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.
Páginas: 160
Tamaño: 16 x 23 cm.
Precio: AR$2400.00.- / U$S15.00.
Comprar libro (papel/ebook)
Precisely, for Jorge and for me, it was a priority to make known in the book some remarks that explained why we had come to the conclusion that beyond the results obtained from the war development of the conflict, in reality the most important thing was that the main consequence of this was the confirmation of the beginning of that change of era the former Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa was talking about a few years ago.
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.
