Professor Jeffrey Sachs is the President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. He is the author of many best selling books, including The End of Poverty and The Ages of Globalization.
We are in room #20, on the 2nd floor of the Central Museum of the Armed Forces in Moscow. The picture shows the remains of the CIA U2 spy plane, shot down on May 1, 1960 over Sverdlovsk (Yekaterinenburg) by a S-75 Dvina surface-to-air missile strike. Its pilot, Francis Gary Powers, far from swallowing the cyanide capsule he had been given and destroying the plane, preferred to parachute out. The missiles also shot down a Mig-19 that had been chasing the U2, so Powers was initially mistaken for a Soviet pilot, but the misunderstanding was cleared up. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and then exchanged in 1962 for William Fischer, a KGB spy who had remained as silent as a grave in interrogations.
Convinced that Powers was dead, the White House, the CIA, NASA and the entire Yankee machine covered themselves in ridicule in this case, claiming that the U2 was a weather reconnaissance plane (which was also believed by the pilot's family, who did not know that he had been recruited by the CIA) and that its pilot had had "oxygen problems" over Turkey. NASA even went so far as to stage a media event at Edwards Air Force Base, showing a "similar" U2 with fictitious NASA markings and serial numbers. Unfortunately, Powers was alive and well and Moscow was able to expose the Yankee lies.
We are in the 21st century. Nowadays, Powers are artificial and there is no need to equip them with cyanide, a bundle of rubles and women’s jewelry (which Captain Powers had on him). The remains of the MQ9-Reaper combat and spy drone intercepted (or shot down?) by the Russian air force over the Black Sea (over Ukrainian, Russian, or international territorial waters? - we don't know) have their place in the room n° 20 of the Tsentral'nyy muzey Vooruzhennykh Sil. And Putin, repeating Khrushchev's generous gesture, can always send a piece or the Reaper to Uncle Joe.
sinann, Singapore, 2015
Luis E. Sabini Fernández, 18-1-2023
El strip-tease se ha acentuado.
Hace pocos meses todavía, el presidente del estado considerado primus inter non pares, Joe Biden, entendía sensato no abastecer directamente de armas a Ucrania porque ese aporte y su aplicación podían fácilmente abrir el grifo de la guerra, entonces sí abierta de Rusia con la OTAN (o más bien de la OTAN con Rusia).
Ahora la OTAN ha aprobado enviar armamentos de diversos tipos y calibres, como, por ejemplo, tanques de última generación, por 40 mil millones de dólares, y una partida todavía superior para avituallamiento de bienes sociales, civiles, a Ucrania.
Pero no se trata sólo de tales aspectos económico-materiales. Alemania, tras la pesadilla nazi, quedó entrampada en un complejo de culpa no del todo correcto ni justo, puesto que el origen del nazismo no fue una expresión alemana, como tantos aliadófilos quisieron hacernos creer, sino una reacción frente a la “Paz de Versalles” (a su vez, una estratagema de la “Raposa” europea para quitar de en medio una competencia que se presentaba muy seria). Como consecuencia, la Alemania de la segunda posguerra fijó una conducta antimilitarista, antiguerrerista, antiintervencionista.
Las rencillas, purgas y designaciones que se acaban de suceder en Alemania 2023 obedecen a los roces y diferencias ante esos dos factores que persiguen a Alemania “como su esqueleto y su sombra”.
¿Qué significa este reaprovisionamiento ahora con armas y bagajes a granel? Queda ya casi prístino que la OTAN es la que está en guerra con Rusia. Aunque se trata, como se ven tantas ahora (¿más que otrora?) de una guerra proxy.
Y si ya está tan desenfadado el comportamiento otanesco, ¿qué va a pasar con el ruso?
Rusia, crecientemente hostigada por el eje anglo-israelo-norteamericano a través de su representante o emisario regional, la OTAN, no supo/pudo encarar ese atroz hostigamiento que se focalizó en lo que el ideólogo estadounidense de extrema derecha Samuel P. Huntington definió como víctima propiciatoria.
Huntington, analizando el mundo postsoviético vislumbraba dos estados medianos, muy aprovechables para afianzar “Occidente” (su militancia prooccidental era tan descarada como para que en un pretendido ensayo sociológico; The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order[1] tenga un capítulo titulado, por ejemplo “Occidente y el resto”).
En ese abordaje del mundo postsoviético que una vez más, como en los ’40, sus cofrades se disponen a deglutir (a fines de los ’40 se les cortó la digestión por la irrupción geopolítica de la URSS), Huntington toma como ejemplos de naciones “escindidas” a Turquía y a Ucrania, sitios en el mundo postsoviético por donde las fuerzas occidentales pueden abrir brechas en fortalezas ajenas (y enemigas).
Tras el colapso soviético en la década de los ’90, Rusia pervive. Aun perdiendo la corte de estados vasallos de Europa oriental (y un poco más, también en Asia) y los aditamentos que mantuvieran en pie a la URSS durante siete décadas; su fe ideológica y el “centralismo democrático” (curiosa definición socialista del verticalismo policíaco-militar)− retiene, gracias a su enorme extensión, población y armamento nuclear, una serie de elementos claves que impiden el pleno poderío mundializado de EE.UU. y el eje que, otra vez desde los ’90, procura controlar el mundo.[2]
Esto ha significado que el eje triple ya mencionado busca por donde penetrar la “fortaleza” rusa.
Y siguiendo la visión del mencionado Huntington, Ucrania, la fracturada Ucrania,[3] constituye un verdadero bocato di cardinale.
Entiendo imposible soslayar que Robert Kagan, figura clave del proyecto neoimperial ya citado (n. 2) es pareja de Victoria Nuland, la emisaria estadounidense que llega a Ucrania hacia 2014 para generar el desequilibrio necesario para la consecución de tales planes. Munida de miles de millones de dólares, será clave, por ejemplo, en la instalación de una cadena de laboratorios diseñados para el biowarfare (vale decir, la guerra a través de la acción de laboratorios de ingeniería genética).[4]
Justo entonces se produce un cambio de presidentes en Ucrania y el impulso de agrupamientos de extrema derecha y a la vez profundamente antirrusos. Preparando el terreno para un enfrentamiento cada vez más violento. Episodio de Maidan (decenas de muertos y piedra de toque para que población rusófona en Ucrania y la misma Rusia modificaran su actuación. Crimea declara su independencia respecto de Ucrania y posterior incorporación a Rusia (algo vital desde el punto de vista militar para Rusia en el Mar Negro). Rusófonos empiezan a estar muy hostigados por la Ucrania “independiente”, más bien pro-occidental, desde 2014 (con el abandono forzado del presidente Yanukovich más bien prorruso). Lugansk y Donetsk, dos municipios o provincias rusófonas proclaman su rebeldía institucional y armada contra las autoridades ucranianas.
La OTAN logró “estirar la cuerda” de modo tal que se le rompiera a Putin en las manos. Tras por lo menos 8 años de agresión, logra establecer claramente un agresor en el “teatro de operaciones”, que resulta, sin duda, Putin.
¿Cómo se logra ese reparto de roles? Porque la OTAN y el eje triple que la dirige tiene éxito en tocar sensibilidades del régimen ruso y lo va a llevar a sacar a luz su propia modalidad de poder: Rusia no soporta el maltrato y la presión y opta por aplicar “un puñetazo en la mesa” que ya vio no era de negociaciones. Como hiciera en Osetia, en Chechenia. Craso error. Zelenski, versátil actor, cumple aquí la función de “pez diablo” para que el oso sufra una pequeña hemorragia; al fondo de la escena, están las pirañas.
Introduce su planta en un territorio preparado como celada. La OTAN interviene rápidamente. Tanto debilitando al concierto asistencial europeo (quitándole a Alemania la provisión de energía rusa) como otorgando todo tipo de asistencia a Ucrania. Inicialmente, para la defensa; luego, poco a poco, para el ataque.
El lenguaje figurado tiene sus límites; y la realidad mucho más; lo futuro es no solo desconocido sino incognoscible.
Notas
[1] Editado por Simon & Schuster, N.Y., 1996.
[2] Un eje con varios planos: en primer lugar la Santísima Trinidad del Reino Unido, Israel y EE.UU.; en segundo lugar el de la red Echelon, compuesta por el acuerdo anglófono (pero de raza blanca) de 1948; EE.UU., Canadá, Reino Unido, Australia, Nueva Zelandia, también llamado de “Los cinco ojos”, y en tercer lugar volver, una vez más tras el derrumbe soviético, al diseño preciso de la craneoteca pentagonal, The Project for the New American Century. Setiembre, 2000. Entre sus principales redactores: William Kristol, Robert, Donald y Fred Kagan, Gary Schmitt, Paul Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim.
[3] Ucrania, también llamada “Rusia pequeña”, con su capital Kiev cuna de la unificación rusa (de la Rusia Grande o mayor, hoy simplemente llamada Rusia), mantuvo cuando el colapso soviético, armas nucleares, junto con Rusia. Sin embargo, con o por acuerdo de “las grandes potencias”, EE.UU. y Rusia, en 1996, Ucrania fue desnuclearizada. Con compromisos recíprocos de “los grandes” de preservar su independencia. Algo que debe haber hecho sonreír a Huntington, que había profetizado la fractura tres años antes.
[4] Lo que hasta la década de los ’70 se denominaba en EE.UU. test tube war, que otorgaba enorme poder al desarrollo químico, de venenos para uso militar, con los avances en ingeniería genética habilitando la creación, mejor dicho la construcción de “quimeras”, entes vivos transgénicos, los afiebrados militares norteamericanos y sus acólitos han llegado así al desarrollo de laboratorios que directamente califican de biowarfare (guerra biológica) y los han diseminado por todos los continentes.
Sergio
Rodríguez Gelfenstein,
6/10/2022
Translated by Fausto Giudice, Tlaxcala
During my recent visit to Argentina and Uruguay, the sponsoring institutions of my trip organized a tour in which there were 14 presentations of the book "NATO vs. the world" that we wrote together with Jorge Elbaum. Likewise, 7 talks and conferences were held on the subject. In not a few of them, attendees reiterated the query about why the book has the subtitle that I now use for this article: "The conflict in Ukraine as an expression of the change of era", and asked for more on the subject.
In the same way, we assumed that this consequence was what gave global character to the confrontation, since its aftermath was going to impact the entire planet. Thus, the clash was much more than a confrontation of Ukraine against Russia and even of the United States and NATO against Russia.
In this sense, unlike the Second World War when the United States waited until the end for a debacle of the Soviet Union in front of the Nazi army before bursting in mid-1944 when the final result of the conflict after the Soviet victory in Stalingrad in February 1943 was indisputable and categorical, now the “new Normandy Landing” expressed in support of the coup d 'état in Ukraine in 2014, was the detonator of a war of expansion that already lasted 8 years.
In the course of the process, the United States not only supported the extermination of the Russian-speaking population of eastern Ukraine, but also cooperated in the dismantling of the armed forces of that country to transform it into an executing body under the mandate of the Nazi organizations that, with the support of the government of that country, began the “otanization” of that armed component to turn it into a ram of the expansion of NATO, a terrorist military structure that threatens all of humanity.
The obligatory Russian response to safeguard the physical integrity of the inhabitants of the oppressed territories also added as objectives the denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine, thus emulating the objectives agreed by the triumphant powers in the Second World War with regard to Germany, when they met in the German city of Potsdam between 17 July and 2 August 1945.
At the end of the meeting, the president of the United States rushed back to Washington to - just a few days later - order the launch of atomic bombs on the harmless cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when Japan had already surrendered. In this way, it subordinated - through the most horrible event in the history of mankind - the surrendered and disarmed Japanese empire, which until today has remained attached to the military and political device of the United States.
With Europe, the United States was more subtle: it resorted to buying the wills of the European elites by creating the so-called Marshall Plan, an instrument more susceptible than the atomic bomb to be disclosed by Hollywood as an expression of USAmerican "cooperative values". But the purpose was the same, so Europe became a useful tool of Washington's eagerness to dominate the world.
Translated by Lena Bloch
While with one hand, the world's major media are constantly reproducing the horrifying images of hundreds of corpses scattered in Bucha, Ukraine - with the other hand they are stoking the fires of an escalation of war that could lead us to a nuclear holocaust in a course of months.
Tasos Anastasiou, Greece
Whoever
committed the massacre (it seems most likely to have been Russian
soldiers), it will go down in the annals of history as an unforgivable
crime. But I think the smoke is obscuring the horizon. We can't see
where we come from and worse, we can't see where we are going. Although I
have repeated it in different media since long before the war, wrong or
not, I will focus on these two sides of the road that the fire does not
let you see.
Let's start with a simple and more immediate question:
instead of continuing the endless, dangerous, and notoriously useless
game of arbitral sanctions, why not impose the obligation to negotiate a
resolution to the conflict between Russia and NATO once and for all and
before innocent people continue to die?
A reasonable solution would
be the dissolution of NATO in exchange for Russia's withdrawal from
Ukraine, but that would be labeled radical. The owners of the business
do not negotiate.
There are many other options, such as the most
obvious and pragmatic one, i.e. Ukraine's neutral status (with
provincial autonomy of the Donbas), which is where it should start
instead of provoking Russia by integrating Ukraine into NATO and
deploying missiles four minutes away from Moscow.
The neutrality or
non-membership of NATO has always been the case of Austria, Finland,
Sweden and other neighboring countries, some of which have just
expressed the possibility of joining NATO, showing where the business of
the old war merchants is going and demonstrating, once again, that the
fight against communism - and not only in Latin America - has been
nothing more than the perfect excuse to maintain geopolitical dominance
and protect corporate, class and capital interests.
What do they
intend, apart from expanding militarization more and more in a world,
now that they have run out of the excuse of communism and, more
recently, of Islamic terrorism, which in Afghanistan alone left eight
trillion dollars in profits to the big companies specialized in
"security"?
Do they think that having Russia surrounded by that
anachronistic and mafia-like NATO organization would make Europe and the
world a safer place?
You have to be under the influence of alcohol
to forget that we are talking about one of the two atomic superpowers
and imagine such stupidity. Or such wickedness of organized crime. If it
were really about "security", if they were really sincere about "the
right to defend themselves" that countries have, they would never have
tried to break this order which, judging by the ongoing war, has not
made the world, much less Ukraine. safer, but quite the opposite.
Of course, those who have that bargaining power are not being splashed with the blood of Russians and Ukrainians but, on the contrary, are doing their business, so it may take a few weeks, if not months, for them to stop shedding crocodile tears over the whiskey and get down to serious negotiations.
