air, and nothing more20 years since the only 9/11 that matters

Jorge Majfud, 6/9/2021
Translated by Andy Barton, Tlaxcala

Tony Blair, the former UK prime minister, has gone and done it again. In a conference commemorating the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks in New York in 2001, he insisted that “we need some ‘boots on the ground’” to fight against terrorism. Of course, this terrorism did not come out of nowhere; rather, it emerged from the historic interventions of the UK and USAmerica, and more recently, from the CIA’s funding of the Mujahadeen (which gave rise to Osama bin Laden and the founding members of the Taliban).

We will not go over those details now. However, this would be a good opportunity to remind the famous former prime minister of a few lessons from history. The same warning goes for Blair and all the other leaders who would qualify as war criminals were they not in charge of the world’s leading powers. London and Washington have only ever had a chance at success when unloading tonnes of bombs over “islands of Blacks” (as the beginning of the 20th century taught us); over “yellow villages” in the mid-20th century; over “communist hotbeds” decades after, and finally, over “caves of terrorists” at the beginning of the 21st century.

Eray Özbek, Turkey

When the British put boots on the ground in Argentina and Uruguay, things did not go well. They had better luck with their banks (generating internal conflicts with their fake news) than with their soldiers. Whenever they put boots on the ground, it did not at all go well. Neither did it go well for their proverbial sons and daughters, the protestant fanatics in Washington, although the latter always knew how to market themselves well, which is one thing they most certainly are: good salespeople.

JORGE MAJFUDT-Rex intelligence: the myopic logic of business

Jorge Majfud, 13/8/2021
Translated by Andy Barton, Tlaxcala

On 25th February 2021, USAmerican President Joe Biden ordered a military strike along the border between Syria and Iraq (on the Syrian side, of course, to not anger the authorities or media from the Iraqi protectorate) in retaliation to the attacks by a pro-Irani militia in the Iraqi city of Erbil. As expected, this action did not make the front pages of any big Western media outlet, all under the 19th-century slogan of “we were attacked for no reason, and we had to defend ourselves”.

 A story as old as time itself. Now is not the time to review the indigenous genocide on this continent, a genocide never called by its name. We will just pick out a recent incident from 22nd August 2008, during the Barack Obama presidency. After the bombing of Azizabad in Afghanistan, USAmerican military officials (including Oliver North, convicted and pardoned for lying to Congress during the Iran-Contra affair in the ‘80s) reported that everything had gone according to plan, that the village had greeted them with applause, that a Taliban leader had been killed and that the collateral damage was minimal. Minimal. This is the sense of value of other’s lives. What they did not report at the time is that tens of people had died, including 60 children.

In a less-publicised article for future historians, on 25th February, the New York Times reported the words of the USAmerican government regarding its latest bombing campaign, according to whom “this proportionate military response was conducted together with diplomatic measures, including consultation with coalition partners”. Just like since the 19th century, the Anglo-Saxon government assumes, now without mentioning it, special global intervention rights to re-establish God’s order and profitable business. As the United States Democratic Review from New York published in 1858, in its article “Mexico’s destiny”, “this type of people does not know how to be free, and they will never know under they are educated by American democracy. For this reason, the master will govern them until, one day, they learn how to govern themselves… Providence obliges us to take control of that country… We are not going to take control of Mexico out of our own self-interest; this would be a joke that would be impossible to believe. No, we are going to take control Mexico for its own benefit, to help the eight million poor Mexicans who suffer due to despotism, anarchy and barbarism”.

Nine years earlier, Chicago’s Springfield diary analysed the offence committed by Mexicans of having gifted tax-free land to USAmerican citizens in Texas while ordering them, through ‘barbaric’ laws, to free their slaves: “our compatriots had the right to visit Mexico under the sacred right to trade”. The freedom of the masters of the land to the freedom of the market and the sacred right to private property. Nothing has changed, only the settings and the technological landscape due to the simple and inevitable progression of humanity since the turn of the millennium.

MILENA RAMPOLDIAfghanistan and its annihilated future

 Milena Rampoldi, ProMosaik, 18/8/2021

The US empire seems to have God on its side as Bob Dylan sang decades ago. Again, history repeats itself, after having attacked and destroyed a country for almost 2 decades in name of democracy and human rights and especially in the name of Afghan women, the country is left so that the civil war can start in there. 

What Cherie Blair said in 2001 and what Hilary Clinton repeated in 2010, was a lie. And if this is feminism, I am not a feminist. The pseudo-feminism, the war in the name of the protection of Afghan women, is a totally distorted and false way of struggling for the right of other women in another society which is different from our own. Afghan women do not need Cherie and Hilary to become feminists, but they need their own independent struggle for women rights. Bombing people is not a method for the creation of a diverse and democratic society focusing on the protection of women and their children to build up their future in a safe and peaceful country.

After having “protected” the Afghan population from Taliban fundamentalism, the US occupation forces leave the country to the total war among brother-tribes.

On the page of the US Department of States you can read:

„Given the deteriorating security situation, we support, are working to secure, and call on all parties to respect and facilitate, the safe and orderly departure of foreign nationals and Afghans who wish to leave the country. Those in positions of power and authority across Afghanistan bear responsibility—and accountability—for the protection of human life and property, and for the immediate restoration of security and civil order.

Afghans and international citizens who wish to depart must be allowed to do so; roads, airports and border crossing must remain open, and calm must be maintained.

The Afghan people deserve to live in safety, security and dignity.  We in the international community stand ready to assist them. “