jeudi, 31 juillet 2014

Ukraine: Die Wahrheit stirbt wieder einmal zuerst

ukraine-32.jpg

Ukraine: Die Wahrheit stirbt wieder einmal zuerst

Helmut Müller

Ex: http://www.helmutmueller.wordpress.com

Durch Heftigkeit ersetzt der Irrende, was ihm an Wahrheit fehlt. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

Wer war nicht beeindruckt von der affenartigen gleichgeschalteten Reaktion der mit Absicht irrenden Journaille bei Bekanntwerden des Absturzes von MH 17 und desgleichen von der schleimartigen Beharrlichkeit mit der sie die für sie einzig mögliche Version des Herganges seither weiterträgt. Andere Szenarien wurden entweder gleich gar nicht in Erwägung gezogen oder schon im Ansatz verworfen.                                                   

Wenn es so ist, daß die Wahrheit als erste in einem Krieg stirbt, dann gibt es ja, von rühmlichen Ausnahmen abgesehen, kaum ein wesentliches Medium, daß sich da nicht, eingebettet in den gleichgeschalteten Mainstream, als Handlanger USraelischer Globalinteressen befleißigt. Wem deshalb oder aus anderen Gründen zu einem eingehenderen Verstehen des aktuellen Falles der weiträumige Durchblick fehlt, dem kann geholfen werden.

In einem für den US-Kongreß bestimmten Entwurf wurden im Mai 2014 die neuen Hauptlinien der US-Außenpolitik gegenüber Europa und Rußland festgelegt. Ich bringe diesen leider nur in Englisch vorliegenden so genannten „Act“ verkürzt am Ende dieses Beitrages.* Also da ist von einer engeren militärischen Zusammenarbeit mit Ländern des ehemaligen Ostblocks, von der Ausbeutung der Gas- und Ölreserven in diesen Ländern (großes Schiefergas-Vorkommen im Donezk-Becken), von vermehrter Ausstrahlung russischsprachiger Sendungen und nicht zuletzt von einer nachrichtendienstlichen Unterstützung der Ukraine gegenüber Russland die Rede. Das ganze fügt sich wunderbar in ein bereits lange vorher von Sicherheitsberater Zbigniew Brzezinski vorgestelltes Strategie-Modell zur Beherrschung Europas und zur Festigung der US-Dominanz bei gleichzeitiger Ausschaltung Russlands als Großmacht.**

Da kommt doch so ein Flugzeugabschuss, so es einer war, wie gerufen. Könnte er doch, so meint man wohl, die angepeilten Ziele ungemein beschleunigen. Nun geht es aber bezüglich des Anlaßfalles doch nicht ganz so geschmiert wie im Falle der WTC-Türme. Schließlich ist man ja nicht mehr überall so amerikabegeistert wie nach 1945, auch haben wir uns ein gewisses kritisches Denken noch bewahrt. Nebenbei bemerkt haben auch die USA schon einmal Passagier-Jets (u. a. eine iranische Maschine) vom Himmel geholt. Gab es da etwa Sanktionen und Hetzkampagnen gegen die USA, deren Schuld, anders als im Falle Rußland, zweifellos feststand? Wollte sie jemand gar vor den Internationalen Gerichtshof bringen, wie es die litauische Präsidentin im Falle Putins heftig genug anregt? Da wird einer vorverurteilt, auch von anderen Politikern, obwohl die US-Regierung, anscheinend einer Aufforderung Putins folgend, eingesteht, daß sie noch keine endgültigen Beweise habe. Auch die Journaille hat keine, aber umso mehr unterdrückt sie Fakten, die zur Aufklärung beitragen könnten.

Im Folgenden nun einige Fakten und Hinweise, die, im Gegensatz zu den Berichten des „Mainstreams“, andere Szenarien rund um die Flugzeugkatastrophe zuließen:                      

1.) Interessanterweise an dem Tag genau, an dem die Bodenoffensive gegen Gaza begann, stürzte, von einer Rakete wahrscheinlich getroffen, in der Ukraine MH 17 ab. Mag sich jeder denken, was er will.                                                                                                               

2.) Nach Informationen des russischen Verteidigungsministeriums waren zu dem Zeitpunkt im Raum der Katastrophe ukrainische BUK M1-Einheiten stationiert, die dort am 15. Juli in Stellung gebracht worden sein sollen.                                                                  

3.) Das Flugzeug flog unverständlicherweise eine südlichere Route als geplant und die ukrainische Flugsicherung soll das Flugzeug außerdem angewiesen haben, niedriger zu fliegen. Das russische Verteidigungsministerium will zu dem Zeitpunkt Radar-Aktivitäten einer ukrainischen Raketen-Stellung registriert haben.                                                           

4.) Ein Beamter des ukrainischen Innenministeriums, Anton Gerashchenko, soll, ehe überhaupt jemand die näheren Umstände kannte, bereits gesagt haben, der Absturz sei durch eine BUK-Rakete verursacht worden. Wie konnte er dies schon wissen? Das Innenministerium steht pikanterweise unter Kontrolle der extrem rechten Organisationen Svoboda und Rechter Sektor und verfügt über schwere militärische Ausrüstung. Auch dazu, mag jeder denken, was er will.                                                                                              

5.) Hochinteressant ist natürlich der inzwischen bekannte Bericht eines zum Zeitpunkt des Absturzes in Kiew arbeitenden spanischen Fluglotsen. Demnach wurde die malaysische Maschine drei Minuten lang von zwei ukrainischen Abfangjägern begleitet, ehe sie vom Radarschirm verschwand. Der Fluglotse wurde nach seiner Wortmeldung bedroht und mußte mit seiner Familie ausreisen.

Gewiß wird es von anderer Seite  dazu noch mehr zu sagen geben, und weitere Fakten könnten vielleicht sogar einmal für Klarheit schaffen. Zusätzlich dazu gibt es ja noch das Gerücht, MH 17 könnte die verschollene MH 370 sein. Beweise will man am Rumpf der Maschine gefunden haben. Aber unabhängig davon stellt sich doch längst die Frage: wem nützt der Fall am meisten? Der Ukraine winken im Fall des Falles, vor allem auch auf EU-„Regimentskosten“, verstärkte finanzielle, wirtschaftliche und militärische Hilfe seitens des Westens und früher oder später möglicherweise NATO- und EU-Mitgliedschaft. Die USA hätten in Kiew eine mit Schokolade überzogene Vasallen-Regierung, Zugang zu Rohstoffreserven, und sie wären einen Schritt weiter im Eurasischen Raum. Rußland wäre nur Verlierer. Da aber Putin daran kaum Interesse haben kann, dürfte seine direkte Verantwortung im Fall MH 17 gleich null sein.

Blieben, falls Kiew die Katastrophe nicht selbst inszenierte, noch zwei Szenarien:

A.) Die Separatisten haben irrtümlich ein Zivilflugzeug abgeschossen. Da wäre die Frage nach der Herkunft der Rakete doch interessant: wie und auf welchem Wege kam sie zu den Separatisten?

B.) Möglich, aber wenig wahrscheinlich: Eine Fraktion der Separatisten wollte Putin wegen mangelnder Unterstützung unter Druck setzen. Linke Aktivisten, die Wochen zuvor in der Region weilten, mußten sich aber Klagen von Seite der Separatisten wegen ausbleibender militärischer Unterstützung durch Putin anhören. (Dann wären jetzt kolportierte Waffenlieferungen das Ergebnis?) Dieselben Aktivisten wollen auch keine tschetschenischen oder andere ausländische Kämpfer unter den Separatisten wahrgenommen haben. Auch keine russischen Offiziere. Und doch wird dies ständig kolportiert. Andererseits, und das ist Fakt, sehnen einige „dem US-Imperialismus treu ergebene Persönlichkeiten“, wie die litauische Präsidentin, eine stärkere NATO-Präsenz in ihren Ländern herbei. Das soll Moskau nicht stören?

Welche Erkenntnisse lassen sich von den aktuellen Geschehnissen und der US-Strategie im Besonderen ableiten? Die USA versuchen in ihrem Streben nach Festigung ihrer etwas angeschlagenen Weltherrschaft verlorenes Terrain und so manches außenpolitische Desaster mittels neuer Torheiten wieder gut zu machen und ihrem ebenso angeschlagenen Dollar neues Leben einzuhauchen. Und das zu einem Gutteil zu Lasten ihrer Verbündeten, vor allem aber zum Nachteil Rußlands, das, gemeinsam mit Brasilien, Indien, China und Südafrika (BRICS-Staaten) zu einem ernsthaften Konkurrenten für den US-Hegemon noch heranwachsen könnte. Washington wird aber die Gefahr nur kurz- bis mittelfristig mit zweifelhaften bis kriminellen Methoden bahnen können, wenn überhaupt. Könnte man aber Putin jetzt etwas am Zeug flicken, wäre damit schon eine Verschnaufpause gewonnen. Mehr aber nicht. Das sei auch den politischen Lakaien der USA in dieser EU gesagt.

*Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014
– Directs the Secretary of Defense (DOD) to submit to Congress a strategic framework for U.S. security assistance and cooperation in Europe and Eurasia. …
113th Congress. 2nd Session, S. 2277

Official Titles as Introduced:
A bill to prevent further Russian aggression toward Ukraine and other sovereign states in Europe and Eurasia, and for other purposes.
Bill Summary

Directs the President to establish a United States-German Global and European Security Working Group to focus on areas of mutual concern, including the situation in Ukraine, and increasing political, economic, and military cooperation between the two states. …

Directs the Secretary of State to increase efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and political and civil society organizations in the Russian Federation. …

Directs DOD to assess the capabilities and needs of the Ukrainian armed forces. Authorizes the President, upon completion of such assessment, to provide specified military assistance to Ukraine.
Expresses the sense of Congress that the President should: (1) provide Ukraine with information about Russian military and intelligence capabilities on Ukraine’s eastern border and within Ukraine’s territorial borders, including Crimea; and (2) ensure that such intelligence information is protected from further disclosure.
Provides major non-NATO ally status for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova (during the period in which each of such countries meets specified criteria) for purposes of the transfer or possible transfer of defense articles or defense services.
Directs the President to increase: (1) U.S. Armed Forces interactions with the armed forces of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia; and (2) U.S and NATO security assistance to such states.
Amends the Natural Gas Act to apply the expedited application and approval process for natural gas exports to World Trade Organization members.
Urges the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Trade and Development Agency, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the World Bank Group, and the European Bank for Reconstruction to promote assistance to Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova in order to exploit natural gas and oil reserves and to develop alternative energy sources.
Prohibits any federal department or agency from taking any action that recognizes Russian Federation sovereignty over Crimea or otherwise endorses the Russian Federation’s illegal annexation of Crimea.


Directs the Secretary of State to: (1) strengthen democratic institutions, the independent media, and political and civil society organizations in countries of the former Soviet Union; and (2) increase educational and cultural exchanges with countries of the former Soviet Union.
Directs the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Voice of America (VOA) to provide Congress with a plan for increasing and maintaining through FY2017 the quantity of U.S.-funded Russian-language broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union, with priority for broadcasting into Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.

** Zbigniew Brzeziński, außenpolitischer Berater Obamas und früherer Sicherheitsberater Präsident Jimmy Carters, in dem Buch »Die einzige Weltmacht: Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft« : »Die Ukraine, ein neues und wichtiges Feld auf dem eurasischen Schachbrett, stellt einen geopolitischen Dreh- und Angelpunkt dar, denn schon seine alleinige Existenz als unabhängiges Land trägt dazu bei, Russland zu verwandeln. Ohne die Ukraine ist Russland kein eurasisches Reich mehr…


Wenn Moskau allerdings die Kontrolle über die Ukraine mit ihren 52 Millionen Menschen und wichtigen Rohstoffen sowie dem Zugang zum Schwarzen Meer zurückgewönne, würde Russland automatisch wieder in die Lage versetzt, ein mächtiger imperialer Staat zu werden, der sich über Europa und Asien erstreckt.«

mercredi, 30 juillet 2014

Der türkische Ministerpräsident Erdoğan betreibt Annäherung an Russland

Der türkische Ministerpräsident Erdoğan betreibt Annäherung an Russland

F. William Engdahl

Der türkische Ministerpräsident Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ist ein echter politischer Überlebenskünstler. Er hat den jahrelangen Versuchen Washingtons widerstanden, ihn abzusetzen, weil er sich weigerte, die Türkei nicht zum Aufmarschplatz für einen Krieg zu machen, der zum Sturz von Baschar al-Assad im benachbarten Syrien führen sollte. Nun schaut sich Erdoğan, der Realpolitik wahrscheinlich noch intensiver studiert hat als den Koran, im Ausland nach neuen strategischen Verbündeten um.

 

Genau zu dem Zeitpunkt, wo die NATO, die Obama-Regierung und andere alles daran setzen, Russlands Präsidenten Putin wegen der Entwicklungen in der Ukraine zu verteufeln, bewegt sich Erdoğan deutlich näher an … raten Sie mal, welche führende Persönlichkeit in der Weltpolitik? Richtig, an Wladimir Putin und Russland. Die Implikationen einer grundlegenden geopolitischen Neurausrichtung der Türkei könnten weltweit Konsequenzen haben, die weit über Größe oder politisches Gewicht des Landes hinausgehen.

Die ersten Schritte in Richtung einer engeren Wirtschaftsallianz zwischen der Türkei und Russland wurden im vergangenen April unternommen, kurz nach dem illegalen, von den USA inszenierten Putsch in der Ukraine und nachdem das Parlament der Krim für einen Anschluss an Russland plädierte, was eine Flut antirussischer Propaganda aus dem Westen ausgelöst hatte. Am 21. April lud der türkische Energieminister Taner Yildiz den stellvertretenden Chef der Gazprom, Alexander Medwedew, nach Ankara ein, um Einzelheiten über größere Lieferungen von russischem Erdgas über die Blue-Stream-Pipeline in die Türkei zu klären.

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/europa/f-william-engdahl/der-tuerkische-ministerpraesident-erdo-an-betreibt-annaeherung-an-russland.html

mardi, 29 juillet 2014

Duitsland ruilt VS-NAVO in voor BRICS landen

Financieel analist: Duitsland ruilt VS-NAVO in voor BRICS landen

Duitsers willen Russen helpen om dollar te laten vallen

VS wil EU betrekken in oorlog tegen Rusland

De Amerikanen vinden de goede banden tussen Merkel en Putin maar niets, en proberen via Oekraïne een breuk tussen Berlijn en Moskou te forceren.

Volgens financieel analist en statisticus Jim Willie bereidt Duitsland in alle stilte een radicale politieke koerswijziging voor. Berlijn zou het Westerse, door Amerika beheerste NAVO-blok willen verlaten, en zich aansluiten bij de BRICS landen: Brazilië, Rusland, India, China en Zuid Afrika. Dit zou de ware reden geweest zijn dat de Amerikaanse NSA de Duitse leiders, inclusief bondskanselier Angela Merkel, bespioneerde.

De Verenigde Staten zijn erg benauwd dat Europa toenadering zoekt tot Rusland. Een nieuwe combinatie tussen de superieure Duitse technologische en industriële kennis en de Russische rijkdom aan grondstoffen en militaire macht zou in een klap het sterkste machtsblok ter wereld kunnen worden en Amerika naar de kroon steken.

‘Duitsers willen Russen helpen dollar te laten vallen’

Volgens Willie zoeken de Duitsers naar manieren om Rusland te helpen de dollar als internationale reservemunt te laten vallen. Eerder deze maand besloten de BRICS om met $ 100 miljard een alternatief voor het door het Westen beheerste IMF op te zetten. Rusland wordt de voorzitter van deze nieuwe financiële instelling, die Shanghai als thuisbasis krijgt.

President Vladimir Putin was duidelijk over de reden: ‘Het nieuwe systeem helpt voorkomen dat landen die het niet eens zijn met sommige buitenlandse besluiten die de VS en zijn bondgenoten maken, lastig worden gevallen.’ Met andere woorden: Rusland en China zijn volop bezig met het opzetten van een politiek, economisch en financieel systeem dat buiten het Westen om moet gaan functioneren.

‘Rusland heeft NWO verraden’

De op globalisering en het uitwissen van grenzen en soevereiniteit gerichte Westerse gevestigde orde beschouwt Rusland dan ook in toenemende mate als een ‘afvallige’ en onvoorspelbare staat, die een spaak in het wiel steekt van de in de maak zijnde ‘Nieuwe Wereld Orde’. Oud VS-ambassadeur voor Irak Christopher Hill zei in april zelfs dat Rusland deze NWO, waar het 25 jaar lang onderdeel van is geweest, heeft ‘verraden’.

De BRICS zijn ook bezig met het opzetten van een eigen internetsysteem waarvan de verbindingen niet langer via Amerika lopen. Hierdoor wordt het voor de NSA veel moeilijker om het buitenlandse internet te bespioneren.

Neerhalen Boeing ‘geschenk uit de hemel’

De fascistische staatsgreep in Oekraïne en de daarop volgende chaos werd door het Westen en met name de VS gefinancierd, voorbereid en gesteund om Rusland te verzwakken, de vorming van de Euraziatische Unie te voorkomen, en vooral om de weggeëbde vijandigheid tegen Rusland in Europa nieuw leven in te blazen. Het neerschieten van de Maleisische Boeing 777, met hoofdzakelijke Europese passagiers aan boord, was wrang gezegd een ‘geschenk uit de hemel’ voor de Amerikanen, en werd niet alleen dankbaar aangegrepen voor dit doel, maar was volgens boze tongen zelfs een vooropgezette false-flag aanslag.

Tevens hoopt Washington de EU zover te krijgen hardere sancties tegen Rusland in te stellen. Dat probeert de regering Obama al maanden, maar Europa wilde daar tot frustratie van de Amerikanen niet aan meewerken, omdat dit grote gevolgen zou kunnen hebben voor de toch al in forse problemen verkerende Europese economie. Na de crash van vlucht MH-17 lijkt Europa inderdaad ‘om’, en zal de EU aanstaande donderdag nieuwe sancties tegen Rusland instellen (2).

VS zet Europa voor het blok: doe mee met onze oorlog’

‘Dit heeft enorme gevolgen,’ aldus Willie. ‘Feitelijk zegt de VS tegen Europa dat het twee keuzes heeft: doe met ons mee met de oorlog tegen Rusland, met de sancties tegen Rusland, en met de constante oorlogen en conflicten, de isolatie en vernietiging van jullie economie, het loslaten van jullie energievoorziening (uit Rusland) en het annuleren van (energie)contracten. Steun deze oorlog en sancties, want wij willen graag jullie hulp om het dollarregime overeind te houden.’

‘Wij zetten Duitsland onder druk. Maak je geen zorgen over Frankrijk en Engeland, maar over Duitsland. Duitsland heeft 3000 bedrijven die zaken doen (met de Russen). Zij gaan absoluut niet meedoen met sancties.’ (1)

Xander

(1) Infowars
(2) Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten

Zie ook o.a.:

20-07: BRICS-landen vormen politieke alliantie, willen nieuw financieel systeem
06-07: Amerika drijft Duitsland en Frankrijk in armen van Rusland (/ BRICS-landen zetten serieuze stappen naar antidollar alliantie)
19-06: Kremlin wil wereldwijde anti-dollar alliantie om agressie VS te stoppen (/ ‘Gigantische verliezen voor Europa als EU kant van Amerika blijft kiezen’)
15-06: Grote man achter Putin beschouwt VS als rijk van de Antichrist
08-06: Bijna alle klanten Gazprom ruilen dollar in voor euro
15-05: Rusland dumpt 20% staatsobligaties VS; België koopt juist $ 200 miljard
14-05: Gazprom: Europa moet Russisch gas in roebels gaan betalen
07-04: Adviseur Putin waarschuwt EU voor € 1 biljoen verlies en wereldoorlog
29-03: Obama drijft mensheid naar laatste wereldoorlog

 

BHL veut faire la guerre à la Russie: s’engagera-t-il?

bhl9531393787563.jpg

BHL veut faire la guerre à la Russie: s’engagera-t-il?         

par Nicolas Bonnal
 
BHL est à Marcel Proust ce que Doc Gynéco est à Jean-Philippe Rameau.
   
Bernard-Henri Lévy vient d’accuser les Européens de lâcheté dans le New York Times. Il demande la guerre contre la Russie – qui servira à anéantir le Vieux Continent. Mais que ne fera-t-on pas pour éviter le Munich numéro 1000 des « néocons » à la française ?

Le bougre occupe depuis quarante ans le devant de la scène intellectuelle française, comme on dit. Il est l’intellectuel institutionnel que l’on doit écouter et le commandeur des croyants auquel on se doit maintenant d’obéir, le doigt sur la couture du pantalon, surtout quand on est président de la République et que l’on rêve de n’importe quel exploit martial pour éviter de trop ramer dans les sondages. Et cela, alors que le ludion en question était déconsidéré depuis longtemps par tous ses pairs, Aron, Sartre et Bourdieu y compris.

L’escogriffe plumitif traîne depuis bien longtemps au Quartier latin sa carcasse de précieux dégoûté. Aussi, je ne me moquerai pas de son riad avec laquais, de ses chemises à 700 euros, de son dandysme de Prisunic, de sa discourtoise insuffisance. Je ne soulignerai pas non plus que ses succès en librairie ont vingt ou trente ans, qu’il vend maintenant à 3.000 exemplaires, que ses postures ont fini par lasser le grand public qui le découvrait il y a maintenant 40 ans ou presque, au temps du toujours extasié Pivot. Car BHL est à Marcel Proust ce que Doc Gynéco est à Jean-Philippe Rameau.

Par ses poses, il me fait penser aux libéraux américains ou même russes. On sait donc que tout libéral qui se respecte déteste son pays, son histoire et ses racines, et l’idée même d’identité. On sait que, comme tout libéral qui se respecte, il n’a de cesse de souligner que ce pays est viscéralement raciste et antisémite. Et l’on sait que, comme tout aigri qui se respecte, il n’a de cesse de dénoncer comme nationaliste ou populiste tout esprit qui s’opposera à ses schématisations artisanales et à ses imprécations teigneuses : cf. sa diatribe sur le populisme américain et le maccarthysme local toujours renaissant qui refusait de faire de ce cancre las l’émule de Tocqueville !

Puissance malfaisante, ce représentant attitré de la gauche caviar et du néo-conservatisme azimuté synthétise toutes les tares de la charia moderne : le monde ne sera vivable que lorsqu’il sera en tout point identique et mort. C’est le rallye mondain du Paris-Qatar. Les moins riches se loueront une chambre à Gaza en remerciant les journaux de lutter contre le racisme.

Il serait temps pourtant que je reconnaisse ses intenses mérites, que je lui tresse des lauriers. Car c’est ici qu’avec son argent, son bagout, ses réseaux, son sens du chantage il m’impressionne et maintenant me fait peur. Ce nouveau grand inquisiteur triomphe avec toute la force de sa mauvaise volupté.

Je fais un pari : après la Libye, il imposera sa guerre mondiale à la foule fatiguée des zombies européens.

Ist Rußland Deutschlands wichtigster natürlicher Partner?

export_Russlands_n-700x498.jpg

Putin in der Diskussion: Ist Rußland Deutschlands wichtigster natürlicher Partner?

Olaf Haselhorst
   

Die politischen Beziehungen Europas zu den USA scheinen sich immer stärker abzukühlen. Schuld daran ist nicht nur die Massenausspähung europäischer Bürger durch den US-Geheimdienst NSA. So hatte der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin im Hinblick auf einen französisch-russischen Waffendeal den USA vorgeworfen, Bank-Strafen dazu zu nutzen, Frankreich für seine Rüstungsgeschäfte mit Rußland zu bestrafen. Am 30. Juni belegten die US-Behörden die französische Bank BNP Paribas mit einer Strafe von neun Milliarden Dollar. Hintergrund waren Geschäfte mit den Führungen Kubas, des Iran und des Sudan. „Was den französischen Banken angetan wurde, kann in Europa nichts als Empörung hervorrufen“, sagte Putin in einer Rede vom 1. Juli. „Wir sehen den Druck, den unsere amerikanischen Partner auf Frankreich ausüben, um das Land dazu zu zwingen, keine ‚Mistrals‘ [Hubschrauberträger] an Rußland zu liefern. Wir wissen, daß sie sogar angedeutet haben, die Strafen gegen die Banken stillschweigend aufzuheben, wenn Frankreich die ‚Mistrals‘ nicht liefert. Was ist das, wenn nicht Erpressung?“, fragte Putin. Immer mehr europäische Politiker und Geschäftsleute würden erkennen, daß die USA Europa nur für ihre eigenen Interessen benutzen wollen, daß Europa zur „Geisel kurzsichtiger ideologisierter Ansätze“ anderer wird.

In Frankreich werden zwei Hubschrauberträger für Rußland produziert. Beim G7-Gipfel Anfang Juni hatten die USA das Projekt kritisiert. Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel hatte hingegen keine Einwände gegen den Export von französischen Kriegsschiffen nach Rußland.

„Europa ist Rußlands natürlicher und wichtigster Handels- und Wirtschaftspartner“, so Putin. Frankreich und Deutschland hätten sich auf die Seite Rußlands gestellt, als sie die Aufhebung der Waffenruhe mit den Unabhängigkeitskämpfern durch die Ukraine verurteilten. Hinsichtlich …einer Telefonkonferenz mit den Regierungen Deutschlands, Frankreichs und der Ukraine sagte Putin: „Leider hat sich [der ukrainische] Präsident Poroschenko dazu entschieden, die Militäraktion fortzusetzen. Und wir – mit ‚wir‘ meine ich meine Kollegen in Europa und mich selbst – wir haben es nicht erreicht, ihn davon zu überzeugen, daß man einen sicheren, stabilen und unverletzlichen Frieden nicht mit Krieg erreichen kann.“ In der Tat rät der deutsche Außenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier dem ukrainischen Präsidenten zu Gesprächen mit den Separatisten.

In der Ukraine-Krise gibt es krasse Meinungsverschiedenheiten zwischen den USA auf der einen Seite und mehreren EU-Staaten auf der anderen Seite, darunter Deutschland, Österreich und Frankreich.

Frankreichs Botschafter in Moskau, Jean-Maurice Ripert, sagte am 1. Juli der russischen Nachrichtenagentur Interfax, daß er die Entscheidung der Ukraine bedaure, die Waffenruhe zu beenden. Frankreich und Deutschland übten nun Druck auf Poroschenko aus, damit dieser seine Meinung ändere. Zudem denke derzeit „niemand in Brüssel“ über eine dritte Phase von Sanktionen gegen Rußland nach.

Olaf Haselhorst ist Chefredakteur der gesamtdeutschen Wochenzeitung “Der Schlesier”

¿Alemania en los BRICS?

¿Alemania en los BRICS?

Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com

Según el analista financiero norteamericano Jim Willie, la controversia sobre el espionaje de la NSA norteamericana a Alemania podría ser el temor a un plan secreto de los germanos para descolgarse del dólar y unirse en el futuro a los BRICS.

En una entrevista con el Watchdog Greg Hunter, Willie, especialista en Estadística, afirmó que la verdadera razón detrás de la reciente escándalo de vigilancia de la NSA focalización Alemania se centró en el temor de los Estados Unidos a que la potencia financiera de Europa esté tratando de escapar de un inevitable colapso del dólar.

"Creo que están buscando obtener información sobre las acciones de Rusia contra el dólar. Buscan los detalles de un plan secreto de Alemania para alejarse del dólar y unirse a los BRICS (Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica). Esto es exactamente lo que creo que van a hacer ", dijo Willie.

A principios de este mes, las naciones del BRICS (Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica), anunciaron la creación de un nuevo Banco Internacional con 200 mil millones de dólares de fondos, un banco alternativo al FMI y al dominio del dólar. Este banco alternativo al FMI tendría su sede en Shanghai y estaría presidido por Moscú.

Putin puso en marcha el nuevo sistema diciendo que fue diseñado para "ayudar a prevenir el acoso a los países que no están de acuerdo con algunas decisiones de política exterior hechas por los Estados Unidos y sus aliados", una clara señal de que Rusia y otros países del BRICS se están trasladando a crear un nuevo sistema económico que es contradictorio con el FMI y el Banco Mundial.

La visión que tiene la oligarquía occidental hacia Rusia se puede resumir en las observaciones formuladas por el ex embajador de EE.UU. en Irak, Christopher R. Hillque sugieren que Moscú es cada vez más visto como un Estado canalla. Ya en abril, Hill dijo que la respuesta de Rusia a la crisis de Ucrania fue una traición de Moscú al "nuevo orden mundial" del que había sido parte.

En otra señal de que las naciones BRICS están moviéndose para crear un modelo totalmente nuevo, multipolar y adversario de las potencias occidentales, los cinco países también están construyendo una red propia de Internet, una red alternativa que eluda a los Estados Unidos con el fin de evitar el espionaje de la NSA.

Willie también vincula a ese movimiento del BRICS que tras el derribo del vuelo de Malaysia Airlines, sea explotado por los EE.UU. y Gran Bretaña para presionar con sanciones más estrictas contra Rusia a pesar del hecho de que han tenido poco efecto hasta el momento y sólo parecen ser perjudicar para los intereses comerciales de los países de la Europa continental.

"Aquí está el gran desafío. Los EE.UU. están diciéndole básicamente a Europa que tiene dos opciones. Unirse a nosotros en la guerra contra Rusia. Unirse a nosotros en las sanciones contra Rusia. Unirse a nosotros en una guerra de constantes conflictos, aislamiento y destrucción de su economía, negándose a su suministro de energía y eliminación de todos los contratos. Unirse a nosotros en esta guerra de sanciones, porque realmente nos gustaría que ustedes mantengan el régimen del dólar. Ellos van a decir que están cansados del dólar. . . . Estamos empujando Alemania. No se preocupan por Francia, no se preocupan por Inglaterra, se preocupan por Alemania. Alemania cuenta con 3.000 grandes empresas que hacen negocios en estos momentos con Rusia. Ellos no van a unirse a las sanciones".

Ukraine-MH17 ist eine »Falsche Flagge« der CIA, und sie wird nicht funktionieren

Ukraine-MH17 ist eine »Falsche Flagge« der CIA, und sie wird nicht funktionieren

F. William Engdahl 

Die Welt hat dieses ganze Theater schon öfter gesehen. Wir sahen es mit der Falschen Flagge des Golf-von-Tonkin-Zwischenfalls während des Vietnamkriegs. Wir sahen es mit dem von CIA und Saudis getürkten Saringas-Zwischenfalls von 2013, der die Welt an den Rand eines Weltkriegs brachte. Wir sahen es im Fall des Yellowcake-Urans in Niger, das benutzt wurde, um 2003 den US-Kongress zur Zustimmung zum Krieg gegen Saddam Hussein zu bewegen – die sogenannten Massenvernichtungswaffen, die nie gefunden wurden. Jetzt sieht es die Welt erneut in dem krampfhaften Versuch von US State Department und Elementen der CIA, Putins Russland dafür verantwortlich zu machen, den Separatisten in der Ostukraine moderne russische Flugabwehrraketen in die Hand gegeben zu haben, mit denen angeblich das malaysische Flugzeug abgeschossen wurde.

US-Außenminister John Kerry erklärte am 20. Juli in nicht weniger als fünf amerikanischen Talkshows, Putin sei de facto schuldig, die Rebellen in der Ostukraine nicht unter Kontrolle zu haben. Der Beweis dafür? »Soziale Medien«, so eine offizielle Sprecherin des State Departments.

 

Die gute Nachricht für alle nüchternen Seelen, die nicht unbedingt einen Dritten Weltkrieg erleben wollen, bei dem China, Russland und die BRICS-Staaten gegen eine US-geführte NATO stünden, und durch den Europa zum dritten Mal in einem Jahrhundert in ein Trümmerfeld verwandelt würde, ist: Dieser Versuch, Putins Russland zu beschuldigen, geht nach hinten los, und zwar schon in dem Moment, wo dies geschrieben wird.

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/enthuellungen/f-william-engdahl/ukraine-mh17-ist-eine-falsche-flagge-der-cia-und-sie-wird-nicht-funktionieren.html

lundi, 28 juillet 2014

Les Corniques obtiennent le statut de minorité nationale

An-actor-playing-St-Piran-014.jpg

Bernhard Tomaschitz:

Les Corniques obtiennent le statut de minorité nationale

 

cornwall.gifLa Grande-Bretagne vient de reconnaître une nouvelle minorité nationale. Comme vient de l'annoncer le secrétaire d'Etat aux finances Danny Alexander (un Libéral-Démocrate), les habitants du Comté des Cornouailles, dans la pointe sud-occidentale de l'Angleterre, bénéficieront désormais des mêmes droits et de la même protection que les Ecossais, les Gallois et les Irlandais. Cela signifie surtout que le gouvernement et les corps officiels de l'Etat britannique doivent tenir désormais compte des intérêts spécifiques de la région quand ils prennent une décision. On ne voit pas encore très bien quels avantages concrets cette reconnaissance apportera au demi million d'habitants des Cornouailles. Le gouvernement de Londres a pris l'initiative de reconnaître la spécificité cornique suite aux accords-cadres de l'UE pour la protection des minorités.

 

Depuis des années, les Corniques, ressortissants d'un peuple celtique, avaient lutté pour obtenir la reconnaissance de leur statut de minorité nationale. Joie et fierté sont à l'ordre du jour. Lee Trewhela, journaliste cornique, déclare: "C'est une grande fierté nationale qu'il faut ressentir aujourd'hui et se rappeler que l'histoire des Cornouailles est différente de celle du reste de l'Angleterre". Il rappelle également que les Corniques "ont leur propre langue". Celle-ci, que l'on estimait éteinte mais que l'UNESCO avait placé sur la liste des "langues en situation critique", n'est plus parlée couramment que par environ 300 personnes d'après les données fournies par les autorités locales. De mille à deux mille personnes ont "quelque connaissance" de cette langue qui ressemble évidemment plus au Gallois ou au Breton qu'à l'Anglais!

 

Après le Pays de Galles et l'Ecosse (les Ecossais sont depuis toujours très fiers de leur identité!), les Cornouailles, à leur tour, se remémorent leurs racines et leurs traditions celtiques. Trewhela évoque une "renaissance cornique" qui, espère-t-il, "apportera des avantages sociaux, culturels et économiques".

 

Bernhard Tomaschitz.

(article paru dans zur Zeit, Vienne, n°18/2014, http://www.zurzeit.at ).

 

US Intelligence: Russia Didn’t Do It

_76510740_obamaapphoto.jpg

US Intelligence: Russia Didn’t Do It

After days of placing hostile blame for the downing of the Malaysian airliner on Russia, the White House permitted US intelligence officials to tell reporters that there is no evidence of the Russian government’s involvement.

Obviously, the US satellite photos do not support the Obama regime’s lies. If the White House had any evidence of Russian complicity, it would have released it to great fanfare days ago.

We are fortunate that the analytical side of the CIA, in contrast with the black ops side, retains analysts with integrity even after the purge of the agency ordered by Dick Cheney. Incensed that the CIA did not immediately fall in line with all of the Bush regime’s war lies, Cheney had the agency purged. The black ops side of the agency is a different story. Many believe that it should be defunded and abolished as this part of the CIA operates in violation of statutory US law.

Don’t hold your breath until Washington abolishes black-ops operations or the Obama regime apologizes to the Russian government for the unfounded accusations and insinuations leveled by the White House at Russia.

Despite this admission by US intelligence officials, the propaganda ministry is already at work to undermine the admission. The intelligence officials themselves claim that Russia is, perhaps, indirectly responsible, because Russia “created the conditions” that caused Kiev to attack the separatists.

In other words, Washington’s coup overseen by US State Department official Victoria Nuland, which overthrew an elected democratic Ukrainian government and brought extreme Russophobes into power in Kiev who attacked dissenting former Russian territories that were attached to Ukraine by Soviet communist party leaders when Russia and Ukraine were part of the same country, has no responsibility for the result.

Washington is innocent. Russia is guilty. End of story.

The day previously, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, one of the Obama regime’s brainless warmonger women, angrily turned on reporters who asked about the Russian government’s official denial of responsibility. Don’t you understand, she demanded, that what the US government says is credible and what the Russian government says is not credible!

Rest assured that the owners of the media and the editors of the reporters received calls and threats. I wouldn’t be surprised if the reporters have lost their jobs for doing their jobs.

There you have it. America’s free press. The American press is free to lie for the government, but mustn’t dare exercise any other freedom.

Washington will never permit official clarification of MH-17. Today (July 23) the BBC (the British Brainwashing Corporation) declared: “Whitehall sources say information has emerged that MH17 crash evidence was deliberated tampered with, as the plane’s black boxes arrive in the UK.”

After making this claim of tampered with black boxes, the BBC contradicted itself: “The Dutch Safety Board, which is leading the investigation, said ‘valid data’ had been downloaded from MH17’s cockpit voice recorder (CVR) which will be ‘further analyzed’. The board said: ‘The CVR was damaged but the memory module was intact. Furthermore no evidence or indications of manipulation of the CVR was found.’”

The BBC does not tell us how the black boxes are simultaneously in British and Dutch hands, or how they got into British and Dutch hands when the separatists gave the black boxes to the Malaysians with the guarantee that the black boxes would be turned over to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for expert and non-politicized examination.

So where are the black boxes? If the Malaysians gave them to the British, Whitehall will tell whatever lie Washington demands. If Washington’s British puppet actually has the black boxes, we will never know the truth. Judging from the hostile and unsupported accusations against Russia from the bought-and-paid-for Netherlands prime minister, we can expect the Dutch also to lie for Washington. Apparently, Washington has succeeded in removing the “investigation” from the ICAO’s hands and placing the investigation in the hands of its puppets.

The problem with writing columns based on Western news reports is that you have no idea of the veracity of the news reports.

From all appearances, the Obama regime intends to turn the “international investigation” into an indictment of Russia, and the Dutch seem to be lined up behind this corrupt use of the investigation. As the Washington Post story makes clear, there is no room in the investigation for any suspicion that Kiev and Washington might be responsible.

By continuing to trust a corrupt West that is devoid of integrity and of good will toward Russia, the separatists and the Russian government have again set themselves up for vilification. Will they never learn?

As I write, more confusion is added to the story. It has just come across my screen that Reuters reports that Alexander Khodakovsky, “a powerful Ukrainian rebel leader has confirmed that pro-Russian separatists had an anti-aircraft missile of the type Washington says was used to shoot down the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 and it could have originated in Russia.” Reuters says that this separatist commander (or perhaps former commander as later in its report Reuters describes Khodakovsky as “a former head of the ‘Alpha’ anti-terrorism unit of the security service in Donetsk”) is in dispute with other commanders about the conduct of the war.

Khodakovsky makes clear that he doesn’t know which unit might have had the missile or from where it was fired. He makes it clear that he has no precise or real information. His theory is that the Ukrainian government tricked the separatists into firing the missile by launching airstrikes in the area over which the airliner was flying and by sending military jets to the vicinity of the airliner to create the appearance of military aircraft. Reuters quotes Khodakovsky, “”Even if there was a BUK, and even if the BUK was used, Ukraine did everything to ensure that a civilian aircraft was shot down”

Not knowing the nature of Khodakovsky’s dispute with other commanders or his motivation, it is difficult to assess the validity of his story, but his tale does explain why Ukrainian air control would route the Malaysian airliner over the combat area, a hitherto unexplained decision.

After the sensational part of its story, Reuters seems to back away a bit. Reuters quotes Khodakovsky saying that the separatist movement has different leaders and “our cooperation is somewhat conditional.” Khodakovsky then becomes uncertain as to whether the separatists did or did not have operational BUK missiles. According to Reuters, Khodakovsky “said none of the BUKs captured from Ukrainian forces were operational.” This implies that Russia provided the working missile to the separatists if such a missile existed.

I find the separatists’ reply convincing. If we have these missiles why to the fools in Kiev send aircraft to bomb us, and why is their bombing so successful? The separatists do have shoulder fired ground to air missiles of the kind that the US supplied to Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. These missiles are only capable for low flying aircraft. They cannot reach 33,000 feet.

According to Reuters, the reporting of its story was by one person, the writing by a second, and the editing by a third. From my experience in journalism, this means that we don’t know whose story it is, how the story was changed, or what its reliability might be.

We can safely conclude that the obfuscations are just beginning, and like 9 /11 and John F. Kennedy’s assassination, there will be no alternative to individuals forming their own opinion from researching the evidence. The United States government will never come clean, and the British government and presstitute media will never stop telling lies for Washington.

Washington’s bribes and threats can produce whatever story Washington wants. Keep in mind that a totally corrupt White House, over the objections of its own intelligence agencies, sent the Secretary of State to the United Nations to lie to the world about Iraqi weapons of mass production that the White House knew did not exist. The consequences are that millions were killed, maimed, and displaced for no other reason than Washington’s lie and rising instability in the Middle East.

The Obama regime lied on the basis of concocted “evidence” that Assad had used chemical weapons against the Syrian people, thus crossing the “red line” that the White House had drawn, justifying a US military attack on the Syrian people. The Russian government exposed the fake evidence, and the British Parliament voted down any UK participation in the Obama regime’s attack on Syria. Left isolated, the Obama regime dared not assume the obvious role of war criminal.

Blocked in this way, the Obama regime financed and supplied outside jihadist militants to attack Syria, with the consequence that a radial ISIL is in the process of carving out a new Caliphate from parts of Iraq and Syria.

Keep in mind that both the George W. Bush and Obama regimes have also lied through their teeth about “Iranian nukes.”

The only possible conclusion is that a government that consistently lies is not believable.

Since the corrupt Clinton regime, American journalists have been forced by their bosses to lie for Washington. It is a hopeful sign that in their confrontation with Marie Harf some journalists found a bit of courage. Let’s hope it takes root and grows.

I do not think that the United States can recover from the damage inflicted by the neoconservatives who determined the policies of the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama governments, but whenever we see signs of opposition to the massive lies and deceptions that define the US government in the 21st century, we should cheer and support those who confront the lies.

Our future, and that of the world, depend on it.

 

Culpabilité par l’insinuation: Comment fonctionne la propagande américaine

Malaysia-Airlines-MH17.jpg

Culpabilité par l’insinuation: Comment fonctionne la propagande américaine

 
Pourquoi Washington n’a-t-il pas rejoint le président russe Vladimir Poutine pour demander une enquête internationale objective et non politisée au moyen d’experts dans l’affaire de l’avion de ligne de la Malaysia Airline ?

Le gouvernement russe lui, continue à fournir des faits, incluant des photos satellites montrant la présence de missiles anti-aériens Buk ukrainiens dans les zones depuis lesquelles l’avion commercial aurait pu être abattu par le système de missiles, ainsi que la documentation de la présence de chasseur ukrainien Su-25 approchant le Boeing malais avant qu’il n’aille au tapis. Le chef du directorat des opérations du QG militaire russe a dit dans une comnférence de presse aujourd’hui (21 juillet) à Moscou que la présence des chasseurs militaires ukrainiens était confirmée par le centre de contrôle de Rostov.

Le ministère russe de la défense a indiqué qu’au moment de la destruction du vol MH17, un satellite américain se tenait au dessus de la zone. Le gouvernement russe demande expressément que Washington fournisse toutes les photos disponibles et les donnés capturées par le satellite.

Le président Poutine a insisté de manière répétée que l’enquête sur le vol MH17 requiert “un groupe d’experts totalement représentatifs travaillant sur place sous la direction de l’Organisation Internationale de l’Aviation Civile (OIAC).” L’appel de Poutine pour un examen d’expert indépendant de l’OIAC ne semble pas être le désir d’une personne qui a quoi que ce soit à cacher…

Se tournant vers Washington, Poutine a déclaré: “En même temps, personne (pas même la “nation exceptionnelle”) n’a le droit d’utiliser cette tragédie pour parvenir à des buts politiques étriqués et égoïstes.”

Poutine a rappelé à Washington: “Nous avons demandé répétitivement aux camps en conflit d’arrêter l’effusion de sang immédiatement et de s’assoir à la table des négociations. Je peux dire avec confiance que si les opérations militaires n’avaient pas été continuées (par Kiev) le 28 Juin en Ukraine orientale, cette tragédie ne se serait pas déroulée.”

Quelle est la réponse américaine ?

Des mensonges et des insinuations.

Hier (le 20 juillet), le ministre américain des AE, John Kerry, a confirmé que des séparatistes pro-russes étaient impliqués dans l’abattage de l’avion de ligne malais et a dit qu’il “était assez clair que ce système de missiles a été transféré depuis la Russie vers les séparatistes. Nous savons avec confiance, que les Ukrainiens n’avaient pas de système de la sorte près de la zone à ce moment précis, ceci fait donc clairement pointer le doigt vers les séparatistes.”

La déclaration de Kerry n’est qu’un mensonge de plus dans la longue liste de mensonges vociférés par les ministres des AE américains en ce XXI`ème siècle. Qui peut oublier la paquet de mensonges proféré devant l’ONU par Colin Powell au sujet des “armes de destruction massive” de Saddam Hussein ou du mensonge de Kerry répété jusqu’à plus soif qu’Al-Assad avait “utilisé des armes chimiques contre son peuple” ainsi que la litanie sans fin de mensonges au sujet du “nucléaire militaire iranien ?”

Rappelez-vous que Kerry en de multiples occasions, a déclaré que les Etats-Unis avaient la preuve qu’Al-Assad avait “franchi la ligne rouge” en utilisant des armes chimiques. Quoi qu’il en soit, Kerry n’a jamais été capable de fournir des preuves concrètes pour ses affirmations. Les Etats-Unis n’avaient aucune preuve à fournir au premier ministre britannique dont la proposition au parlement de participer avec Washingrton à l’attaque militaire de la Syrie, fut rejetté par vote du parlement. Celui-ci dit alors clairement au premier ministre: “pas de preuve, pas de guerre.”

Pourquoi Washington ne fournit-il pas ses photos satellites ?

La réponse est la même que celle à la question du pourquoi Washington ne fait-il pas publier toutes les vidéos qu’il a confisqué, qu’il clâme pourtant prouver qu’un avion de ligne détourné a percuté le Pentagone le 11 septembre 2001. Les vidéos ne soutiennent en rien la version des faits de Washington tout comme les photos satellites ne soutiennent en rien l’affirmation de Kerry.

Les inspecteurs d’armement de l’ONU sur le terrain en Irak avait rapporté que l’Irak n’avait aucune arme de destruction massive. Mais les faits ne soutenaient pas la propagande de Washington et ils furent ignorés. Washington commença une guerre hautement destructrice basée uniquement sur ses mensonges délibérés. Les inspecteurs de l’AIEA (nucléaire) depuis l’Iran ainsi que les 16 agences de renseignement américaines ont rapporté que l’Iran n’avait aucun programme nucléaire militaire. Mais ce fait ne rentre pas dans la ligne de l’agenda de Washington et fut ignoré à la fois par le gouvernement et par les médias de la pressetituée.

Nous sommes les témoins de la même chose maintenant avec les assertions en l’absence de preuves que la Russie est responsable de l’abattage de l’avion de ligne malais.

Pas tout le monde au sein du gouvernement américain est aussi barjot que Kerry ou McCain. Au lieu de mentir, beaucoup d’officiels américains insinuent.

Ainsi la sénatrice Diane Feinstein en est un parfait exemple. Interviewée sur la chaîne pressetituée de CNN, Feinstein a dit: “Le problème est, où est Poutine ? Je dirai, Poutine, soit un homme. Tu dois dire au monde. Tu dois dire si c’est une erreur, ce que j’espère que cela le fut, mais dis-le.”

Poutine a parlé sans arrêt au monde, a appelé pour une enquête d’experts indépendants non-politisée et Feinstein demande à Poutine pourquoi il se cache derrière le silence ? Nous savons que tu l’as fait, insinue Feinstein, simplement dis-nous si tu l’as planifié ou si c’est un accident.

La façon dont le cycle entier du système d’information a été orchestré pour instantanément blâmer la Russie, longtemps avant même que de véritables informations ne parviennent, suggère que l’abattage de l’avion commercial est une opération de Washington. Il est bien sûr très possible que la pressetituée bien entraînée n’ait pas eu besoin d’une orchestration de Washington afin de mettre le blâme sur la Russie. D’un autre côté, quelques unes des performances médiatiques semblent trop suivre un script pour ne pas avoir été préparées à l’avance.

Nous avons aussi la préparation en avance de la vidéo sur YouTube qui affirme qu’un général russe et des séparatistes ukrainiens discutaient d’avoir abattu par erreur l’avion de ligne civil. Comme je l’ai dit auparavant. Cette vidéo est doublement plombée. Elle était préparée d’avance et en impliquant l’armée russe, elle a omis un fait très important, celui que l’armée russe peut parfaitement faire la différence entre un avion de ligne civil et un avion militaire. L’existence même de cette vidéo implique qu’il y avait un complot pour abattre l’avion de ligne et le blâmer sur la Russie.

J’ai vu des rapports sur le système russe de missiles anti-aériens qui disent que le système possède un système de sécurité intégré qui est capable de contacter le transponder (boîte de données) de l’appareil afin de vérifier de quel type d’appareil il s’agit. Si ces rapports sont corrects et que le transponder de l’appareil est trouvé, le contact sera enregistré.

J’ai lu des rapports disant que le traffic aérien ukrainien a changé la route du vol MH17 et l’a redirigé au dessus de la zone de conflit. Le transponder devrait aussi nous dire si cette information est correcte. Si elle l’est, il y a preuve circonstancielle que l’acte était intentionnel de la part de Kiev, une action qui aurait demandé l’accord préalable de Washington.

Il y a aussi d’autres rapports faisant état d’une profonde divergence entre l’armée ukrainienne et les milices non-officielles formées par les mouvements extrémistes néo-nazis, qui apparemment furent responsables des premières attaques sur les séparatistes d’Ukraine orientale. Il est possible que Washington ait utilisé ces extrémistes pour comploter la destruction de l’avion de ligne afin de faire porter le chapeau à la Russie et utiliser les accusations pour faire pression sur l’UE afin qu’elle s’aligne sur les sanctions unilatérales de Washington envers la Russie. Nous savons que Washington est désespéré de briser la croissance économique et les liens politiques existant entre l’Europe et la Russie.

Si l’abbatage de l’avion de ligne a été planifié, tous les ustensiles de sécurité embarqués sur le missile auraient pu avoir été éteints afin de ne donner aucun signe avant-coureur de la frappe ni possibilité de traçage. C’est peut-être la raison pour laquelle un avion de chasse ukrainien fut envoyé pour inspecter l’avion. Il est possible que la véritable cible ait été l’avion de Poutine et que de l’incompétence dans la réalisation du complot ait résulté la destruction du vol MH17.

Comme il y a un bon nombre d’exlications possibles, nous devons garder un esprit ouvert et résister à la propagande de Washington jusqu’à ce que les faits et preuves soient collectés. Dans le meilleur des cas, Washington est coupable d’avoir utilisé l’incident pour blâmer par avance la Russie sans attendre quelque preuve que ce soit. Tout ce que Washington nous a montré jusqu’ici n’est qu’accusations infondées et insinuations. Si c’est tout ce que continue à nous montrer le gouvernement américain, alors nous saurons qui vraiment blâmer.

Dans le même temps, rappelez-vous l’histoire du petit garçon qui criait toujours “au loup!” Il a tellement menti que lorsque le loup est vraiment arrivé, plus personne ne l’a cru. Ceci sera-t-il la destinée finale de Washington ?

Au lieu de déclarer la guerre à l’Irak, l’Afghasnistan, la Libye, la Somalie, le Yémen et la Syrie, pourquoi Washington s’est-il caché derrière des mensonges ? Si Washington veut la guerre avec l’Iran, la Russie et la Chine, pourquoi tout simplement ne pas leur déclarer la guerre ? La raison pour laquelle la constitution requiert un consentement du congrès pour déclarer la guerre est justement pour prévenir que la branche exécutive n’orchestre des guerres pour des agendas privés En adbiquant sa responsabilité constitutionnelle, le congrès des Etats-Unis est complice des crimes de guerres de la branche exécutive. En approuvant le meurtre prémédité des Palestiniens, le gouvernement américain est complice des crimes de guerre d’Israël.

Posez-vous cette simple questionLe monde ne serait-il pas un endroit plus sûr, moins meurtrier, avec moins de destruction et de gens déplacés, sujet à plus de vérité et de justice si les Etats-Unis et Israël n’existaient pas ?

Paul Craig Roberts

Article original en anglais :

How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”, publié le 21 juillet 2014

dimanche, 27 juillet 2014

Malaysian Airlines MH17 Was Ordered to Fly over the East Ukraine Warzone

Malaysian Airlines MH17 Was Ordered to Fly over the East Ukraine Warzone

Malaysian Airlines Confirms that it was Instructed to Fly MH17 at Lower Altitude over East Ukraine

 
suuuu.si

On the matter of MH17’s flight path, Malaysian Airlines confirms that the pilot was instructed to fly at a lower altitude by the Kiev air traffic control tower upon its entry into Ukraine airspace.

 ”MH17 filed a flight plan requesting to fly at 35,000ft throughout Ukrainian airspace. This is close to the ‘optimum’ altitude.

However, an aircraft’s altitude in flight is determined by air traffic control on the ground. Upon entering Ukrainian airspace, MH17 was instructed by Ukrainian air traffic control to fly at 33,000ft.”

( For further details see press releases at : http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/site/mh17.html)

33,000 feet is 1000 feet above the restricted flight altitude (see image below). The request of the Ukrainian air traffic control authorities was implemented.

Deviation from the “Normal” Approved Flight Path

With regard to the MH17 flight path, Malaysian airlines confirms that it followed the rules set by Eurocontrol and the International Civil Aviation Authority  (ICAO) (emphasis added):

I would like to refer to recent reported comments by officials from Eurocontrol, the body which approves European flight paths under ICAO rules.According to the Wall Street Journal, the officials stated that some 400 commercial flights, including 150 international flights crossed eastern Ukraine daily before the crash. Officials from Eurocontrol also stated that in the two days before the incident, 75 different airlines flew the same route as MH17.MH17’s flight path was a busy major airway, like a highway in the sky. It followed a route which was set out by the international aviation authorities, approved by Eurocontrol, and used by hundreds of other aircraft.

It flew at an altitude set, and deemed safe, by the local air traffic control. And it never strayed into restricted airspace. [this MAS statement is refuted by recent evidence]

The flight and its operators followed the rules. But on the ground, the rules of war were broken. In an unacceptable act of aggression, it appears that MH17 was shot down; its passengers and crew killed by a missile.

The route over Ukrainian airspace where the incident occurred is commonly used for Europe to Asia flights. A flight from a different carrier was on the same route at the time of the MH17 incident, as were a number of other flights from other carriers in the days and weeks before. Eurocontrol maintains records of all flights across European airspace, including those across Ukraine.

What this statement confirms is that the MH17 ‘s “usual flight path” was similar to the flight paths of some 150 international flights which cross Eastern Ukraine on a daily basis. According to Malaysian Airlines “The usual flight route [across the sea of Azov] was earlier declared safe by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The International Air Transportation Association has stated that the airspace the aircraft was traversing was not subject to restrictions.”

That approved flight path is indicated in the maps below.

The regular flight path of MH17 (and other international flights) over a period of ten days prior to July 17th ( day of the disaster), crossing Eastern Ukraine in a Southeasterly direction is across the Sea of Azov. (see map below)

-

 

The flight path on July 17th was changed.

The flight and its operators followed the rules. But on the ground, the rules of war were broken. In an unacceptable act of aggression, it appears that MH17 was shot down; its passengers and crew killed by a missile. (MAS, ibid)

While the audio records of the MH17 flight have been confiscated by the Kiev government, the order to change the flight path did not come from Eurocontrol.

Did this order to change the flight path come from the Ukrainian authorities? Was the pilot instructed to change course?

British Media Fabrications: “Lets Conjure Up a Storm”

British news reports acknowledge that there was a change in the flight path, claiming without evidence that it was to “avoid thunderstorms in southern Ukraine”.

MAS operations director Captain Izham Ismail has also refuted claims that heavy weather led to MH17 changing its flight plan.“There were no reports from the pilot to suggest that this was the case,” Izham said. (News Malaysia   July 20, 2014)

What is significant, however, is that the Western media acknowledged that the change in the flight path did occur, and the that “heavy weather” narrative is a fabrication.

Ukraine Fighter Jets in a Corridor Reserved for Commercial Aircraft

It is worth noting that a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles was detected within 5-10 km of the Malaysian aircraft, within an air corridor reserved for commercial aircraft.

-Image courtesy of the Russian Defense Ministry

Image courtesy of the Russian Defense Ministry

What was the purpose of this air force deployment? Was the Ukraine fighter jet “escorting” the Malaysian aircraft in a Northerly direction towards the war zone?

The change in the flight path for Malaysian airlines MH17 on July 17 is clearly indicated in the map below. It takes MH17 over the war zone, namely Donetsk and Lugansk.

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

Comparison: MH17 Flight Path on July 16, 2014, MH17 Flight Path Over the warzone on July 17, 2014

IngoGraph

Screenshots of Flight Paths of MH17 for July 14-17, 2014

14th July Route15th July Route  16th July Route17th July Route

The first dynamic map compares the two flight paths: The second flight path which is that of July 17th takes the plane over the Donesk oblast warzone, bordering onto Lugansk oblast.

The four static images  indicate screen shots of the Flight Paths of MH17 for the period July 14-17, 2014

The information conveyed in these maps suggests that the flight path on July 17 was changed.

MH17 was diverted from the normal South Easterly route over the sea of Azov to a path over the Donetsk oblast.

Who ordered the change of  the flight path?

We call upon Malaysian Airlines to clarify its official statement and demand the release of the audio files between the pilot and the Kiev air traffic control tower.

The transcript of these audio files should be made public.

Also to be confirmed: was the Ukrainian SU-25 jet fighter in communication with the M17 aircraft?

The evidence confirms that the flight path on July 17th was NOT the usual approved flight path. It had been changed.

The change was not ordered by Eurocontrol.

Who was behind this changed flight path which spearheaded the aircraft into the war zone, resulting in 298 deaths?

What was the reason for the change in flight path?

The damage incurred to Malaysian Airlines as a result of these two tragic occurrences must also be addressed. Malaysian airlines has high safety standards and an outstanding record.

These two accidents are part of a criminal undertaking. They are not the result of negligence on the part of Malaysian Airlines, which potentially faces bankruptcy.

About the author:

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the globalresearch.ca website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism”(2005). His most recent book is entitled Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. He can be reached at crgeditor@yahoo.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michel Chossudovsky est directeur du Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation et professeur émérite de sciences économiques à l’Université d’Ottawa. Il est l’auteur de "Guerre et mondialisation, La vérité derrière le 11 septembre", "La Mondialisation de la pauvreté et nouvel ordre mondial" (best-seller international publié en plus de 10 langues). Contact : crgeditor@yahoo.com

Mistral russes et souveraineté nationale

 

mimi-1.jpg

Mistral russes et souveraineté nationale

par Jean-Paul Baquiast
 
Ce matin 22 juillet, François Hollande (selon l'Elysée) et sur France Inter Xavier Bertrand, député UMP et candidat à l'élection présidentielle, ont confirmé leur volonté de voir la France ne pas tenir compte des inadmissibles injonctions américaines lui enjoignant de ne pas livrer à la Russie les deux BPC Mistral déjà acquis et en cours l'un de remise à son équipage russe et l'autre en finition. L'un et l'autre ont souligné, en termes quasi gaulliens, termes malheureusement sur d'autres sujets passés de mode aujourd'hui, que la souveraineté nationale, et pas seulement de futurs contrats militaires, était en jeu dans cette affaire.

 

Les pressions des Américains, relayés par leurs fidèles suiveurs les Britanniques, tiennent pour acquises les affirmations d'Obama selon lesquelles le crash de l'avion de la Malaysian avait été provoqué, directement ou indirectement, par Vladimir Poutine. Ceci non seulement alors que des causes différentes, pouvant impliquer l'Amérique, ont été évoquées, mais alors qu'une enquête internationale qu'il faut espérer objective est en cours, les boites noires de l'appareil étant désormais soumises à examen.

A supposer même que cette enquête montre une responsabilité des ukrainiens pro-russes, François Hollande et Xavier Bertrand ont à juste titre souligné qu'il n'appartient ni aux Etats-Unis ni à l'Otan ni à tout autre pays, de décider à la place de la France ce que doit être sa politique internationale, en cette occurrence comme en tous autres domaines.

Souhaitons que, malgré le véritable chantage s'exerçant sur la France pour la sommer de mettre fin à ses relations avec la Russie, le gouvernement comme l'opposition tiendront bon. Si ce n'était pas le cas, c'est alors qu'une manifestation bleu-blanc-rouge devrait se tenir sur les Champs Elysées pour rappeler nos dirigeants à leurs devoirs.

 
 

22/07/2014

Thank You, Malaysia!

BLACK-BOX-HANDOVER.jpg

Thank You, Malaysia!

Victor SUMSKY

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

 
Early on July 22 the two black boxes from the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 were handed over by Alexander Boroday, Prime Minister of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) to Colonel Mohamed Sakri of Malaysian National Security Council. As the latter stated that both devices were intact, they signed a document to confirm it. The world watched on TV how an official of the state that had suffered most as a result of the MH17 tragedy personally thanked for cooperation «Mr. Boroday» and his people who are called «pro-Russian terrorists» by Kiev and the West. For «terrorists», they behaved, indeed, surprisingly well. The Malaysian experts, as well as the experts of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe were given green light to conduct search and inquiry within the area of the plane’s crash. The remains of the passengers and the crew were passed to the Malaysians without any delay. All was done in line with the UN Security Council resolution N 2166 of July 22 which demands a comprehensive and independent investigation of the tragedy according to the principles and rules of the International Civil Aviation Organization. 

This episode is hardly supporting the myth about the «terrorists» who shot down the civilian airliner. No perpetrator would give the world an evidence of his crime with so much care about the good condition of the evidence. On TV, the DPR Prime Minister and the members of his team looked like a group of reasonable people in control of themselves – unlike Ukrainian parliamentarians who literally fight each other in the session hall and can never agree on anything. If the «terrorists» were just doing what Moscow told them to do, then, perhaps, the advice was not so bad. If not, then shall we view the DPR as an independent and responsible actor in international affairs? 

By the way, Malaysia is quite well-known for its hypersensitivity to anything that smacks of terrorism. The Southeast Asia Regional Centre for Counter-Terrorism – SEARCCT is operational there since 2003. If the Malaysian officials are coming into a public contact with those who are already labeled as «terrorists», it means that they, in fact, do not share this assessment. 

To be sure, Colonel Sakri was not acting on his own initiative in Donetsk. Before July 22 came to an end, Reuter’s issued a story by Trinna Leong and Siva Govindasamy, two well-known Malaysian investigative reporters, on the background of the contacts between Malaysia and the DPR. According to them, all preparations for that were conducted in high secrecy and under personal supervision of Najib Razak, Prime Minister of Malaysia. While some of his advisers were suggesting an early and emotional statement on the tragedy, not unlike those coming from Washington, London and Canberra, Najib was developing an alternative course. Working through unnamed intermediaries to reach Alexander Boroday, he had at least one telephone contact with him. Malaysia was basically focused on bringing back the bodies, obtaining the black boxes and assuring that investigators have access to the crash site. Boroday wanted a paper acknowledging that the black boxes were not tampered with, and did not want them in Ukrainian hands. As the later events showed, the interlocutors came to an understanding pretty soon. In parallel the Malaysian leader was talking to the Russian President: according to kremlin.ru they had two phone conversations on July 17-18. 

With two MAS airliners lost over just a few months, passions in Malaysia and the world are running high. Taking this into account, Prime Minister Najib deserves special merit for his restraint and wisdom. But this is more than strictly personal: his posture is a reminder of the foreign policy vector developed by his great predecessor, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. 

This is not to say that Najib has no beliefs of his own. He is the founder of the Global Movement of Moderates – GMM, propagating dialogues to solve domestic and international disputes, and rejecting all forms of dictate in world affairs.

Najib’s refusal to dance to the Western tune in the particular case of MH17 may have another important reason. There are still too many disturbing questions about the earlier disappearance of MH370. 

At the end of the day, all those fed up with media hypocrisy and lies about the disaster over Donetsk, have a reason to say «Bravo, Mr. Prime Minister! Thank You, Malaysia!» 

 

samedi, 26 juillet 2014

Coca-Cola: entre boycott et alternatives locales

Coca-Cola: entre boycott et alternatives locales

http://p0.storage.canalblog.com/08/69/1111121/97052851_o.jpg

par Frédéric de Grimal

Ex: http://cerclenonconforme.hautetfort.com

La filiale espagnole de la marque Coca-Cola a annoncé un énorme plan social le 22 janvier 2014, prévoyant la fermeture de quatre usines et le licenciement de plus d’un millier de salariés. Peu concernée par la terrible crise systémique espagnole et le taux de chômage endémique ibérique, la grande firme internationale Coca-Cola n’a pas fait dans le détail.
 
La réponse ne s’est pas faite attendre. D’abord de manière assez classique avec une grève et des manifestations, puis de façon plus originale avec un appel au boycott des produits de la marque, comme l’indique un article du site internet de Courrier International en date du 18 juin 2014. Le slogan des salariés espagnols de Coca-Cola, patriotique et social, est éloquent : « Si Madrid ne fabrique plus de Coca-Cola, Madrid n’en boira plus. ». Une belle démonstration de patriotisme économique par la base, puisque les états européens sont défaillants à protéger leurs économies des circonvolutions des groupes prédateurs venus d’outre-Atlantique.
 
On pouvait douter du succès d’une telle initiative dans une Europe américanisée accro aux boissons gazeuses et trop sucrées du géant américain. Et pourtant, la consigne a été largement suivie par le peuple espagnol, et particulièrement dans les régions du centre (Vieille Castille, La Manche, Estrémadure et Madrid). Le journal espagnol El Economista a révélé que les ventes de la marque avaient diminué de moitié en Février, par rapport aux chiffres de l’année 2013. Il s’agit même de la plus grosse chute jamais enregistrée par la marque ! Le boycott a donc porté un dur coup à cette entreprise hégémonique, au combien symbolique de la globalisation sans visage. Un coup durable car les experts estiment même que les ventes ne devraient pas remonter avant 2017, ce dont on peut se réjouir franchement.
 
Quelle meilleure arme contre ces entreprises américaines apatrides qui licencient dans notre Europe en crise que de boycotter leurs produits ? C’est le seul langage qu’ils peuvent comprendre, et puis ne sommes-nous pas suffisamment compétents pour produire nous-mêmes des boissons gazeuses de qualité plus respectueuses de la santé (et tout aussi addictives) ?

L’idée des manifestants espagnols est donc brillante car d’une efficacité redoutable. Imaginons une telle chose à l’échelle européenne, ce serait un moyen de nous faire respecter, de montrer que nous ne sommes pas de dociles moutons de panurge prêts à acheter tout ce que l’on nous demandera. Nous devons montrer toute notre opposition à la laideur et à l’infamie qu’ils nous imposent, mais le faire réellement plutôt qu’en protestant dans le vide. Voilà donc une bonne initiative, mais elle ne saurait être durable en raison de la nature même du capitalisme contemporain qui génère des pseudo-besoins désormais si ancrés dans nos comportements quotidiens qu’ils nous semblent naturels.  Annihiler l'"envie de Coca", ou plus généralement l'envie de marques, est impossible à grande échelle dans le monde contemporain.

                                                                                      ***
 
Jean Baudrillard, grand observateur de l’aventure américaine, trouva dans « La Société de Consommation », une exacte définition pour l’horizon de l’homme contemporain : « homo oeconomicus ». Il précise cette notion comme « fossile humain de l’âge d’or, né à l’ère moderne de l’heureuse conjonction de la Nature Humaine et des Droits de l’Homme, est doué d’un intense principe de rationalité formelle qui le porte : 1- A rechercher sans l’ombre d’une hésitation son propre bonheur ; 2- A donner sa préférence aux objets qui lui donneront le maximum de satisfactions. Tout le discours, profane ou savant, sur la consommation, est articulé sur cette séquence qui est celle, mythologique, d’un conte : un Homme, « doué » de besoins qui le « portent » vers des objets qui lui « donnent » satisfaction. Comme l’homme n’est jamais satisfait (on le lui reproche d’ailleurs), la même histoire recommence indéfiniment, avec l’évidence défunte des vieilles fables ».
 
Le sociologue français conceptualise un homme de besoins, un homme qui a le « droit » de « satisfaire » à ses besoins. Les « besoins » dont il s’agit, ne sont pas d’ordre naturel comme manger ou dormir à l’abri, mais bien des « besoins » d’ordre symbolique et répondant à des critères de confort annexe ou à l’hédonisme ludique. En somme, nous sommes infantilisés, tels le chien de l’expérience de Pavlov nous voulons notre Coca car son gout est étudié pour nous plaire. Et il n'est pas réaliste de penser pouvoir supprimer tous ces pseudo-besoins aux peuples d’Europe. Qui en « révolte contre le monde moderne » pourrait se priver de facebook ou n’a jamais déjeuné sur le pouce au Mac Donald ? Il nous faut d’abord faire notre examen critique et comprendre que loin d’être des personnalités extraordinaires hors du monde et de ses tentations, nous sommes, nous aussi, pleinement parties prenantes de ce monde moderne que nous critiquons.

http://www.breizhcola.fr/images/index/breizh-cola.jpg
Alors plutôt que de lutter frontalement contre un ennemi plus fort, nous devons nous adapter et pratiquer l’aïkido, c’est à dire retourner sa force de séduction contre lui même, produire des ersatzs de meilleur qualité que les produits de consommation de masse qu’ils nous imposent. Le but est de contourner ce système. Coca-Cola jouit d’une situation quasi monopolistique sur son secteur de marché malgré les initiatives de boissons régionales comparables, tel le « coca » breton Breizh-Cola, ces boissons n’arrivent pas encore à bousculer comme il le faudrait le géant américain mais elles doivent plus que jamais être soutenues. Elles donnent du travail aux européens vivant en zone rurale, elles font aussi travailler les agriculteurs locaux, enfin, et peut être plus important, elles affirment un enracinement local défiant l’autorité centrale. La lutte contre le TAFTA et le TISA passe par plus d’intelligence économique et d’innovation, au delà d’une future mise au pas de la finance spéculative qui n’est pour l’instant qu’un vœu pieux. Dans le Lot un brasseur produit la bière Ratz (je vous la recommande), après deux années de galères noires, il exporte désormais son produit dans tout le grand sud ouest sans le soutien d’aucune grande chaîne de distribution.

A nous désormais, de trouver les clés pour proposer une alternative au modèle consumériste imposé. Une troisième voie qui soit ancrée dans le présent tout en rejetant les manifestations les plus creuses et nihilistes du monde moderne. Nous ne sommes pas des réactionnaires, nous sommes des hommes d'action.

Frédéric de Grimal/C.N.C

Note du C.N.C.: Toute reproduction éventuelle de ce contenu doit mentionner la source.

Le bloc BRICS et notre destin

BRICS.JPG

Le bloc BRICS et notre destin

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

22 juillet 2014 – D’une façon générale, le bloc BAO et son arme favorite, sa presse-Système, ont ignoré la substance de la réunion des BRICS, au Brésil le 15 juillet. Ils en ont souri et ont consacré quelques colonnes condescendantes à ce qui reste, du point de vue du Système, une entreprise marginale qui a peu d’espoir de se concrétiser en une machine efficace, à cause des liens qui tiennent tous ces pays au Système. De toutes les façons, le Système tient prête, contre cette entreprise, son arme favorite, qui est l’isolement des autres ; de même qu’il est prêt à isoler Poutine et la Russie pour sa conduite inqualifiable vis-à-vis de l’Ukraine (voir un Bloomberg.News du meilleur cru, le 21 juillet 2014), – de même est-il prêt à “isoler les BRICS”, et même à “isoler” the Rest Of the World, sinon le monde entier.

Tout le monde ne partage pas ce point de vue d’une exquise paranoïa-schizophrénie typique de l’épisode maniaque des maniaco-dépressifs en charge, bien entendu. C’est notamment et particulièrement le cas de la Russie, qui est dans la situation d’intense tension que l’on sait. Les Russes sont, de loin, le pays des BRICS qui pousse le plus, aujourd’hui, à une transformation de substance de ce rassemblement pour l’instant assez imprécis dans sa nature, dans un sens structuré, politique, entreprenant et d’une solidarité extrême.

On a lu avec intérêt, à cette lumière, les déclarations du ministre russe des affaires étrangères Lavrov, telles qu’elles ont été retranscrites le 18 juillet 2014 par le site chinois Xinhuanet.com : «The BRICS mechanism has been fully developed and can transform into a political alliance, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday. “BRICS grows and matures in all directions,” the diplomat told state-run Rossiya 24 TV channel. Lavrov said the “qualitative” growth of the mechanism to a degree made it possible to transform into a political alliance, which is especially noticeable in its work within the Group of 20 (G-20) on global economic and financial affairs.»

Lavrov a précisé qu’au sein de ce G20, certains pays étaient proches des BRICS, jusqu’à parle d’une même voix qu'eux, sur la question de la réforme du système financier international – notamment l’Argentine, l’Indonésie et le Mexique. Ce faisant, le ministre russe des affaires étrangères offrait une perspective indirectement mais très puissamment politique. Par exemple, comme l’hypothèse en sera soulevée plus loin, si l’on rappelle que le prochain sommet du G20 aura lieu en novembre en Australie, que certains ont déjà évoqué le refus australien de recevoir la Russie à cause de la crise ukrainienne (et plus encore avec l’affaire du vol MH17), que la position des BRICS déjà affirmée qu’un boycott de la Russie au G20 devrait entraîner le refus des BRICS de participer au sommet, etc. Une telle hypothèse ne peut être réduite aux seuls aspects techniques du sommet, elle est incontestablement politique.

Cette question de la “politisation” des BRICS, posée par la Russie d’une manière proche d’être formelle, alors que l’on commence à apprécier le poids et les conséquences des décisions prises au Brésil, conduit à envisager avec plus de sérieux et un certain sens de l’urgence les conséquences de l’apparition des BRICS comme un acteur structuré majeur dans le jeu des relations internationales. Plus encore, cette réflexion s’engage également sur des voies idéologiques et philosophiques selon les termes anciens, que nous présenterions, nous, selon les qualifications plus adéquates de “voies d’antagonisme Système versus antiSystème”. En d’autres termes  : admettant que les BRICS commencent à devenir “opérationnels” d’une façon plus structurée, apparaissant de plus en plus selon une voie concurrente, ou alternative, etc., du système financier international, jusqu’où faut-il pousser ce défi ainsi posé au Système ? S’agit-il d’une voie concurrente à l’intérieur du Système, c'est-à-dire discrètement antiSystème ? Ou bien s’agit-il d’une voie alternative au Système, c’est-à-dire ouvertement antiSystème ?

L’intérêt que nous voyons dans cette question, qui peut sembler soit prématurée, soit irréaliste, est qu’elle apparaît aujourd’hui comme un objet de débat chez des spécialistes, universitaires le plus souvent. Certes, il s’agit de personnalités professant des positions très critiques du Système, souvent au nom d’une position idéologique identifiable ou assimilable (par exemple, néo-marxiste) mais cela n’empêche nullement la perception selon laquelle nous arrivons à un point essentiel de l’évolution des BRICS, celui où une structuration s’avère nécessaire, où sa politisation s’avère inévitable, où la construction conceptuelle doit se substantiver dans la réalité des relations internationales. C’est ce que Lavrov appelle “la maturité” des BRICS.

Pour substantiver cette observations générale, nous allons donner des références, ainsi que des extraits de débats, venus du site The Real News, site US aux engagements dissidents “de gauche” très affirmés, c’est-à-dire soutenant une position explicitement hostile au capitalisme néolibéral. Il s’agit de deux interventions, sous forme de débat ou d’interview télévisées, de personnalités universitaires. Ces illustrations doivent permettre de prendre conscience de l’ampleur du débat, de sa profondeur, de son caractère éventuellement déstabilisant.

• La première référence date du 18 juillet 2014, sous le titre «Is the New BRICS Bank a Challenge to US Global Financial Power?». Elle oppose deux professeurs US, d’une même tendance de gauche progressiste, adversaires du capitalisme tel qu’il est développé, mais professant chacun des opinions différentes sur l’évolution des BRICS. Il est à noter qu’aucune de ces opinions ne prévoit que les BRICS constituent une tentative ratée d’établir un système différent de l’actuel système. Ce point de départ marque bien l’impact du sommet brésilien : tout le monde considère ce sommet comme une réussite, comme un événement de la première importance, sinon un événement fondateur de la phase de maturité des BRICS, cela parmi ceux qui suivent sérieusement l’évolution des BRICS. Ces commentaires sont donc au-delà des commentateurs-Système, anglo-saxons et le reste, qui restent aveugles à l’évolution des BRICS, totalement sous l’empire de l’arrogance de la pensée-Système dont ils dépendent absolument. Les deux intervenants sont les professeurs Michael Hudson and Leo Panitch, respectivement professeur d’Economie (Distinguished Research Professor of Economics) à l’université du Missouri, et chef de recherche en économie politique comparée à l’université de York, à Toronto. (Le modérateur est Paul Jay, rédacteur en chef du réseau TRNN, ou The Real News Network)

Paul Jay : «... BRICS countries have also created a $100 billion contingency reserve arrangement (CRA), meant to provide additional liquidity protection to member countries during balance-of-payments problems and other financial shocks. The CRA, unlike the pool of contributing capital to the BRICS bank, which is equally shared, is being funded 41 percent by China, 18 percent by Brazil, India, and Russia, and 5 percent from South Africa. The new bank is being described as a challenge to the IMF and the World Bank, that is, a challenge to American global financial power. But is it, as Vijay Prashad wrote, neoliberalism with southern characteristics? [...] So, Michael, kick us off. How significant a development is this?»

Michael Hudson : «I think it's much more significant than any of the press has said. The press treats it almost as if, well, they're very small, and what do these countries have to do. Think of the BRICS as doing on the government level what Occupy Wall Street has been advocating. When they say a new development bank, they don't mean they want to be like the World Bank or the IMF. They want a different kind of development.

»But also it's not only a development bank, but it's the $100 billion currency scheme. They are trying to--they've been driven into a mutual economic defense alliance by the U.S. sanctions against Russia, by the threats against China, not letting it invest in the U.S. on national security grounds. They've forced other countries really into let us do whatever we want with you, there is no alternative, and we're going to do to you what we did to Ireland and Greece, and that's it.

Well, basically what the BRICS are saying in their new bank and their clearing house is, yes, there is an alternative. We don't have to be like neoliberalism. Their critique of the World Bank and the IMF isn't that they're not given big enough quotas; it's they disagree with the whole philosophy of the World Bank and the IMF that is subsidizing economic dependency, food dependency, and basically anti-labor parties that result in budget deficits, that then governments are told, well, in order to finance your foreign debt and your budget deficit, you have to sell off your water, your natural resources, your privatization. The BRICS banks, they're not going to go to the member countries and saying, you have to sell off your water supply and raise prices in order to pay us.

Paul Jay : «Right. Let me bring Leo in here... So, Leo, what do you make of Michael's take? How significant is all this?»

Leo Panitch : «Well, I think it's very significant, and it is designed to give these large developing capitalist countries more room for maneuver vis-à-vis the American state and the European Central Bank and the IMF and the World Bank. But I think the significance he's attaching to it is remarkably overblown. There's no evidence that their purposes are indeed not to apply conditionality to loans. There's loads of evidence with the nonoperationability of the Bank of the South, which was the bank created in Latin America that the Brazilians – which have made it nonoperational by insisting it be a very conventional development bank which in fact goes to the markets and therefore is constrained by the markets in terms of interest rates to be charged, etc., conditionalities, as opposed to Bolivia and Venezuela that wanted it to operate on very different, not market principles. The Brazilians don't want that and don't want it for the new bank. And I don't think it's just a matter of the Brazilians. The Chinese don't want it either. There's a much deeper factor why it's not so significant, although it does give them some room for maneuver in their operations. But the main reason is that it's embedded in countries, even with China, that don't have the very, very, very--as Michael knows very well--deep financial markets that is needed for this kind of bank to play that kind of role.»

Paul Jay : «Okay. Leo, hang on one second. That's sort of a second point. Let Michael respond to your first point. Your first point is that this is not something against a neoliberal strategy; this is some independent maneuver of countries that do work within a neoliberal strategy. So what do you make of that?»

Leo Panitch : «Well, let me just to emphasize that look at who was just elected as the government of India. Look at the extent to which even the Workers Party has been keen to integrate further into global capitalism. Let's look at the way in which China has just begun to remove some of its financial restriction. And let's look at what the ANC now represents. So, sure, they want more room for maneuver, but within the framework of buying into capitalist globalization and being extremely dependent on it.»

• La seconde référence date du 20 juillet 2014 et porte le titre significatif de «BRICS: Progressive Rhetoric, Neoliberal Practice». Il s’agit de l’interview du professeur sud-africain, – l’Afrique du Sud est un des cinq BRICS, – Patrick Bond, de l’université de KwaZulu-Natal. Bond dirige également le Center for Civil Society. C’est un militant, théoricien de la recherche d’une économie alternative de rupture avec le système capitalisme ultralibéral.

Paul Jay : «So let's talk about ordinary people, not the elites running all these countries. You know, for people living in the United States, it's pretty straightforward, in the sense that, you know, if you want to take a progressive the position on U.S. foreign policy, you're opposed to its seeking and achieving hegemony and militarization and so on and so on. But if you're in one of the BRICS countries, do you consider this a positive development for your own people? And, obviously, let's start with South Africa, ’cause that’s where you are. I mean, is this – you know, it's not going to transform the conditions of South Africa, but is this something positive or not? I'm talking about BRICS and the new bank and all of this.»

Patrick Bond : «The BRICS Development Bank could be a very dangerous phenomenon, because to the extent that the anti-imperialist movements and solidarity movements have actually begun to discipline, say, the World Bank, which is under pressure not to make any new coal-fired power plant loans, the last one being here in South Africa in 2010, $3.75 billion, the biggest such loan ever by the World Bank, that then, that refusal to make these kinds of dreadful loans, pushes the borrowers like the South African government to a BRICS bank. And I think in many ways what we're seeing with BRICS is a recommitment to an extractive and predatory kind of capitalism, desperation capitalism, that will be more dangerous for ordinary movements struggling to retain their own integrity of community, their livelihoods, the nature around them. The proof of that will be in 2016 and when we start seeing what kind of loans the BRICS bank gives.

»Now, the rhetoric sounds good. They've--BRICS has actually ask Joe Stiglitz to be one of the main advisers and put a position paper together in 2011. And so what you'll hear this week in Fortaleza, for example, lots of rhetoric about sustainable development and inclusivity. When you hear those words, look at the details, because when they're using them, it often means they're planning to do the opposite, and instead of infrastructure in local currency for water systems, sanitation, housing, clinics, schools, and so forth, we're much more likely to see megaprojects that help multinational capital from BRICS and from the West.»

Paul Jay : «Okay. So, then, the proof is going to be in the pudding, then. We still have to really see what they're going to do with it.»

Patrick Bond : «And I think the proof is also whether the geopolitical relations tighten up, because if the West gets more aggressive towards Russia, for example, having just thrown Russia out of the G8 – it was a G7 meeting a couple of months ago – and then the G20 is meant to meet in Australia and November. Will it be the G19, throwing Russia out for the reasons you've already mentioned? And then the BRICS have already said, well, if you throw Russia out, then make it the G15, because we're also leaving. There's some very interesting maneuvering going on at the level of these multilateral arrangements. So far, all evidence is that the BRICS are stabilizing world capitalism, but there may be some surprises ahead as these geopolitical tensions might compete with the overall project of accumulation.»

Résumons ces différents propos en trois points (dont un éclaté en deux termes d’une alternative), selon la perception que nous en avons pour le développement de notre commentaire...

• Il ne fait aucun doute que ce qui s’est passé au sommet brésilien des BRICS est important, voire essentiel, en termes opérationnels comme en termes de perception. Il donne aux BRICS une capacité d’action qui en fait un acteur, c’est-à-dire un participant actif, des relations internationales ; sur ce dernier point, “participant actif” d’une ambition de réforme du système financier international, ce qui a plusieurs signification...

• La première signification de ce passage des BRICS à la position de “‘partisan actif’ d’une ambition de réforme du système financier international” doit figurer sous la forme d’une alternative. Le premier terme de l’alternative est que le bloc BRICS reste dans le Système (capitalisme ultralibéral avec tout ce qui va avec dans les domaines financier, économique, commercial, et social également), mais en formant un bloc concurrent du bloc BAO, et qui imposera ses conditions, qui affrontera s’il le faut le bloc BAO pour cela. L’option “bloc BRICS contre bloc BAO à l’intérieur du Système” signifiant malgré la position dans le Système une montée aux extrêmes à l’intérieur du Système, – et ce que Patrick Bond qualifie très justement, dans le chef des BRICS, de “capitalisme du désespoir” (“desperation capitalism”) ; l’expression a une très forte connotation, qui rend compte implicitement de la situation de grande tension qu’implique l’évolution de la situation et, finalement, selon notre conception, l'absence de la moindre chance de stabiliser cette situation du capitalisme, particulièrement avec la survenue des BRICS en tant que tels.

• Le deuxième terme de l’alternative de la première signification de l’évolution des BRICS est celle d’une rupture avec le Système, avec la capitalisme ultralibéral. C’est la thèse que défend le professeur Hudson, les BRICS instituant selon lui au niveau des gouvernements et des grands ensembles internationaux l’équivalent des buts recherchés par le mouvement Occupy Wall Street. («Think of the BRICS as doing on the government level what Occupy Wall Street has been advocating. When they say a new development bank, they don't mean they want to be like the World Bank or the IMF. They want a different kind of development.»)

• La seconde signification de ce passage des BRICS à la position de “‘partisan actif’ d’une ambition de réforme du système financier international” est que le groupement, arrivé à maturité et sur la voie d’une politisation de facto, deviendrait, dans la perception qu’on en aurait, un acteur obligé du jeu de la puissance ; ce rôle s’exprimerait, selon nous, en termes de communication (d’abord) ou en termes géopolitiques (nécessairement, comme conséquence). Bond, qui estime pourtant que les BRICS ne sortent pas du Système, expose in fine l’inéluctabilité de la transformation de la perception qu’on a des BRICS, – si l’on veut, en terme d’image, le passage des BRICS au bloc-BRICS. Il en situe, très justement selon nous, la possibilité avec la réunion du G20, d’où la Russie pourrait être exclue, ce qui pourrait, et même devrait entraîner l’abstention au moins des cinq BRICS, et cela ouvrant une crise politique entre le bloc BAO et le bloc BRICS. Si le G20 se transforme en G19, puis G15 pour la réunion australienne, remarque Bond, «There's some very interesting maneuvering going on at the level of these multilateral arrangements». Dès lors, ceux qui voyaient les BRICS comme un groupe pouvant stabiliser le capitalisme ultralibéral en équilibrant ses groupes (ses blocs) régionaux, en sont pour leurs frais... «So far, all evidence is that the BRICS are stabilizing world capitalism, but there may be some surprises ahead as these geopolitical tensions might compete with the overall project of accumulation.»

... Mais on note aussitôt que cette évolution n’est nullement envisagée du point de vue des facteurs composants des BRICS. Elle est envisagée en termes géopolitiques (et surtout de communication, selon nous), c’est-à-dire politiques en général, c’est-à-dire selon le contexte crisique qu’on connaît, – particulièrement sinon essentiellement la crise ukrainienne avec ses effets globaux puisqu’elle affecte les pays du bloc BAO et l’un des pays du bloc BRICS. En ce sens, le phénomène des BRICS, et du groupe BRICS devenant bloc BRICS, dépend beaucoup plus de la crise ukrainienne dans ce qu'elle a de global (crise générale, si l'on veut) que d'aucun autre événement, et c'est dans ce contexte qu'il faut l'apprécier.

Lien entre la crise ukrainienne et le “bloc-BRICS”

Simplifions le problème que nous soumettrons à notre commentaire. Des deux termes de l’alternative considérée, – le bloc BRICS se constituant à l’intérieur du Système, le bloc BRICS se constituant pour offrir de l’extérieur une alternative au Système, – nous privilégions le premier. Nous ne croyons pas que les BRICS puissent échapper aux règles et aux nécessités du Système, d’une façon assez structurée et assez puissante pour présenter une alternative, alors que les pays qui le constituent jouent selon les règles du Système, bon gré mal gré, en le critiquant plus ou moins vivement, etc. Leur démarche initiale est une protestation contre l’inégalité du traitement des uns et des autres à l’intérieur du Système, nullement une démarche rupturielle.

Mais cette spéculation importe peu pour notre propos, toujours en nous en tenant à l’aspect opérationnel de la chose. La seule chose qui nous importe est de savoir si les BRICS, devenus ou en voie de devenir le bloc BRICS dans la perception qu’on en a, rencontreront l’hostilité du bloc BAO, et derrière lui, du Système. Notre réponse est absolument positive, dans les deux cas. Ce n’est pas un problème économique, financier, géopolitique, même si tous ces domaines joueront un rôle, c’est un problème que nous qualifierions d’eschatologique. Nous voulons dire par là que, même si les BRICS (certains parmi les BRICS) s’effrayaient d’une telle avancée qu’est leur politisation, voire envisageaient de la refuser, les circonstances effaceraient ces flottements et ces freinages, elles feraient très rapidement en sorte qu’ils seraient perçus comme étant effectivement dans cette voie. Dès lors que les BRICS seront perçus comme en voie de constituer un bloc politique, ou constituant d’ores et déjà un bloc politique, et même si ceci ou cela ne correspond pas à la vérité de la situation et parce qu’il ne s’agit que d’une perception, dès cet instant l’affrontement sera inévitable, et du fait du Système, impitoyable et sans la moindre concession. Par exemple, un pays comme l’Inde, que les Etats-Unis s’imaginent encore pouvoir retourner à leur avantage en jouant de son antagonisme avec la Chine à l’occasion de l’arrivée de la nouvelle équipe Modi, sera instantanément perçu comme adversaire et ennemi dès lors que cette perception de l’évolution du BRICS que nous évoquons aura pénétré le cuir épais des dirigeants-Système du bloc BAO.

Cette perspective eschatologique est ouverte par la politisation des BRICS (passage “des BRICS” en “bloc BRICS”, à la fois inévitable et nécessaire), ou dans tous les cas par la perception de ce qui paraît être un inévitable et nécessaire processus de politisation à partir du moment où cette perception intègre les décisions prises au Brésil. Ce que signale Patrick Bond est évident, dans le climat actuel, dans le cadre de l’extraordinaire tension établie par la crise ukrainienne passée en mode-turbo avec la destruction du vol MH17. Dans de telles conditions, – et encore sans spéculer sur les probables développements d’ici là dont nous ne savons rien, et qui seraient nécessairement dans le sens d’une tension encore plus grande car tel est le destin de la crise générale actuelle, – on peut avancer que les pressions seront irrésistibles au sein du bloc BAO pour exclure la Russie de la réunion du G20. Dans ce cas, les BRICS devront être solidaires, ou dans tous les cas ils devront affirmer leur solidarité sous peine d’un effondrement terrible du statut de ceux qui refuseraient ; et cette solidarité sera affirmée pour des raisons absolument politiques, sinon pour la cause de l’eschatologie de cette crise générale.

Effectivement, il y a un lien puissant et serré entre le destin immédiat des BRICS et la crise ukrainienne. Ce lien implique la complète politisation de l’événement qu’est l’immédiat destin des BRICS, et nous sommes alors loin, très loin du débat pour savoir si les BRICS-devenant-“bloc-BRICS” seront à l’intérieur du Système ou en-dehors. Le temps, qui se contracte extraordinairement vite, l’histoire qui accélère non moins rapidement, la métahistoire qui nous parle directement, renvoient ce débat à la passionnante et inutile discussion sur le sexe des anges. (Mais, encore une fois, après avoir noté que ce débat aura permis, qu’il permet d’ores et déjà de faire évoluer la perception que les BRICS deviennent politique et “bloc-BRICS”.) L’amplification et l’accélération terrifiantes de la crise générale, autour de l’Ukraine, doivent très rapidement y impliquer les BRICS en tant que tels, et la perception qu’on en a évoluant aussi rapidement sinon accélérant le phénomène.

En d’autres mots, les BRICS ne sont d’ores et déjà plus un regroupement économique, ils constituent de facto, qu’ils le veuillent ou non, une force politique qui devra se structurer comme telle devant l’évidence. Le phénomène évolue dans ce sens sans qu’on puisse le mesurer car il se fait en-dehors même du contrôle de ses membres et sans que nul ne puisse encore en identifier les signes. L’avantage de la situation actuelle est que le bloc BAO, tout occupé à déployer son extraordinaire arrogance en forme d’aveuglement triomphant et terroriste et son addiction pathologique aux narrative, ne s'est aperçu de rien et ne s'apercevra de rien jusqu’à ce que la chose soit accomplie, – ou, dans tous les cas, que s’impose la perception de la chose en train de s’accomplir, et un incident comme celui qui marquerait éventuellement le G20 serait une circonstance idéale à cet égard. Il ne s’agit plus d’un débat antagoniste sur une formule économique, des prérogatives d’un éventuel bloc BRICS, etc., il s’agit de la phase terminale de la crise d’effondrement du Système, – puisque le Système est promis à s’effondrer, d’une façon ou l’autre, y compris la façon apocalyptique, et que nous y sommes... Les BRICS ont nécessairement un rôle fondamental à tenir, qui est politique, géostratégique, etc., avec des composantes financières certes, dans le chef de probables crises à ce niveau ; mais ce rôle est d’abord et nécessairement eschatologique, puisque tout l’est dans cette phase métahistorique fondamentale.

Pour conclure, nous reprenons une phrase écrite plus haut concernant la position du bloc BRICS dans son évolution, par rapport au Système. Lorsque nous écrivons “Ce n’est pas un problème économique, financier, géopolitique, même si tous ces domaines joueront un rôle, c’est un problème que nous qualifierions d’eschatologique”, nous voulons dire que la démarche des BRICS par rapport au Système devient nécessairement rupturielle, par les conditions même qui sont imposées, – conditions crisiques de rupture.

Par “eschatologique”, nous signifions d’abord une définition opérationnelle, qui n’est pas nécessairement exclusive des domaines métaphysiques, au contraire ; cette définition de Roger Garaudy fait l’affaire, que nous rappelions à un propos infiniment moins dramatique, moins pressant, le 14 mai 2008 : «[N]ous voulons dire, si nous nous référons à cette définition pratique et concrète, et excellente en tous points, que donne Roger Garaudy de l’eschatologie (à côté de la définition théorique : “Étude des fin dernières de l’homme et du monde”): “L’eschatologie ne consiste pas à dire: voilà où l’on va aboutir, mais à dire: demain peut être différent, c’est-à-dire: tout ne peut pas être réduit à ce qui existe aujourd’hui.”»

Nous dirions, pour le problème que nous étudions aujourd’hui, impliquant le destin des BRICS, leur constitution éventuelle en bloc BRICS avec tout ce que cela suppose de dynamique crisique et rupturielle par rapport au Système, donc une dynamique antagoniste puis confrontationnelle, que cet événement dépend de l’intervention de forces extérieures aux données actuelles, et des forces hors du contrôle humain, ordonnant effectivement un destin eschatologique, cette fois dans un sens où l’on peut se référer à la dimension métaphysique. Le phénomène des BRICS-devenant-“bloc-BRICS” devient alors cet événement eschatologique dont nul n’est capable de prévoir la course, mais qui sera nécessairement un événement antiSystème et rupturiel, quoi qu’en veuillent les BRICS. Nous serions même tentés d’avancer l’hypothèse que nous sommes arrivés à un point de tension rupturielle tel et d’une forme eschatologique et métahistorique telle qu’une hésitation de certains BRICS à s’engager (par exemple en solidarité avec la Russie pour le G20), c’est-à-dire la possibilité de dissolution de facto du groupe, n’empêcherait pas l’affrontement d’une façon ou une autre à cause des pressions exercées sur les membres du groupe en retraite pour une capitulation complète. Les circonstances même d’un tel flottement de certains membres des BRICS impliqueraient une telle réaction du bloc BAO que le groupement serait reconstitué par la puissance des attaques conduites contre lui. L’inéluctabilité de l’affrontement dans un cadre eschatologique, donc affrontement au moins politique, avec les BRICS perçus comme antiSystème, nous paraît avérée. La logique supérieure de la crise d’effondrement du Système domine tout.

vendredi, 25 juillet 2014

National Nihilism

200903309.jpg

National Nihilism

by Mark Hackard

Ex: http://souloftheeast..org

 

Strategies for full-spectrum dominance encompass far more than just military means – their entire point is found in politics, the struggle for power. Movements proclaiming themselves the champions of national salvation thus deserve extra scrutiny, since they might serve precisely the opposite end.

Ever since a US-backed junta seized control of Ukraine in February, the country’s ethnic, cultural and linguistic fault lines have been accentuated to deadly effect. The predominantly russophone south and east have already paid a terrible price for resisting the new liberal-nationalist regime, from a fiery massacre in Odessa to outright war against Donetsk and Lugansk, two regions bordering Russia that have declared their independence. Had Vladimir Putin not moved to secure Crimea, the peninsula today would be suffering an analogous fate. When we consider the atrocities committed against the inhabitants of historical Novorossiya (New Russia), it must be understood that Kiev’s counterinsurgency is far more significant than a local conflict – it is a proxy war the Pax Americana wages against Russia in order to command the Eurasian heartland.

In the quest to “contain” and destabilize Russia, Washington has found willing and eager proxies in Ukrainian nationalists. Longtime enemies of Moscow, outfits like Stepan Bandera’s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Rebel Army (UPA) worked in close partnership with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. With the Reichstag still smoldering and the new Cold War underway, the United States would continue where the Abwehr and SS left off, dropping nationalist agents into western Ukraine to conduct sabotage and guerrilla campaigns against the Soviet government until the early 1950s. The Berlin Wall may no longer stand, but US/NATO employment of Ukrainian nationalists in subversion programs continues to this day. Aside from the $5 billion the US has openly spent over twenty years to suborn Ukraine, it stands to reason that substantial clandestine assets were also dedicated to that objective.

Supported by the CIA as well as Polish intelligence, Kiev has attempted for the past two months to bring the east to heel, yet the regime has little to show for the effort other than dead and wounded in the thousands, while towns such as Slavyansk and Kramatorsk are pulverized under sustained bombardment. The regular Ukrainian army, demoralized, underfunded and under-equipped, hasn’t taken to the repression with the revolutionary fervor expected of them by the junta. Rather, Kiev has relied on the newly-instituted National Guard, foreign mercenaries and paramilitaries bankrolled by billionaire oligarchs like Dnepropetrovsk governor Igor “Benya” Kolomoisky, an ardent Zionist with a business empire reportedly built on ruthless criminality. Filling the ranks of these “special battalions” are motivated but often inexperienced thugs from neo-fascist Right Sector, the group that played a pivotal role in the success of February 22nd’s Maidan putsch. The death squads have proven adept at terrorizing civilians, but they haven’t fared so well in combat with local resistance forces.

Novorossiya and Crimea (South/East), Malorossia and Galicia (North/West).

Possible outcome of the Ukraine crisis: Novorossiya and already Russian Crimea (South/East), Malorossiya-Ukraine and Galicia (North/West).

Underlying the regime’s disastrous attempt to smash the revolt in the east is the utter incoherence of Ukrainian nationalism. Ukraine as a nation-state has all the natural viability of Belgium, for it is an artificial country hopelessly divided within Soviet-era borders. Civil war has erupted because ethnic Russians and culturally Russian Ukrainians, for generations living on traditionally Russian lands, refuse to accede to a poisonous chauvinism demanding the surrender of their religious, cultural and linguistic heritage. The armed ideologues who come to impose “ukrainianization” might as well be foreign invaders seeking to wipe out a subjugated people’s very identity, and this is why bands of rebels in the Donbas are fighting to the knife.

While far from the only case, the fabricated nature of militant Ukrainian nationalism becomes clearer through the lens of great-power competition. The shaping of “Ukraine” (originally Malorossiya – Little Russia – plus Galicia and Volynia) as an entity implacably hostile to “Muscovy” is an ongoing Western geopolitical project launched in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when Poland and the Vatican maneuvered to fracture the unity of Orthodox Eastern Slavdom. From that time and in succession, Austria-Hungary, Germany, and now the United States have all found fostering and further inciting this antagonism as an economical means to undermine and even attack Russia itself. Though foolish and extremely dangerous, America’s latest bid to incorporate Ukraine into the “free world” is thus well-founded in historical precedent.

Also set in historical precedent is US collaboration with fascists. Far from limited to sponsorship of Pinochet-style military governments in Latin America, it’s worth recalling that Wall Street actively financed Adolf Hitler’s rise to Weltmacht. And so today the ultra-nationalists of Ukraine enjoy Washington’s tacit support as they drive to ethnically cleanse the country’s south and east of Russians and attain a pyrrhic victory for their ideology. Since Right Sector, Svoboda and other radical parties are enraptured by the legacy of National Socialism, they would do well to remember not only its fate, but also its dialectical function. The wholesale destruction and dehumanization wrought by Nazism merely cleared the way for the triumph of international capital, which from the end of World War II has enforced its dictates through liberal political economy, cultural Marxism and American military power. As US President Barack Obama elaborated in a recent speech in Warsaw:

We have a solemn duty — a binding treaty obligation — to defend your territorial integrity.  And we will.  We stand together — now and forever — for your freedom is ours.

The banksters are at liberty to subvert, invade and expropriate across the world forever. A key condition for the IMF’s extension of its $18 billion loan to Ukraine is “territorial integrity” – in their war on Novorossiya, nationalists act as the foot soldiers of predatory multinationals. They march not for their fatherland, but for the greater glory of Exxon-Mobil, Monsanto, and Lady Gaga; they are expendable, and so is Ukraine. Fantasies of a state from the Carpathians to the Caucasus seem quaint compared to the vision of planetary rule decreed by the masters of the dialectic, and the parochial nihilism of Bandera’s disciples represents only a transitory stage toward universal enslavement and the dissolution of all peoples.

Globalist elites design their policies according to the classical maxim of divide et impera, yet its esoteric corollary is solve et coagula, the alchemical process applied to entire societies. Behind inane sloganeering on freedom, democracy and human rights lies a relentless desire to destroy. Sovereignty must be ended, sex and the family distorted unto grotesquery, and God usurped by Mammon. The nation – the great extended family – must be annihilated. What the Brave New World needs are neither Russians nor Ukrainians, but demographic biomass engineered for exploitation.

Ukraine’s tragedy provides us a ready example of nationalism manipulated for the benefit of internationalist oligarchs. And Russia must meet its own challenge of upholding traditional identity against the onslaught of the West’s postmodern imperium. The organic, tribal nationalism of the blood can be reconciled with the higher demands of the spirit; such has been the mission of the Church and state in forming a wider Russian Orthodox civilization. In the meantime, the mounting outrages and provocations of the Kiev junta are catalogued for the sake of justice – to be meted out at a time of the Kremlin’s choosing.

R. Roudier: lettre ouverte au président

Le nouveau livre de Richard Roudier sur le découpage anti-identitaire de la France

Couverture.jpeg

«Monsieur le Président, un gouvernement doit toujours avoir une méthode visible à chacun et celle-ci ne doit jamais paraître de son invention, sinon…

Sinon, il laissera infailliblement la place aux soupçons d’arbitraire ou d’arrangements louches. Ainsi, tout découpage territorial sera forcément suspect s’il n’obéit pas à une méthode vérifiable par tous, y compris jusqu’aux enfants des classes primaires… L’évidence est la vertu d’un découpage territorial ; l’obscurité est son crime, ne le savez-vous pas ?»

Contre la région découpée par François Hollande au mépris de l’Histoire et de la Géographie, Richard Roudier propose un découpage identitaire selon les anciennes aires linguistiques mais corrigé par des aspects fonctionnels…

Richard Roudier – Lettre Ouverte au Président à propos de la réforme des régions, réponse au bazar anti-identitaire – 12€+ 3€ de frais de port – 125 pages

Pour le commander, cliquez ici

Guerre en Ukraine. Les grands média français mentent délibérément

Guerre en Ukraine. Les grands média français mentent délibérément

par Jean-Paul Baquiast
 
N'ayons pas peur des mots. Ils sont volontairement complices d'un mensonge d'Etat. Réfléchissons-y ensemble.


Philippe Grasset vient de publier ce jour un article qu'il faut lire « MH17 et l'insaisissable BUK russe » http://www.dedefensa.org/forum-mh17_et_l_insaisissable_buk_russe_21_07_2014.html  Il cite lui-même un article de Robert Parry, qui dirige et anime le site ConsortiumNews http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/

Ce dernier , dont la réputation de sérieux n'est plus à faire, évoque des informations à lui fournies par des analystes de la CIA. Les observations d'un satellite de reconnaissance américain montre que le missile BUK ayant détruit l'avion de la Malaysian Airlines avait été tiré d'un site occupé par les militaires du régime de Kiev, paraissant d'ailleurs en état d'ébriété vu les bouteilles de bière vides répandues sur le terrain (Oui, les satellites militaires américains peuvent voir ce type de détail) Some CIA analysts cite U.S. satellite reconnaissance photos suggesting that the anti-aircraft missile that brought down Flight 17 was fired by Ukrainian troops from a government battery, not by ethnic Russian .

Cette information remet immédiatement en cause le discours de tout le monde occidental selon lequel ce serait les pro-russes, et derrière eux Vladimir Poutine, qui auraient causé, involontairement ou volontairement, l'accident. Elle pourrait être critiquée, encore faudrait-il qu'elle soit évoquée. Or, comme je l'ai remarqué dans un commentaire fait à l'article de Philippe Grasset, il est scandaleux que les représentants des médias français, qui comprennent le français et doivent normalement lire tous les jours De defensa, comme je le fais moi-même, n'en aient pas encore parlé. Je doute d'ailleurs qu'ils en parlent ce soir ou demain ou jamais.

Ceci veut dire que ces médias français mentent volontairement à des dizaines de millions de citoyens français. Ils sont complices d'un mensonge d'Etat visant à accuser Poutine d'avoir commis le crime. Ils sont complices aussi d'un autre mensonge d'Etat visant à ne pas rechercher ailleurs les causes de l'attentat, pourquoi pas auprès des troupes spéciales américaines et mercenaires opérant en Ukraine au service de John Kerry, avec l'accord d'Obama.

Comme l'écrit Philippe Grasset, mais renvoyons les lecteur à son article « La dénonciation constante d'un même et seul coupable possible constitue le point stratégique central. Il n'est pas le résultat de quelque chose, quelque processus que ce soit, enquête, etc., mais bien la condition sine qua non, la prémisse fondamentale autour de laquelle le reste doit évoluer tactiquement...Il va sans dire que ce “point stratégique central” est la culpabilité de la Russie, à considérer comme une prémisse, un principe de réflexion et de communication, et nullement quelque chose à établir ou même seulement à affirmer » 

En l'espèce le coupable obligé est non seulement la Russie mais Poutine, et tout doit être fait pour qu'aucune autre hypothèse ne soit émise. Comment s'étonner qu'avec de pareilles désinformations, de pareilles manipulations des opinions publiques, celles-ci ne se résignent pas finalement à la perspective d'une guerre contre la Russie.

Il nous avait semblé ces derniers jours que Merkel et Hollande refusaient d'entrer complètement dans ce jeu. Il semble bien ce soir qu'ils aient renoncé à toute indépendance de jugement vis-à-vis des bellicistes washingtoniens.


21/07/2014

jeudi, 24 juillet 2014

Russian Nationalism and Eurasianism

demonstration.jpg

Russian Nationalism and Eurasianism

 
 

The recent flurry of writing on Russian politics, nationalism and Alexander Dugin shows the contemptible inability of western savants to apprehend any idea beyond the cliche's of stagnant neo-liberalism. Worse, “Russia specialists” in academia are now tripping over themselves trying to “analyze” Dugin and the Eurasianist idea. Bereft of the vocabulary to understand the concept, they merely apply fashionable labels from western political thought onto Russia in a pathetic and pretentious attempt to show how “dangerous” such ideas are to “European values.”

Reading A. Toynbee, especially Volumes IV-VI of his Study of History, lead one to question both the “civilizational” fundament and, later, his “higher religion.” The problems are not that, at such a level of analysis, he is inaccurate. Such an epic level of perspective cannot be held to the sharp standards of accuracy that a study of, say, the state of New Hampshire might be subject. The very nature of such a sweeping history means that, in the main, he might be seen as “more or less” on the right track. That is as far as one can go. However, that begs the question, since the very concept of such an epic orientation is open to doubt.
 
Equally sweeping is the general criticism of P. Sorokin and others, namely, that such a view of history is problematic because it isolates a few variables from the rest, making them extremely important. This means that others are minimized. This criticism gains force to the extent that one sees the knowledge required for any epic vista of history to work at all. One cannot know that much about global history to come to such conclusions. Those specializing in an element of a civilization (such as Hellenistic aesthetics) will easily annihilate sweeping generalizations. Hegel's desire to label entire epochs of history with one word means that such an approach cannot be true; unless one is willing to reduce epochs of civilization to slogans about them.
 
In the case of this present author, the concern has been to refuse such grand historical panoramas and focus instead on a single nation, or elements within a nation that lend themselves to detailed study. There, the actual living conditions of real people can be analyzed. The sweep of Toynbee, Hegel or Marx is interesting, but if the result is to then force all societies to follow that general model, then they should be left unread. Few deny the ability of Eric Voegelin, but again, outside of specialized studies on Plato or Marx, Voegelin's sweep is such as to make it interesting, but a fatal temptation to the study of actual historical life.
 
This preface is needed because the Eurasians fall into the same problem. They too, deal in civilizational norms, though their interest is very specific: defining the Atlantian civilization as against the Russian one. At the level of elite society, this is useful. Western elites, generally speaking, are of one mind in their commitment to science, secularism, individualism (in theory), capitalism, positivism and empire. There is nothing strange about this. Toynbee, in areas in which he is well schooled (such as Greek antiquity), becomes extremely important. When he generalizes this experience to medieval Hindustan, however, he becomes less tenable.
 
Identity and foreign policy go hand in hand. Domestic and foreign policies are closely linked. In Russia's case, her sense of corporate selfhood has changed radically since the fall of the Marxist empire in the early 1990s. Russia's foreign policy has changed as her global status has changed, and the debate among the different factions of Russian life has dominated her foreign policy. The purpose in this paper is to define, in specific terms, the nature of a Russian, Eurasianist foreign policy. Eurasianism is a popular foreign policy idea in elite Russian circles and therefore, must be taken very seriously by scholars (Shlapentokh, 2007).
 
Russia is a state and nation. It is also a broader based civilization taking in many ethnic groups to herself. This means that its values and virtues are far more than the result of specific historical conditions, but are, in some sense, eternal virtues that give life meaning. There are “civilizational” values that take what is crucial in those nations the civilization encompasses. These are not ethnic groups (which are much smaller) but refer to “imperial” ideologies that can rule many different groups and are formulated precisely to justify the rule of a large and diverse policy. Examples of such civilizations might be Chinese, Indian or African. These go beyond historical experience and are supposed to contain greater truths.
 
The concept of a “Russian civilization” undergirds the vision of the Russian Eurasianists. This is both a political theory and a source of foreign policy decisions. The “imperial mission” of a society is not about local values, but cosmic ideas. In politics, these “imperial ideologies” serve as the foundation of global rule.
 
Eurasianism as foreign policy refers to Russian geopolitical space. Russia is a “cosmos,” it takes smaller “solar systems” under its wing to create a loose federation of allied nations and states. In some instances, it rejects the very notion of “nation-statism” in that a true civilization can be only a federation, not a state. 
 
I. Ideological History of Eurasianism
 
Prior to the well known Alexander Dugin, Eurasianism has a rich ideological heritage unknown to those who cannot read Russian. PM Bitsilli (1953) took a broad look at global history. “Rhythm” is specific to a people. It is dialectical both in that it is becoming (rather than being) and takes the familiar trinity as undifferentiated unity – fragmentation – reflective unity. This also was essential to the metaphysics of Karsavin. Rhythms differ radically, but they still partake of the same formula.
 
Finally, inertia is the third element. Dialectic, rhythm and inertia govern the historical process. Tribal life is unreflective, yet, historical forces and local conditions force a chaotic mixing of tribes that are more or less compatible. Finally, in the construction of the ethnos, a reflective unity is created as conditions now exist for reason, thought and the development of the historical person.
 
In his “Tragedy of Russian Culture,” Bitsilli takes the common Eurasian position that “progress” and “history” are both loaded and ideological terms which contrast all existence with that of the west. That is to say, the lineal development of mechanized and commercial capitalism is the standard of global development. For Bitsilli, culture is the “self-disclosure” of the personality en masse. It is an overcoming of history in the sense that this self persists through time. 
 
PN Savitsky (1968) focused his research on the primordial argument for national, that is, ethnic development. Tribes mix together to form ethnicities. This mixing is not arbitrary, but can only take place among groups who share significant elements in common. This mixing, further, is also not arbitrary due to its context. As is common in this doctrine, climate, topography and local resources are extremely significant in the development of a decentralized tribal life into early forms of ethnic groups. Organizations of peoples, as they come out of their tribal background, take from local conditions. Thus, territory is significant and becomes a part of the development of the national unit. 
 
The soil literally is incorporated into the flesh of the people. Local resources, soil conditions and the general environment become a part of the physical makeup of ethnicities. Soil conditions are aspects of topography in that they are dependent on it. The ethnic group then becomes like its surroundings: an organic whole.
 
Ethnicities developing near the shoreline, all other things equal, develop into mercantile states. They think globally in terms of markets and resources.  Russia, on the other hand, is a land and forest based community and does not, as a result, develop the trading ethic to the extent that the Greeks or Phoenician have. This is not to argue that these conditions determine outcomes. They only provide dispositions.
 
Savitsky stresses that the Mongol occupation was not destructive for Russia, but quite the opposite. The Horde was a culturally advanced people who protected Russia from the inroads of western religious ideology. All occupied lands, so Savitsky and Most Eurasians would argue, did well under Mongol administration. 
 
In terms of politics, Savitsky argues that linear progress is a myth. Social organisms run in cycles, repeating some basic institutions but adding and subtracting others. The state, in the sense of its Cultural Constitution, requires a unity of religion and basic moral foundations in order to carry out even minimal tasks. The cultural and religious unity obviates the need for a strong state, administratively speaking.
 
Most importantly, Savitsky argued as early as 1928 that the future belongs to Asia. After World War I and storm clouds brewing over Europe, this was not a ludicrous idea. It is even more significant now. The simple idea that can be drawn from the prophetic words of Savitsky is that Europe destroyed itself in two world wars, went broke during the “Cold War” and, as of 2014, has little to offer the east. To reject “Europe” is to make a realistic judgment about the state of their finances, elites and economic foundations.
 
Of course, the most significant Eurasianist, and the most verbose, is Alexander Dugin. His work is generally more esoteric than the rest, arguing that the ancient symbolism of east and west points to two sorts of civilization: the sea based and the land based. What makes Dugin attractive to those who can read the language is his use of Plato to ground a new vision of the nation and its context, the civilization.
 
What the west lacks is the concept of higher meanings. Nominalism and positivism, the two official ideologies of western thought (in general) see objects per se. Nominalism argues that there are no necessary connections among things in society or nature, there are merely individual acts, people or institutions. Dugin, using Plato, argues that the “object” is merely phenomenal, not real. “Realism” is the view, assumed by positivism and nominalism, that there are two entities only: the observer and the observed. This is naive because there can be no way to prove the existence of actual objects solely based on perception.
 
The nominal has no purpose. They are random individual things that might form a system for “mutual advantage.” Its social applications are obvious. However, to oversimplify, objects and particulars exist only in a context, and that context soon becomes the All, or the single set of relations that make up the cosmos. Each is dependent on all. Dugin's critique of the west, given this simplistic model, is that western man has been trained to see objects as “facts,” brute givens that are only provided with meaning by man, and that usually refers to a political or scientific elite. All is reduced to the “practical,” and as a result, all meaning is lost.
 
The west replaced natural law with markets. Markets took science and make it an appendage of commercial dominance. The concept of pure mechanism, the product of the Renaissance, was to create a world, one imposed upon the real one, that reduced matter to a machine that can be taken apart and put back together in the form of man-made technology. This is the essence of capitalism (and has no relation to the market model). Capitalism is based on egocentricity, the denial of private property except for the few, and, perhaps most important, that morals and culture have no place in “rational” economics.
 
Socialism is quite similar. It is obsessed with technology, science and production as ends in themselves. Power may be reached by different means, but it all comes down to economics. Capitalism and socialism depend, not on intelligence, but on deviousness. The Marxist critique of capital is correct as far as it goes. Economics is inherently historical, egocentrism can never create stability and capital functions by using labor as a tool.
 
These are not the only options. Eurasianism, as economics, is based on the concept that economics is not a field in itself. It may not make its own rules, but is subordinated to the common good of the community. Competition always has a place, but so does cooperation. Production is culturally specific in nearly every way, only that globalization has gone very far in standardizing its methods.
 
Nations exist. They create states. However, with the possible exception of great states such as Russia and China, autarky is not rational. Regionalism is the response. For Dugin, several civilizational spaces exist: Eurasia, Africa, the Far East and Europe. These are now the actors in history. Nations retain their autonomy within their civilizational space, but the regionalism of Dugin seeks to retain the gains made by globalization while retaining local and regional sovereignty. The result is a multipolar world.
 
Globalization is western ideology and scientific culture masquerading as “reason” itself; as science per se. It is the rebirth of Atlantis, the necropolis, the world of Twilight, or unreality. Both Dostoevsky and Gogol used these metaphors to describe St. Petersburg. Atlantis lives on, deriving from the Phoenicians, and leading to the ruse of Venice in the High Middle Ages, then concluding with the English and institutionalized as a “global ideology” under the US. 
 
II. Basic Concepts of Eurasianism and the West
 
The discussion above does not even scratch the surface of the richness of Eurasian thought. It is a summary of some of the Russian-language literature. In a more understandable way, much of the Eurasian idea can be summarized in these points:
 
1.Communitarianism against nominalism. Identities are necessarily collective.
2.Non-alignment in global affairs.
3.Eurasianism holds that while nations exist, they are not self-contained. The political unit is the civilization, which is a federation of complimentary nations.
4.Culture is the essential tie among people in a nation or civilization. The quantifiable aspects of rule are highly limited and secondary. 
5.Russians are not Europeans, or at least not entirely European. Russians are mixtures of Slav, Mongol and Turkish blood that help inform their genetics. This means that Russians are genetically related to the Caucasian and some Central Asian peoples. In addition, this “third world” blood makes the Russians an ideal intermediary between Asia and Europe, or even Europe and the third world. (cf. Shlapentokh, 2007 for greater detail) 
6.The state (in its true sense as the cultural collective) should put its stamp on the economy. In general, public-private ownership mixes are essential for larger and strategic industry, while private ownership remains for small business. 
 
The Eurasian idea is one that both defines those within it as well as excludes those without. In this case, the “other” is the “West.” In the broadest of terms, the cardinal ideas of the West are these:
 
1.Egocentrism manifest as abstract rights rather than function, station or vocation. Rights are more rhetorical and strategic than real.
2.Democracy as necessarily proceeding from nominalism. This is not merely a “procedure” but a state of affairs. Democracy exists when liberalism does.
3.Materialism and secularism in public and economic life. In general, since rights have no discernible origin, utilitarianism becomes the official ideology by default. 
4.Liberal Messianism is crucial: liberalism needs to be imposed by force.
5.The west defines “state” as that which is bureaucratic and administrative.  
6.Liberal rhetoric sounds merely procedural. This is to mask the ideological core of liberalism which is essentially totalitarianism.
7.Politicians serve as window dressing for economic elites. When the economy fails, the politicians, who control nothing, are said to be at fault.
8.Evolution is part of the west's official ideology. It serves to a) secularize society, but more importantly, b) justify colonialism, industrial capitalism and “competition.”
9.“Rationality” is defined in purely economic terms.
10.“Science” and the “scientific establishment” are treated as identical. Science is defined as that which deals with formal and quantitative properties. This, in turn, is identical with the concept of “intelligibility.”
11.Liberalism rejects the “nation” as fiction, yet, holds formal quantity, the “international community,” and the isolated ego as palpable realities. 
 
These two views of the world are antithetical. The west views itself as the apex of human liberty while seeing the east as in need of western assistance.  Evolution is leading the world to the western idea, which was the purpose of the Darwinian system from the beginning. It is no accident that this view of the world arose from the height of English colonial rule and industrial development. Capitalism sees the world merely as a series of markets or resource bases to control. Peoples are treated in purely quantitative terms. 
 
Representative government, which is radically distinct from “democracy,”is an important factor in Eurasianist thought. The Eurasianist movement evaluates the “democracy” ethic as being a mask for economic power. Elections are competitive races among economic factions speaking for “the people,” a collective abstraction that does not exist.  A strong Russian executive can help filter the demands of the monied class and seek the common good. Putin's approach has mirrored this demand (Shlapentokh, 2007).
 
“Russian pluralism” is a vision that motivates Russian domestic policy (Tolz, 1998). Eurasianism as a political theory revolves around the concept of civilization over ethnos. A pluralist society would imitate the look of a federation, using the most significant elements of nationalism without its tribal negatives. A Russian Eurasianism stresses the fundamental autonomy of these ethnic groups within a broader state, and these different groups would maintain a large degree of independence.
 
Russia under Vladimir Putin has been a strong supporter of the non-aligned movement. This movement seeks to improve the condition of the third world and build a global society based on the independence of nation states. This idea is a direct attack on westernism. At the same time, larger states that are in various stages of development have taken the lead from one time to another, including Indonesia, Russia and India. This just means that these countries on the periphery of development have the size and potency to wring concessions from the central states such as England or Japan (Shulman, 2005). in Russian Eurasianism, the main foreign element is the “multipolar” world shared by the non-aligned movement and its dedication to alter global capitalism and westernism.
 
This “non-aligned” idea is central to Eurasianism in that the west, given their “New World Order” and “End of history” rhetoric, is implying that it and it alone has the right to shape the rules of the political game. It is not so much that these rules have been deduced from democratic elections and hence enforced, they are the rules that govern elections. Eurasianists make quite a bit of fuss about this distinction. Democracy is just as much a set of results as a set of processes (Nikitin, 2005). Russian Eurasianism and the non-aligned movement are closely related.
 
Russia cannot be considered as a “developed” or “developing” country since those terms imply an absolute standard.  The Soviet use of domestic force to rapidly develop heavy industry (that may or may not have been appropriate for the time) makes her a developed country, though one that did not develop according to the typical pattern of European states. In fact, Russia's industrialization drive in the 1960s and 1970s might (with some adjustments) be a model for the third would that wants to see a great state presence in the economy rather than just profit-seeking businessmen. Since Russia can be seen as the “periphery” of the European Union, she shares some elements in common with the third world.
 
In the (2010) work of Kazakh President Narsultan Nazarbayev, the above concepts are restated in a way more congenial to the development of Central Asia. His essential political theory can be summarized in five points:
1.A strong, independent state is required for both development and sovereignty over resources. “Self-regulated” development is part of the concept of independence, since anything else would give development priorities to others. The public good should always take precedence over private profit.
2.Within any Eurasian Union, a specific Central Asian bloc needs to be formed to focus on issues concerning this region. This is a part of Nazarbayev's emphasis on Eurasianism being practical and loose rather than federative (see below).
3.Free trade should focus on regions and culturally similar peoples. Central Asia is a good example. Free trade should be pursued with common policies on substantial economic issues. Its purpose is to keep foreign forces out of the area. In areas where Central Asia is impacted the most, even other members of the union, such as Russia, should stand aside.
4.Any decision made by the Central Asian Union, as well as, presumably, any Eurasian Union including Russia, will require a 4/5 vote. 
5.Slowly, regional groupings will consolidate basic laws on development policy. 
 
Nazarbayev's main concern is a practical one: the modernization of the Central Asian states with no reciprocal duties in any specific direction. His view is guarded and cautious due to his concern for Kazakh independence as well as its stress on modernization. In fact, convergence is not an issue here except as a matter of fiscal law, and he goes out of his way to stress that there is no single ideology nor any sense of unitarism. While this is consistent with Eurasianism, Nazarbayev's emphasis on practical economic programs aimed at modernization is not.
 
Even more, he stresses that, in terms of basic policy, each state within the union should retain the option to remove itself from any law it deems problematic. At best, The Kazakh program is based on a loose structure. Since there is no “doctrine” of Eurasianism on these matters, it remains an open question. In general, Eurasianists remain national in their focus.
 
The problem which Nazarbayev points out is that the states to be a part of this Union are far from homogeneous, and remain at different levels of development. Hindrances to any union he sees as primarily based on a lack of strategy. There is no method of dispute resolution, nor does there seem to be any connection among ministers dealing with these issues and their own governments. 
 
Relative to currency, the President argues that it needs to be based explicitly on production and the development needs of the societies involved. While it should be kept out of the hands of private bankers, no specific state should control it either. He advocates that all branches of government be involved in currency decisions, since these are so essential to economics and development. Keeping the currency out of the hands of speculators seems to imply that he wants the regional currency non-convertible.
 
III. Concepts in Eurasian Foreign Policy
 
In the work of Professor Vera Tolz, there are three basic concepts of Russian Eurasianism that can serve as the basis of foreign policy. In all cases, the idea of the USSR lies at the root. The USSR was an empire promising basic independence for each of its republics. In other words, the official position was that all ethnic organizations under the Soviet system were to be permitted autonomy within the broader society. This approach, thought honored only in the breach, is very close to Eurasianism. These views Tolz calls “revisionist” in that they seek to challenge the west and its increasing hegemony in various ways:
 
1.The USSR was a noble enterprise that went awry. This was because the Bolsheviks thought they could run the country from a central source. This was incorrect and led to tremendous distortions in the economy. The USSR needs to be reborn, but on a far more decentralized and humanitarian basis.
2.Russian civilization can develop along the lines of a limited federation of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. 
3.The third concept is traditional ethno-nationalism, where the state develops to incorporate all Russian speakers contiguous to her borders. 
 
Dugin, in his essay on Nikolai Trubetskoy, argues that both the tsarist and liberal approaches to the USSR are incorrect. He argues that Bolshevism derives directly from the revolutionary state pioneered by Peter I, and the Petrograd bureaucracy that failed to connect with the broader population. They accepted Bolshevism because it was a “vague, unconscious, blind and desperate desire to return to Old Russia, prior to the 'Romano-German yoke.” At the same time, the Eurasian idea rejects this movement as secular and anti-traditionalist. It was the westernization of the Russian elite, rather than any alien imposition on society, that served as the model for the revolution. In other words, the alien regime existed from the early 18th century onward.
 
Trubetskoy saw the USSR as a basically positive phenomenon because it unified the Eurasian plain and maintained a multinational state dedicated to a unified economic end.  In addition, in doing battle with western imperialism, it served to weaken the west's stranglehold over most of the planet. Finally, in protecting Russians against the west, the USSR, despite itself, preserved much of Old Russia.
 
While often not mentioned in English, the Eurasian idea derives from the Old Belief. As this writer has also written, the Old Rite is representative of pre-Petrine Russia, and this state, given its limited resources, made war on the church no less systematically than the Bolsheviks. After Nikon, the close association of the church with the bureaucracy made the love of Orthodoxy dependent on the love of the state. 
 
While exaggerated, this is essentially true; the deposition of Nikon left Alexis in charge, only very soon after to permit Peter and the Germanic ruling class later to purge all national elements of the church. The followers of Alexis saw the Old Rite as ignorant fanatics and themselves, increasingly, as Enlightened westerners. The fact that the atheist and materialist Theophan Prokopovytch was placed in charge of reorganizing the Russian church under Peter shows just how far this process went.
 
These three visions are about recreating Russia as a powerful civilization on the ruins on both the USSR and the democratic capitalism of Yeltsin. These three concepts are different ways of making it legitimate. All three of these are anti-western in that they reject the liberal cosmopolitanism that serves to justify western expansion. None of these three are specifically economic, but use culture and political to situate economic development. Economics for the Eurasianist is but an aspect of the broader political idea (Tolz, 1998).
 
In a recent review of Empire (2000), by A. Negri and M. Hardt, Alexander Dugin remarks:
 
The essence of empire is corruption. Corruption, as destruction, is the antithesis of construction; it is a usurper. Empire is the perennial contagion in world history; it destroys life, but it does so through a highly complex and subtle system of control based on man's base desires, individuality and freedom. As intellectual work is today crucial, the nature of production has changed. If the mind is the main means of production, then the machine and the brain slowly merge. On the other hand, new technologies such as the computerization of technique, have become an indispensable aspect of the human body, and soon, these two will also merge. . . Empires are not imposed from without, but they slowly create mental dependencies that tie man into their networks. These gradually serve as our sources of information that integrate ourselves economically, legally and psychologically. This implies a total loss of identity. 
 
The connection between the physical world and the its mental analogue is common enough in western criticism, most famously in the early 20th century work of Bernard Bosanquet. Contrary to a naive realism, structures of social life and the means of their justification soon become organizing principles in the mind. This is the problem with recent work on Dugin and Eurasianism, these structures cannot manage the nature of the Eurasian critique of the western world.
 
IV. Eurasianism and Domestic Policy
 
Building a new Russian nation with its own specific interests in the world requires a strong civil society. This concept, which has become cliche over time, primarily deals with the institutions necessary for the functioning of a state, any state. Even a state that uses the most strict criterion of ethnicity must maintain a civil society that undergirds that idea. All states and governments must, in some way, provide the population with institutions that give regularity and law to social forces regardless of their origin.
 
The great issue in building the new Russia is membership. In Ukraine, for example, the proverbial distinction between east and west Ukraine has almost torn the country apart. Western Ukraine is seen as pro-western,. Eastern Ukraine seen as pro-Russian. In Russia's case, the Eurasianists do not normally use an ethnic criterion of membership, but would rebuild Russia as a federation of ethnic groups that can serve to check and balance each other (Sengupta, 2009).
 
Even if Russian foreign policy were to center around gathering all Russian speaking areas under Moscow, this would not free the state from the rule of law or basic representative institutions. There is no clear connection between liberalism and representation, that is, there is no reason to believe that a democratic government is necessarily a representative government. The Russian nationalist movement  in general, and Eurasianists in particular, normally holds that liberalism is about ideology and the interests of capital, not the protection of rights. A state can be highly representative without being a democracy, and a democracy can enshrine an oligarchy rather than “the people.” The Eurasianists are fairly cynical about western claims to tolerance and “universal values.”
 
Representation, at its root, is the “matching” of a constitution to domestic ideas of justice. A constitution is more than a scrap of paper. It is a living mode of thought that is meant to bind a community together in a world of shared ideas. Laws cannot come from mere self-interest or utility, but must be representative of the popular will. Popular wills are not necessarily manifest in elections, but show the broader contours of social life over time. The General Will is the public good, and its differs, as in the work of Rousseau, from the mere counting of votes and might even be opposed to it.
 
Even more, a strong, new Russia requires an educational system that creates a firm foundation to the constitutional order. Education in the Eurasianist case should be tilted towards that which is useful for the society as a whole, rather than the liberal arts as a broad category of “classics.” The idea is that education brings students into the constitutional order and both, taken together, form a strong sense of national identity; a linguistic and cultural bond that brings people together in shared responsibility rather than abstract rights.
 
This concept of constitution is central to foreign policy because when “Russia” acts on the world stage, there must be some important and significant entity that is called “Russia.” The Eurasianist looks askance at the United States acting on the world stage for democracy and human rights. These are abstractions. For the Russian Eurasianist in 2012, the U.S. acts for the interest of the corporate bodies who control her (Sengupta, 2009).
 
Dugin, in his article on National Bolshevism, reduces the Eurasian-socialist idea to three:
1.For development according to Russian tradition, socialism, ethnic roots and a adhesion to the constants in Russian history. These include the mir, sobornost', a rejection of utility, universalism and the imperial idea.
2.Towards the restoration of the values of Old Russia, traditional spiritual culture and the doctrine of “The Third Rome.”
3.To build a society without classes, toward brotherhood, equality, solidarity and justice. It is a combination of the social ideals of the populists, communists, socialists, and the national anarchist revolutionary tradition (Dugin, 2004).
 
V. Regionalism and Democracy
 
Regionalism is significant for Russia given her immense geographic distinctions. Eurasianism usually supports a strong sense of regional identity to balance centralized institutions. Regionalism for Russia has been an important problem since the Yeltsin administration because these were considered the more corrupt parts of the Russian polity. Regional governments were (and are) seen as the weak spots on the Russian body politic because of the older, clan-based models of both patronage and rent-seeking.
 
In the work of professors Phyllis Dininio and Robert Ortung, regional corruption has been the Achilles heel of Russia as a polity. In their 2005 article on the subject, there are two overpowering variables dealing with the regional idea: first, the size of the government and, second, the level of economic development. If Eurasianism is to enshrine regionalism as an essential part of its doctrine, then the problems of regional corruption need to be faced. While Putin has long promises to deal strongly with corruption, regional elites have been dug in through control over patronage and raw materials. In fact, the Dininio and Ortung thesis is that rent seeking increases in areas of great raw material production.
 
Corruption provides a great incentive to develop central institutions. The typical Eurasianist view is that internal moral virtues are just as important as external institutions. The “spiritual bonds” that the Eurasianist movement harps on continually is about the ability of local institutions to form virtuous citizens. A virtuous public would do well under even the worst form of government. In Russia's case, internal virtue is needed to rebuild institutions since the decay of the state in the early 1990s. 
 
Corrupt regions in Russia can be traced to large bureaucracies, tightly centralized, that can serve as rent protection for raw materials. The basic corrupt practice is that the bureaucrats use their access to the halls of power to charge a premium for those wishing to exploit or profit from it. This, in turn, strengthens the forces of disintegration and weakens the forces of the national will. While regionalism is important to the Eurasianist movement, it can never be the “cover” for an elite seeking to profit at the expense of the broader economy (Dininio and Ortung, 2005).
 
Regional corruption is an ideological issue for both the Eurasianists and the Putin government because both share the sense of a strong central authority that represents a well integrated regional identity. Regional identity and proper central representation are not opposites, but rather require each other to function. Putin's 2005 attempt to appoint certain regional leaders was seen as a way to correct this imbalance, yet, for the most part, American media treatment of the move was negative (Robertson, 2009)
 
Another reason why the regional idea is important is because it connects Russia to its “near abroad.” In a real sense, these can be called “regions” since—at least—they contain a certain proportion of Russian speakers. Ukraine is a powerful case in point. Ukraine was the center of the older Imperial state because her fertility fed the rest of Russia. To destabilize Ukraine and force it away from Russia is to wound Moscow tremendously. Ukraine is a region in the eyes of the Eurasianist, a region with legitimate cultural aspirations. Yet, there is no reason why she should remove herself from the Russian embrace and become the main agricultural supplier to the EU as a regional dependency (Shulman, 2005 and Bukkvoll, 1997).
 
Ukraine and other “regions” of the Russian near abroad show the significance of regionalism for Russian foreign policy. Eurasianism — and to a great extent the Putin presidency — wants to see a different sort of sovereignty. The Ukrainian national idea saw the world in black and while: either independence or empire. The Eurasianist sees it differently. As there is a “third way” in economics, there is also a third way in sovereignty, one that does not posit independence and empire as opposites, but rather as counterparts. In this case, a federative Russia sees Ukraine and Belarus retain basic control over internal cultural policy while serving a loose confederation of independent powers. Basic legislation is in the hands of regional elites, while foreign policy is maintained in Moscow. These federative concepts are a crucial element of Eurasian foreign policy, especially since both Ukraine and Russia have an active role in the Caucuses mountains. In both cases, the Slavic and Turkic connection is clear – the Slavs will be dealing with Asians as equal partners within a single “civilizational space” (Sangupta, 2009)
 
Ukrainian foreign policy as compared with the Russia shows many areas of overlap that display the significance of Eurasianism even for Kiev. Ukraine sees Russia the way the Eurasianists do – as a powerful empire and civilization more than a nation state. On the other hand, Kiev sees itself as a “central European” state using and manifesting certain parts of Russian Slavdom for its own purposes. Ukrainian foreign policy centers around making sense out of the competing demands of Moscow and the western powers, whether in Washington or Brussels. The seemingly unending recession and depression since 2007 is making the western option that much less appealing. 
 
The Eurasianist—naturally—sees southern and eastern Asia to be the future. If Ukraine s to “turn to the west,” she might be turning to a moribund body too indebted to help her development. Eurasianists can easily point to the apparently terminal stage of western capitalism and seek compensation in Asia (MacFarlane, 2006).
 
Ukraine and Russia both need to deal with regions. In Ukraine, the far Eastern coal and steel areas remain staunch Russian supporters and, to a great extent, neo-communists. These do not want a recreation of the Russian empire, but seek an independent Ukraine in fraternal union with Belarus and Russia, creating a Slavic colossus and trading empire the west must respect on the world stage. 
 
Ukraine and Belarus, in the Eurasian idea, are integral parts of a broader Russian federation. Such a federation is based on spiritual bonds and cultural history rather than economic self interest. Abstractions like rights and fraternity make no sense unless the spiritual bonds of the whole can be found in them. The concept of “home and hearth” is far more than a mere slogan of the bankrupt, but is crucial for any functional policy. Political debate implies a great level of commitment and consensus. Foundational issues must be settled before there can be any common ground to debate. 
 
VI. Conclusions
 
The Eurasian idea is central to Russian politics. While still only partially digested by western writers, Russians have been concerned with rebuilding. From the dust and ashes of an old empire a new identity is being forged, and, judging by the popularity of Vladimir Putin, the basic elements of Eurasianism seem to be significant (Kullberg and Zimmerman, 1999). The slavish imitation of the west is not an option, nor is going back to some kind of central control. The non-aligned movement, regionalism and the battles against corruption are but three pillars in a basic domestic and foreign policy that is to institutionalized many Eurasianist concepts. 
 
In conclusion, we can see several things developing:
 
1.Russia will not copy the west. The Yeltsin administration saw a huge proportion of the Russian economy shipped to foreign bank accounts and be taken over by those who had no hand in creating it. Democracy can be a dirty word in Russia since it is the system partially imposed by Boris Yeltsin. It just meant that the well connected were able to take advantage of the vacuum in both political and economic power.
2.Eurasianism is a popular and coherent option. Russia increasingly sees the west to be bankrupt, both literally and figuratively. The rebuilding process itself—similar to the 1960s decolonization movement in Africa—requires both a strong state and a significant sense of membership.
3.The state will continue to be an important part of the national economy. This is especially the case in areas such as oil and natural gas. The state will continue to own enterprises and can compete with cooperative and private ownership. Simple economic self-interest can never be the foundation of a national economy. The common good (represented y the state, albeit imperfectly) is equally as important as efficiency.
4.The west is in trouble, and is likely to continue in trouble. Her debt is massive, and her dependence on foreign oil equally so. Increasingly large trade deficits with China are the price she has paid for her retail prosperity. To think that the “western option” is an obvious or automatic one for Russia is absurd. The Eurasianists have a point when they stress the significance of the east in terms of economic potential. 
 
The shocking ignorance of American intellectuals trying to grapple with Eurasian concepts they do not understand underscores Dugin's main concerns. The US does not have the conceptual apparatus to properly understand the sweeping ontology of Eurasianiam. Western and westernized writers, such as Gene Veith, Doug Sanders, Anton Barbashin, Hannah Thoburn, and Anton Shekhovtsov display a disgraceful ignorance born of two things: first, their utter lack of intellectual preparation for the ontology and metaphysics of Dugin or anyone else outside of the western mainstream, and just as importantly, the fact that few of their readers know any better. This latter problem is everywhere, and gives the above a license to write as they please. This both frees them from actual understanding and insulates them from serious criticism. 
 
Since Eurasianism does not proceed from familiar journalistic cliches and pseudo-academic pretension, they do not have a framework to understand – let alone criticize – any of the views laid out. It shows the total collapse of serious thought in the pursuit of recognition as an “intellectual.” These are the residue of mass society and the collapse of intellectual honesty.

Bibliography:

Dininio, Phyllis and Robert Ortung. Explaining Patterns of Corruption in the Russian Regions. World Politics 57, 2005 500-529

Bukkvoll, Tor. Ukraine and European Security. Continuum Publishing 1997

Kullberg, Judity and William Zimmerman. Liberal Elites, Socialist masses and the Problem of Russian Democracy. World Politics 51 1999 323-358

MacFarlane, S. Niel. Is Russia an Emerging Power? International Affairs 82, 2006 41-57

Nikitin, Alexander. Russian Eurasianism and American Exceptionalism. Eurasia: A New Peace Agenda, Michael Intrilligator, et al (eds). Emerald Group Publishing, 2005, pps 157-170

Robertson, Graeme. Managing Society: Protest, Civil Society and Regime in Putin's Russia. Slavic Review 68, 2009 528-547

Sengupta, Anita. Heartlands of Eurasia: the Geopolitics of Political Space. Lexington Books, 2009

Shlapentokh, Dmitry. Russia between East and West: Scholarly Debates on Eurasianism. Brill, 2007

Shulman, Steven. National Identity and Public Support for Political and Economic Reform in Ukraine. Slavic Review 64, 2005 pps 59-87

Tolz, Vera. Conflicting Homeland Myths and Nation-State building in Postcommunist Russia. Slavic Review 57, 1998 267-294

Sorokin, P. A Survey of the Cyclical Conceptions of Social and Historical Process. Social Forces, 6(1), 1927: 28-40

Nazarbayev, Nursultan (2010). Eurasian Doctrine (Евразийская доктрина Нурсултана Назарбаева). Almaty: Institute for Philosophy

Dugin, A. Overcoming the West: An Essay on Nikolai Trubetskoy. эссе о Николае Сергеевиче Трубецком Arktogye, Eurasian Portal of A. Dugin, 2003

 The New National-Bolshevik Order. Arktugye, 2004

Eurasian Triumph: Essay on PN Savitsky.  Arktugye, 2000

Николай Алексеев: Теория евразийского государства. Eurasian Portal, 1999

http://evrazia.info/article/197

Ustrialov, N. Национал-большевизм. (Reprinted on the Site Russian Literature, first compied 1926)

http://www.rulit.net/books/nacional-bolshevizm-read-252152-136.html

About Trubetskoy. Eurasian Portal, 1997 (earlier version of the article above)

http://evrazia.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109

Nikitch, E. «Классовая борьба» (Widerstand, Berlin, 1932)

Ernst Niekisch: Europäische Bilanz, Potsdam: Rütten & Loening 1951

Ustrialov Nikolai. Понятие государства. «Сменовехизм» («Новости Жизни», 1925)

Alexeev, N. (1935) Теория государства: Теоретическое государствоведение, государственное устройство, государственный идеал. (Prague, 1935)

Alexeev, N. (1934)Об идее философии и её общественной миссии. (Put', Путь, 1934, no 44)

Alexeyev, N (1935) The Spiritual Background of Eurasian Culture. Trans, M. Johnson, Young Eurasia (originally published in the Eurasian Chronicle, Berlin, 1935)

http://yeurasia.org/library/classical_eurasianism/николай-алексеев-духовные-предпосыл/

 

Moscou, coupable idéal...

missile-system.jpg

Moscou, coupable idéal...

Le billet de Patrick Parment

Ex: http://synthesenationale.hautetfort.com

A l’heure même où les Israéliens mènent une énième opération militaire contre les Palestiniens à Gaza, on apprend qu’un avion de la Malaysia Airlines était abattu au-dessus du territoire ukrainien. Aussitôt la presse « occidentale » a accusé la Russie, et donc Vladimir Poutine, d’en être indirectement responsable en raison de son soutien à la résistance prorusse qui sévit dans l’Est de l’Ukraine.

Voici qui ne manque pas de nous laisser perplexe. Pour la bonne raison que l’on ne voit guère l’intérêt de Poutine dans cette affaire, pas plus d’ailleurs que celui des prorusses ukrainiens.

En revanche, plusieurs arguments militent en faveur d’une provocation « occidentale. D’autant que le régime du plus que douteux Piotr Porochenko est entièrement à la botte de toute la clique occidentale et à son désir d’amarrer l’Ukraine à l’Europe comme le souhaitent aussi les Américains. Ce qui est un mauvais calcul et dénote du peu de discernement du pouvoir ukrainien. Passons.

On rappellera également qu’Israël a envoyé des « observateurs » à Kiev au tout début des événements qui ont entraîné la chute de Viktor Ianoukovitch et que ceux-ci ne semblent pas avoir déserté le terrain. D’autant que les Israéliens ont tout lieu d’être actif dans une guerre larvée contre la Russie en raison de son soutien à l’Iran.

Pour les Américains, ce n’est pas leur coup d’essai dans cette région du monde où leurs « services » sont très actifs. Affaiblir la Russie, déstabiliser ses « marches » parce qu’elle n’entend nullement se soumettre à la dollarisation outrancière du monde, telle est la ligne géopolitique américaine.

Hasard du calendrier, Vladimir Poutine était de retour d’une réunion des BRICS (Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine et Afrique du Sud) à Fortaleza au Brésil où ces pays ont décidé de se doter d’une banque à hauteur de 100 milliards de dollars (voire plus) afin de se mettre à l’abri des crises du marché financier. En un mot, se protéger des aléas du dollar. Ce qui n’est pas fait pour plaire à Barack Obama, on s’en doute.

Enfin, il y a l’argument technique. Pour atteindre un avion à 10 000 mètres d’altitude, il faut un missile sol-air plutôt sophistiqué. On a cité un missile du type « Buck ». Or, ce genre d’engin nécessite la participation d’une soixantaine de personnes avant de pouvoir appuyer sur le bouton meurtrier. Il ne semble pas que la résistance prorusse soit en mesure d’aligner de tels techniciens. Il semble bien que nous soyons face, une fois de plus, à une provocation « occidentale » afin de discréditer Moscou. Et pour Israël de faire diversion et de minimiser l’opération de nettoyage dans les territoires palestiniens.

Spaanse luchtverkeersleider in Oekraïne zag twee jachtvliegtuigen bij Boeing

Spaanse luchtverkeersleider in Oekraïne zag twee jachtvliegtuigen bij Boeing

Wrakstukken bewijzen dat toestel niet door luchtdoelraket werd vernietigd’


Sporen van kogelgaten op een stuk van de vleugel zouden er op kunnen wijzen dat het toestel inderdaad is neergeschoten door een jachtvliegtuig.

Het begint er hoe langer hoe meer naar uit te zien dat het neerschieten van de Maleisische Boeing 777 een rasechte false-flag aanslag was, gepleegd door Oekraïne, mogelijk in opdracht van het Westen, of in ieder geval om het Westen tot ingrijpen tegen Rusland te dwingen. Foto’s van de wrakstukken van het toestel wijzen uit dat het vrijwel zeker niet getroffen kan zijn door een BUK-luchtdoelraket, zoals het Westen beweert. En waarom werden de tweets van een Spaanse luchtverkeersleider ter plekke, die bij de Boeing twee Oekraïense jachtvliegtuigen had waargenomen, haastig van het internet verwijderd, inclusief zijn complete Twitter-account?

‘El avión B 777 voló escoltado por 2 cazas de ukraine hasta minutos antes, de desaparecer de los radares’, twitterde Manu Abu Carlos, werkzaam als luchtverkeersleider in de buurt van de hoofdstad Kiev. Vertaald: ‘Tot enkele minuten voordat het van de radar verdween werd het B 777 vliegtuig door 2 Oekraïense jagers geëscorteerd.’

 

Carlos’ Twitteraccount, die sinds augustus 2010 in de lucht was en 10.400 tweets bevatte, werd snel verwijderd, maar niet voordat er screenshots van zijn tweets konden worden gemaakt. Ook op archive.org zijn de berichten nog te vinden. Natuurlijk wordt er her en der beweerd dat zijn account en/of zijn berichten vals waren. Jammer genoeg valt dat niet te controleren.

Wrakstukken komen niet overeen met raketexplosie

Er zijn hoe dan ook meer aanwijzingen dat de Westerse lezing (weer) niet klopt. De Maleisische Boeing zou door een Russische BUK-raket zijn getroffen, maar de wrakstukken laten zien dat dit niet het geval kan zijn. Een BUK raket zoekt namelijk geen hittebron zoals een motor, maar wordt per radar naar zijn doel geleid. Vlak bij het doel aangekomen ontploft de raket, waardoor er een grote zwerm metaaldeeltjes op het vliegtuig worden ‘afgevuurd’, waardoor dit wordt verpulverd.

Dat betekent dat de Boeing al hoog in de lucht uit elkaar moet zijn gevallen. Dat dit niet is gebeurd, is te zien aan de beide motoren, die dicht bij elkaar op de grond en zelfs nog in hun oorspronkelijke positie aan de voormalige vleugels liggen. De romp moet daarom tot aan de crash heel zijn gebleven. Daarom kan het toestel zo goed als zeker niet zijn geraakt door een BUK-raket.

Ander argument is het afvuren van zo’n raket enorm veel lawaai maakt en op grote afstand is te horen. Er zijn echter nergens ‘oor’getuigen te vinden die ook maar iets van een raket hebben gehoord of gezien.

Sporen van kogels op vleugel

Bovendien zijn op een foto van een deel van de linkervleugel sporen te zien die heel goed inslaggaten van kogels zouden kunnen zijn. Het lijkt er op dat een jachtvliegtuig van links achter de Boeing het vuur heeft geopend op de cockpit, waarbij de kogels de linkervleugel hebben geschampt.

 

De bewoners van het dorpje Hrabove zeiden echter dat ze een straaljager hadden gezien die raketten zou hebben afgevuurd. Het kan natuurlijk ook zo zijn dat ze het kanon van een jachtvliegtuig hebben gehoord en gezien, en dat hebben verward met luchtdoelraketten. (1)

 

Xander

(1) Friedensblick.de

Zie ook o.a.:

20-07: Geheime dienst Oekraïne neemt gesprekken met piloten MH-17 in beslag
18-07: Ooggetuigen: Maleisische Boeing neergeschoten door straaljager
18-07: Neergeschoten Maleisisch toestel: Sarajevo 1914 op herhaling?

mercredi, 23 juillet 2014

Geostrategic Battles for control of the Heartland

tchetchenie.jpg

Chechnya and the wars in the nineties: Geostrategic Battles for control of the Heartland

Chechen separatism and Chechen wars (1994-1996 and 1999-2000) are part of the process of anti-Eurasian  dissolution developed by Atlanticist strategists in the post- Soviet period. The Russian Federation is historically since Tsarist times a large-continental, integrating and tellurocratic state, an imperial power ... and a multi-ethnic state. In addition to the Slavic Russians, there are many other peoples living in the Russian Federation, and each enjoys a considerable degree of autonomy in their respective republic or oblast (region), with the absolute freedom to practice their religion or to use their language at an institutional level. 
 
Turkic people like the Tatars or Bashkirs, Mongol peoples like the Tuvans or Yakut, Caucasian like Chechen or Ingush... Christians, Muslims , Buddhists or adherents of ancient shamanism. There is even a Jewish Oblast near the Chinese border, whose capital is Birobidzhan .
 
Shortly after the final collapse of the USSR in 1991, not still satisfied with having achieved the breakup of the Soviet republics, the international Atlanticist thalassocracratic conspirators also attempted to dismember the Russian Federation, starting with the destabilization of the Caucasus. While in the Balkans they were destroying Yugoslavia, and while Russia was being sacked by massive capital evasions to the "west" and was being vampirically weakened by cosmopolitan oligarchs that privatized large national industries and by the implementation of ultra-liberal reforms to establish parasitism, a separatist subversion began in Chechnya, which later should (according to the  thalassocratic - globalist plans) then also extend to other republics, especially those with a Muslim majority, by the infiltration of Saudi Wahhabism. The goal was not only to dismantle the USSR, but also the Russian Federation.
 
The Chechen people
 
The Chechens are an ancient people located in the North Caucasus since at least 5000 years. The Caucasus has always been a region of great geostrategic importance because historically in this region three rivalizing Empires had their borders: Russia, Ottoman Turkey and Persia.
 
Being a mountain people (like the Basques in Spain, the Albanians in the Balkans or the Kurds in the Middle East) Chechens as well as other peoples of the North Caucasus (mainly Ingush and Dagestani) remained isolated for centuries and developed without foreign interference their particular idiosyncrasy, which includes a language of unknown origin without any apparent relationship with other languages spoken outside that area. They had contact with neighboring peoples such as the Alans (Ossetians), Georgians and with Byzantine culture and with the Terek Cossacks. 
They were lately Islamized and kept syncretistically in Islam particularities of their ancestral religion. Therefore, the traditional Caucasian Islam, although formally adhering to the Sunni  Hanafi school, incorporates ethnic elements that differentiate it from the mainstream Arab Sunnism.
 
Sufism is also extremely popular in the Caucasus. The two main tariqas (brotherhoods) are present: Naqshbandiyya is mostly in eastern Chechnya and Daghestan, while Qadiriyya has more adherents in western Chechnya and Ingushetia. One of the ritualistic differences between the two streams is the way to do the zikr; "Memory (of  the name of Allah)" a mystical practice of pronouncing the shahada - "la illah has illa'Allah " - , ritually , in a rhythmic and repetitive way until reaching a state of trance; this practice is analogous to the recitation of mantras of Hinduism and Buddhism; or to the Hesychasm in Orthodox Christianity.
 
While the Naqshbandi Sufis practice the zikr sitting in a state of stillness, the qadiris move rhythmically and sometimes run in a circle around an imaginary axis. (The Black Stone of the Kaaba?). In Chechnya there are 5% of Christians, most of them of Cossack origin.
 
The Chechens call themselves "Vainakh " or "nokhchiy" , which means "our people". Their language belongs together with the Ingush and Dagestani , to the nakh (Ibero-Caucasian) languages. Throughout history they have used Georgian, Arabic, Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. Ethnically they are of Caucasoid type, and they have societal similarities to the Avars and Alans.
 
The Alans, ancestors of today's Ossetians, are an ethnic group of Iranian origin that partially moved westwards after the invasions of the Huns,  reaching the Iberian Peninsula, after joining on the way Germanic tribes such as the Vandals and the Swabians. According to the Encyclop?dia Iranica, Alans contributed along with the Goths to name Catalonia (Got- Alania).
 
The Chechens have the haplogroup J2, mainly associated with the Mediterranean and the Fertile Crescent. They are genetically closer to the Basques or Britons than to the Slavs. In fact, they are by blood as close to the Basques as to the Ingush. Apparently, they are also associated with the mythical Cimmerians (equestrian nomads of the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea region, in which the writer Robert E. Howard found inspiration to create his character Conan the Barbarian), with the Sarmatians and the Assyrian-Hittite Kingdom of Urartu (cradle of the Armenian people).
 
After World War II, they were deported en masse to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan on Beria's orders; on accusations of having collaborated with the Axis.
 
The Chechens are historically a martial society organized in teips (clans), with a significant agrarian culture and attachment to the land.
 
The social structure is made based on nekye (families) integrated into gar (branches), which form the teip (clans), organized  in tukhum (web or union of clans).
 
They have a social code of honor: the nokhchallah (whose core values are morals, ethics, generosity, hospitality and protect women).
 
They all mythically descended from the same man, the Turpalo - Nokhchuo. The wolf is the national animal.
 
Religion
 
Religion is very much influenced by the Caucasian ethnic idiosyncrasies, so the traditional Chechen Islam syncretistically integrates elements of their ancestral spirituality.
 
Many Chechens and Ingush refer to God as Dela (instead of Allah), which is the supreme god of the Pantheon in the pre-Islamic period, comparable to the Greek Zeus or Wotan for the Germans.
 
There is a popular saying: "The Prophet Mohammad may have been an Arab, but God is a Chechen for sure".
 
The Wahhabism which was infiltrated during the '90s sought to "de- chechenize" Islam in Chechnya, imposing their demented satanic/globalist ideology of a Saudi-kind "universal caliphate". In addition, the emergence of Wahhabi separatism caused that secular nationalist idea was abandoned for the pan-Islamism (from "Republic of Ichkeria" to "Caucasus Emirate"). This caused many former secessionist militants (including Ahmad Kadyrov himself, father of Ramzan) to switch to the side of the Russian Federation after realizing what "independence" actually meant.
 
Post-Soviet separatism in the North Caucasus region
 
The idea of Chechen separatism (using subversive Islamic extremism and foreign mercenaries) was resurrected in the early '90s in the process of Soviet disintegration. The international plutocracy with the geopolitical goal of dominating the Eurasian Heartland, wanted to promote not only the dissolution of the tellurocratic, bi-continental and imperial power of the USSR, but also the dismemberment of the Russian Federation. Chechnya thus became the scene of a global battle between the two opposing geopolitical conceptions; corrosive globalism against the multipolarity of the large blocks; imperialism ("divide and conquer") against the Empire (federal autarky and integration).
 
In October 1991; Soviet ex - general and president of the Chechen Republic Dzhokhar Dudayev made a unilateral declaration of "independence", proclaiming the "Republic of Ichkeria ". His intention was to turn Chechnya into his personal feud, and to do so he was helped with covert CIA support.
 
For centuries, Chechens traditionally always devoted to the profession of soldier. The demobilization of the Red Army in the post- Soviet years led many to unemployment.
 
With Dudayev, who as a Soviet military man had never resided in the land of his ancestors, Chechnya became a haven for organized crime as it would later became Kosovo. The oligarchs were very involved in the illegal business with Chechnya, especially Boris Berezovsky. Dudayev came to threaten Russia with a terrorist campaign against its nuclear plants. Grozny's airport became a transit point for world heroin trade. 
 
In the previous decade, Dudayev had participated in the war in Afghanistan against the Mujahideen, but paradoxically he and his successors would later use them in Chechnya. He was not an Islamist as Basayev and Umarov, but he lacked scruples and in order to realize his aspirations of "independence", he allied with Saudi Arabia (soon establishing in Chechnya a network of mercenaries through Prince Bandar) and Turkey (member country of NATO). He is the Izetbegovic or Thaci of the Caucasus. 
 
He was an ally of the anti-Soviet Estonian nationalists (while his successor Aslan Maskhadov repressed them). In summer 1992, Dudayev made trips to Saudi Arabia and the UAE for support. Also to Turkey and Bosnia.
 
Berezovsky was an associate of Chechen gangsters. In 1993 he flew to Tel Aviv, and acquired Israeli citizenship without having to give up the Russian one.
 
General Alexander Lebed (who died in a mysterious "plane crash") stated that Berezovsky was responsible for the "peace negotiations" in Chechnya doing everything possible to make them fail.
 
Lebed : "After the signing of the peace accords of Khassaviurt [ ... ] Berezovsky came to see me and tried to intimidate me. When he realized that it was not possible to scare me, he simply said, "you have spoiled an amazing business. Everything was going so well. Were they killing each other? So what? They always have and will continue to do so anyway."
 
Salman Raduyev was a friend of Berezovsky. Ramzan Kadyrov declared years later that Berezovsky financed terrorists back in 1996 and 1997: "He could not afford to just give them the money, so (Berezovsky) invented the following mechanism: He asked (Raduyev and Basayev ) to kidnap people and he would pay the ransom: "I will receive good publicity and you will have the money". (Source: http://rt.com/politics/berezovsky-financed-terrorists-by-paying-ransoms-chechen-prez/)
 
Looter oligarchs like Berezovsky or Gusinsky, in those turbulent years, contributed to emphasize the precariousness of the Russian people and to spread misery; these plutocrats also collaborated with international high finance that sought to dissolve not only the USSR but also the Russian Federation.
 
Geoenergetic Question: There are not the natural resources of Chechnya which matters most to the Russians, but the network of oil pipelines in the Caspian sea. USrael steals oil from Russia through Georgia and Azerbaijan. Baku- Novorossiysk.
 
In 1993 Dudayev announced that Chechen language would stop using the Cyrillic alphabet and would begin to use the Latin one; also they stopped teaching Russian in schools.
 
Meanwhile, Chechen political groups from within the republic opposed his regime and decided to ally with Russia.
 
The first war to regain Chechnya took place between 1994 and 1996, ending with a ceasefire. Dudayev died in 1996 after being hit by a missile during the war.
 
Aslan Maskhadov came to power in 1997, he wanted to maintain the "sovereignty" and continue pressuring Moscow (which had enough economic problems on their own because of the parasitical oligarchs) to rebuild the country. Russia continued to send money for the rehabilitation of the republic, to build schools and hospitals, but most of the money was taken by the separatist authorities and the warlords who keep the money for themselves.
 
Formally, "Ichkeria" was still part of Russia, and enjoyed government subsidies and participation in the Russian financial system (their "independence " was UNILATERAL), but it did not contribute at all to the Federation. It was beyond the control of the customs bodies and of the Russian security forces. In a concession to the Islamists, Maskhadov decreed the imposition of Sharia in 1999. Chechnya began increasingly to become a Caucasian version of Taliban Afghanistan.
 
The second war began in July 1999 with the invasion launched by Basayev and Arab mercenary Khattab against Dagestan from Chechnya; with the complicity of Maskhadov, with the scope of also separating Dagestan from Russia and integrate it into the "Republic of Ichkeria" as a potential " Islamic emirate". In September, terrorist acts in Moscow apartment caused over 300 deaths.
 
Proponents of the conspiranoic theory that the bombs in the apartment were a "false flag" of the FSB, have connections with Berezovsky (Litvinenko, Kasparov, etc). The most rabid Zionist neocon hawks in Washington are also adherents of this real "conspiracy theory". A major case of PROJECTION (attributing to the crimes they themselves commit or the own ways of doing things to the adversary) is seen here: The same ones who affirm that after the bombings in Moscow apartments were Russian secret services to have an excuse to intervene in Chechnya, are the ones defending tooth and nail the "official version" of 9/11.
 
The Russian intervention in Chechnya in 1999 drew criticism (and even economic sanctions) from Washington, accusing Moscow of "violating human rights", urging the Russian government to "engage in dialogue" with the "moderate" Maskhadov. The State Department of the U.S. received in January 2000 none other than Ilyas Akhmadov, cabinet member of the separatist regime of "Ichkeria". Meanwhile, oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky (like Berezovsky also an Israeli citizen), owner of Media -Most and NTV channel, performed in Russia itself a media campaign in line with the Atlanticist view, attacking the "barbarism" of the Russian Army and the "war crimes" (obviously only the ones of the pro - Federation forces, systematically ignoring the atrocities perpetrated by the Chechen "rebels" - In Chechnya, as today in Syria, there were also two types of "combatants" : the "extremists" of  "Al Qaeda" (of which nobody was still speaking in the West, because this was before 9/11) and the "moderate" Maskhadov (analogous to current members of the "FSA"). 
 
Instead, the pro-Federation Chechens (which were increasing in numbers) were systematically ignored by the media (both Western and "Russian" - ie oligarchic - media, as the aforementioned Media-Most of Gusinsky). It was thus intended to give the public the wrong perception that it was a conflict of "Russians against Chechens" (of "evil imperialist Russians against poor Chechens who just wanted freedom"); when in fact it was a geopolitical conflict between supporters of the Federation and sympathizers of secessionism (among them less and less civilians and increasingly more militant Wahhabis - many of them foreigners - as well as organized crime figures and, of course, those who always benefit from the "divide and conquer".
 
Political analyst F. William Engdahl said that if Russia had not intervened in Chechnya between 1999 and 2000; the US would have had the excuse after the attacks of 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, to directly interfere in the North Caucasus (ie in the Russian Federation) alleging that the region could serve as a refuge to Bin Laden and Taliban leaders, after "not having found" them in Afghanistan.
 
Raduyev mantained that Dudayev (officially dead since 1996) was still alive, and gave orders for the "liberation of the Caucasus" from a secret NATO base in Turkey ( ! ). In 1999 Raduyev , whom the effects of an explosion had deformed the face, went to get plastic surgery to Germany (!) He got titanium implants, so they nicknamed him "Titanic" and "Michael Jackson". In 2000 he tried to assassinate Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, who a few years later was to be overthrowed by one of those colored revolutions of the post -Soviet space, and replaced with the more “cooperative” puppet Saakashvili.
 
In retaliation for the terrorist bombing of the Moscow apartments in September 1999, air strikes were carried out by Russia against the regime of "Ichkeria", and ground attacks in October. The Russian reaction, coordinated by Putin, was much better planned and executed than in the first war in 1994.
 
Since 2000, the separatists had access to sophisticated radars and anti-aircraft batteries (made in USA) . Georgia 's border with Chechnya was used to smuggle weapons and mercenaries for the CIA (perhaps the attempt to assassinate Shevardnadze in 2000 had something to do with his refusal or resistance to it?). In Taliban Afghanistan (with which "Ichkeria" had optimal contacts) there were trained terrorists for the " jihad" in Chechnya , with the help of the Pakistani ISI. Among them was Basayev, possible CIA agent.
 
Individuals like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Richard Pipes cynically criticed the "invasion" and "genocidal atrocities" supposedly committed by Russia in Chechnya (while, at the same time, the U.S. was planning and executing a TRUE invasion, that of Iraq) , and demanded  through the "American Comitee for Peace in Chechnya " (ACPC ) and other globalist organizations such as the "National Endowment for Democracy" (NED ) that Moscow should "negotiate" with the "moderate" Maskhadov government, even to the point of proposing to Chechnya "formal independence" under international supervision ( ! ) - see for example the article "Give Chechens a land of Their Own" (The New York Times, 9.9.2004 ) or "The Great Chessboard" (p. 88-89) of Z. Brzezinski.
 
In 2005, the U.S. television network ABC aired an interview with the head of the Chechen terrorists Shamil Basayev, one of the main responsibles for the slaughter of children in school in Beslan (North Ossetia) in September 2004. When the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed outrage about it, the US State Department said that the TV channel is backed by the "freedom of expression".
 
On March 7, 2006 a group of prominent characters of high finance and Western politics published an open letter in the media where they continued the anti-Russian hysteria, comparing the take of Grozny with Hitler's attack against Warsaw in 1944, condemning the "neo -colonial" behavior of Russia and urging to take "drastic measures" against the Russian government. The letter was entitled "End the Silence over Chechnya" and was signed, among others, by none other than the founder of the Open Society Institute George Soros, the French Zionist Andre Glucksmann or Saudi Prince Hassan Bin Talal .
 
At events like the G-8 conference in St. Petersburg in June 2006 or during the parliamentary elections of 2007, the Atlanticist lobby continued hostile anti-Russian statements and media campaigns through individuals like John McCain, Tom Lantos (one of the largest media agitators for the first invasion of Iraq in 1991, propagandist of the incubators-myth) or Ileana Rose-Lethinen, who accused Putin of "authoritarianism" , "corruption", "mysterious explosions in Moscow apartments " and "invasion of Chechnya".
 
Afghan Taliban recognized Ichkeria in 2000; also "Ukrainian nationalists" and Poland. Because of the Ukrainian conflict, it is now common knowledge that criminals of "Pravy Sektor" ( UNA / UNSO ) had ( and have) excellent connections with Wahhabi terrorists in the Caucasus; and that there even were Ukrainian fighters on the side of Dudayev?s separatists, such as Alexander Muzichko a.k.a. Sashko Biliy, while Pravy Sektor?s chief Dimitri Yarosh called for help from Doku Umarov. Ukrainian chauvinists are also fiercely anti -Serb ; recently it came to light that Croatian war criminals "coincidentally" acquitted at The Hague like Ante Gotovina have traveled to western Ukraine to train and advise the anti - Russian militias. (See: http://theremustbejustice.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/the-bloody-croatian-generals-acquitted-by-the-hague-tribunal-took-over-the-ukrainian-land-forces/ )
 
In June 2000, Putin appointed former chief mufti Ahmad Kadyrov head of the Chechen government, and the reconstruction of the Republic from the ashes began. Kadyrov had initially supported the secessionists in the early '90s, but stopped after discovering how talassocracy was instrumentalizing Chechen nationalism, and especially seeing the rise of insane Saudi Wahhabi ideology and the havoc it caused in the Caucasus - also after realizing that protecting ethnic idiosyncrasy and self-determination of the Chechen people were not at all incompatible with integration into the Russian Federation, a great continental power composed of diverse peoples and that had nothing to do with the oppression of the Soviet past. What was bad in the USSR has been reincarnated in (or transferred to) the "EU" and not to the New Russia - that's what many "nationalist" (especially Ukrainians, but also Baltic and Western) do not understand.
 
Following the takeover of Kadyrov and the beginning of the rebuilding of the country, about 7,000 former separatist passed to the federal side.
 
In 2003 it was approved a new Chechen constitution after a referendum; which gave the Republic a significant degree of autonomy.
 
In March 2004 Ahmad Kadyrov was murdered; the "moderate" Maskhadov said "he got what he deserved". Alu Alkhanov succeeded him as the head of the Chechen government, and the following year, in December 2005, he was replaced by Kadyrov 's son Ramzan, who continues to lead the Republic until today.
 
Beslan massacre
 
September 2004: Beslan, North Ossetia , 1100 hostages,  331 killed (186 of them children). The terrorists were drug-addicts used by Basayev. ( Basayev fought on the side of the Azeris against Armenians during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 92 , where he met Khattab. From that time - which coincides with the visit of Dudayev to Saudi Arabia - Wahhabism began to infiltrate in Chechnya . According to LITVINENKO and Berezovsky ( big " credibility ..."!) Basayev was conspiring with Putin against "moderate" Maskhadov - again we see the PROJECTION scheme, as what happened in reality was Bin Laden working with USA secret services.
 
By the way, Basayev 's brother, Shirvani, lives in Erdogan's Turkey.
 
Another Arab mercenary like Khattab is Muhannad, trained in the U.S., brought Wahhabism to the Kists of Pankisi (Chechens in Georgia) .
 
Spokesman of the separatist Ichkeria government  Ahmed Zakayev, exiled in London (!), said that Basayev "does not represent the Chechen cause" and that he is "an agent of Moscow trying to discredit it". But at the same time, despite the attack in Beslan, Zakayev named Basayev "Deputy Minister"  in 2005.
 
The "moderates " (Maskhadov) and the "extremists" (Basayev), as in Syria the "moderate FSA" and "extremist Al Qaeda / ISIS" etc. - the same false dichotomy as "Democrats vs. Republicans " in the USA .
 
In 2007; Anzor Astemirov (who studied Islamic theology in Saudi Arabia) officially requested U.S. help against "Russian aggression". Thereafter, "rebel" websites took out the phrase that read that Western countries were enemies of the "Caucasus Emirate".
 
Maskhadov
 
On March 8, 2005 Maskhadov was liquidated in a Russian special operation (an Ex-Soviet military commander like Dudayev, Maskhadov had paradoxically suppressed the Baltic independentists by orders of Gorbachev in 1991) Ramzan Kadyrov said in the Komsomolskaya Pravda that the death of Maskhadov on March the 8 was a sign of destiny in honor of all the women who were opressed in the obscurantist Maskhadov republic. Meanwhile, for the French Zionist Glucksmann, Maskhadov is a "hero of freedom".
 
In 2006 also Maskhadov 's successor Abdul Khalim Sadulayev was liquidated and shortly after also Shamil Basayev, mastermind of the Beslan massacre. In 2009 the Russian army withdrew from the Chechen Republic that had been  pacified and reconstructed and where the pro - Federation Chechens headed by Ramzan Kadyrov had managed to consolidate stability.
Interestingly, the same year of 2009 (when terrorists Maskhadov and Basayev had been eliminated and peace had returned to the region), the "Freedom House" placed Chechnya on its list of "most repressive societies in the world" along with North Korea or Burma (Coming from the Freedom House, that was actually a compliment) - It didn?t suit to  Atlanticism that the destabilizing poison had been crushed.
 
Meanwhile, Doku Umarov (successor of Basayev) abolished the "Republic of Ichkeria" and proclaimed the "Caucasus Emirate" calling himself  "emir".
 
Nationalism and Geopolitics
 
For a deeper understanding of the Caucasian conflicts (or the Balkanic one, or the current Ukrainian crisis), it is necessary to emphasize once again that there are only TWO geopolitical models, and in the continental tellurocratic dimension of Russia (or rather the Russias -in plural- analogously to the Spains of Carlist traditionalists) as integrative power of Eurasia and champion of multipolarity. The Russias are comprised of many peoples, that are integrated (not fused !) in the Federation. There is an absolute difference between this idea of federated, integrative union (the idea of Eurasia, whose core is Russia, Haushofer?s Kontinentalblock) and the "EU" a prison of nations that does not integrate but only merges chaotically, and that is not self-sufficient but dependent of the parasitic global finance, and which is not sovereign but an USrael colony.
 
Chechnya and other Caucasian peoples are factually much freer and have more autonomy (culturally and economically) if they are integrated in the Federation under the protective umbrella of Russia/ the Russias in the Eurasian Kontinentalblock, than with a fake "independence" that can not be such, because it would fall under the absolute control of the Rothschilds, Soros, etc. . That's what the "nationalist " and "independentists" do not understand; neither in Russia nor in Spain .
 
Chechnya has more political freedom and more autonomy from Moscow than any country in the "EU" from Brussels. (And who says Brussels, says Washington).
 
 
Meanwhile, the Russian "white supremacist" (racial chauvinists), the " neo-Nazi" and "skinheads" in Moscow and other cities that harass or discriminate against people from the Caucasus and other areas of the post -Soviet space (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz , etc. ) are the other side of the coin of ethno-social "divide and conquer". They are manipulated and used by those who seek the destruction of Russia (as the Russias / Eurasia). The strategic alliance between the "Ukrainian nationalists" and separatist Chechen Wahhabis is a clear example of this.
 
"Independence" ( ie its constitution as a truly sovereign state) of such small countries and regions (Chechnya has a total population of one million two hundred thousand) is not possible; nor it is desirable such a fallacious "independence", even if these peoples do have indeed a completely different and unique ethnic, cultural and linguistic idiosyncrasy; because then they would inevitably be devoured by the globalism of the "international community". 
 
Thus, "nationalists" feelings (ironically encouraged by those internationalists seeking to establish the dystopian entelechy of the NWO) are transformed in a weapon that turns against the nations themselves. In the case of the Caucasus, the best that can happen to this countries is to be under the protection of the Russian state, integrated in it in a Federation, enjoying full rights of autonomy, with the ability to enjoy their historical and ancestral tribal organization clans (the teips), and with their own regional laws (similar to the "fueros" in the case of Spain) . If not, the alternative to the "independence" of Russia, is the dependence of the "West" ; ie of USrael (which financed Wahhabis there, as it does in Syria), and a greater dependence on IMF, World Bank , and maybe even NATO (see Georgia) and EU ... See also what happened with the Baltic countries, which have gone from the bad (USSR) to the worst (EU).
 
In the case of Spain, Basque separatism is a creation of British imperialism (which was very admired by Sabino Arana - the "Basque Stepan Bandera" so to say), and both the Basque and Catalan separatism is functional to international imperialism, as it always the case with  chauvinist nationalism, seeking to separate from an historical entity (Spain / the Spains) to get into an artificial one ( "EU") , believing themselves to be "independent".
 
Ahmad Kadyrov and son Ramzan
 
Ahmad Kadyrov was born in Karaganda (Kazakhstan) in 1951, within a Chechen family who had been deported following WWII. He studied in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. He was a Sufi Cleric of the Qadiriyya tariqa and a Chechen politician, first a secessionist and finally pro-federation and president of the Chechen Republic from 2003 until his assassination a year later.
 
After the breakup of the USSR he initially joined the breakaway faction and was appointed mufti by Dudayev. But at the beginning of the second Chechen war in 1999, he switched to the pro-Russian side when he realized the geopolitical implications of the conflict and the increasing arrival of militant Wahhabis and Arab mercenaries of the Saudi orbit to extend terror and perpetuate conflict.
 
Kadyrov followed the teachings of the Chechen Sufi master Kunta-hajji Kishiev (1830-1867). His followers (which adhere to the Qadiriyya tariqa) believe that Kunta - hajji is one of the 360 saints who will return to Earth at the End of Time (which has some similarities with the eschatological prophecies of esoteric Shiism, the Hidden Imam, etc. ). 
 
The grave of Heda, the mother of Kunta - haji , is considered sacred by his followers, and became a source of conflict between Wahhabis and Sufis during the separatist government of Aslan Maskhadov. The Wahhabi "Puritans" wanted to destroy the tomb because they believe the veneration of saints to be "paganism". This was one of the turning points that led Ahmad Kadyrov , then grand mufti of Chechnya, to make the decision to break with the regime of Maskhadov and side with the Russian Federation.
 
With him began (from 2003 onwards) the period of peace and stability that lasts until today, under his son Ramzan. Ahmad Kadyrov made many ex-rebels pass to the pro-Russian side. (The Kadyrovtsy, pro-Chechen Federation troops are mostly ex-rebels. They are estimated to be around 5000).
 
There were a dozen assassination attempts against him, before the final one, on March 9, 2004. In the attack against him 30 other people were killed as well. Basayev was the organizer.
 
Ramzan (1976 in Tsenteroi), a boxer, a practicing Sufi, father of 5 daughters and 3 sons.
As Gaddafi in Libya, he banned alcohol and gambling. He replaced Alkhanov as head of the Republic after turning 30, minimum age for the post.
 
In 2006 the industry grew by 11.9 % , in 2007 26.4%
 
Logically , the "informative" media continued (and continues today) its smear campaign against Kadyrov and the pro-Federation Chechens, calling them " warlords" (which curiously had achieved peace, by the way) of "repressing  opposition" and of "crimes against human rights" , etc, etc. Apparently, they are worried about the stability that prevails today in Chechnya and by the fact that the potential of terrorist subversion has been smashed and virtually eradicated (both the "moderate" ones, openly friends with the "West" like the faction of Maskhadov, as well as the "extremists" ones of Umarov).
 
There were numerous assassination attempts against Ramzan, one of the most spectacular in October 2009.
 
In December 2009, the Chechen president said that the remaining terrorists are funded by the West.
 
In December 10, 2013 the opposition leader of Ingushetia, the separatist Magomed Khazbiev, attended the "Euromaidan" in Ukraine and participated in the anti-Russian campaign there. On February 2, 2014 FSB officially confirmed that in the mid December 2013 four  nor- Caucasian instructors were operating in Ukraine, and preparing the maidanite "rebels" for street fighting (Just like the Israelis military who were also there for the same... – See http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-israeli-special-forces-unit-under-neo-nazi-command-involved-in-maidan-riots/5371725)

mardi, 22 juillet 2014

“Russia Delenda Est”

201016903.jpg

“Russia Delenda Est”

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

10 juillet 2014 – Il a été confirmé hier, par des officiels US parlant à Novosti, que la Russie a accepté la nomination du nouvel ambassadeur des USA en Russie, John F. Tefft. (Voir Novosti, le 9 juillet 2014.) Proposé fin février par la Maison-Blanche, confirmé par le Congrès, Tefft a été nommé ambassadeur le 30 juin. Il semble que la Russie ait tout de suite accepté cette nomination, même si la confirmation en vient une dizaine de jours après. La nomination de Tefft et l’acceptation immédiate de Moscou proposent une seule et même explication : les USA et la Russie acceptent le fait qu’ils sont désormais des “ennemis”, – mais la chronologie est significative puisque le choix initial est de Washington : ce sont les USA qui proposent, ou imposent, cet état de fait d’un antagonisme affirmé et officiel. (Les autres initiatives ou opérations dans les relations USA-Russie ces derniers mois montrent effectivement que cet état de fait est une initiative américaniste, et cela confirmant amplement que les extrémistes de tous ordres, neocon, R2P ou d’obédience, etc., contrôlent la “diplomatie” US et ne rencontrent plus aucun obstacle.)

La personnalité de Tefft est largement commentée, pour ne laisser aucun doute sur ce que sera son séjour à Moscou. Le prédécesseur de Tefft, Michael McFaul, fut sans aucun doute un activiste de l’action subversive, notamment auprès de l’opposition anti-poutinienne, de l’organisation d’une opposition “civile” active, etc., mais il le faisait en présentant un visage souriant, avec une politique d’ouverture vis-à-vis de la Russie et du pouvoir russe, protestant de ses intentions profondes ou, plutôt, ne voyant pas dans ces intentions une marque d’hostilité vis-à-vis de la Russie mais plutôt une intention d’“aider” la Russie à progresser vers la “démocratie” inéluctable de la globalisation. Tefft, c’est le contraire. Il affiche ses intentions agressives, il le fait en besogneux, en agent-bureaucrate de l’organisation de la subversion brutale ; c’est lui qui était en Géorgie au moment de la guerre d’août 2008 et il avait eu la main très lourde en portant Saakachvili, qu’il traitait comme un homme-lige, dans l’organisation de l’invasion de l’Ossétie du Sud qui déclencha le conflit. Les commentaires russes sont alors unanimes : compte tenu de la situation, il vaut mieux un adversaire à visage découvert, l’on sait que l’on n’a rien à attendre de lui et qu’il importe de le combattre...

Parmi les divers commentaires accompagnant sa nomination, on retiendra d’abord celui de John Robles, pour Novosti, datant du 30 juin 2014 (annonce de la nomination définitive de Tefft), et détaillant la carrière du personnage et la signification de sa nomination.

«The choice by US President Barack Obama and the neo-conservative Cold War hawks running the US foreign policy establishment of John F. Tefft as the new US Ambassador to Russia should be setting off warning bells all over the Kremlin and in fact in all of the countries currently undergoing or targeted for US regime change/destabilization operations including Venezuela, Brazil, Syria and all other countries pursuing an independent foreign policy. With the current humanitarian catastrophe in Ukraine and the rise of violent fascist forces, the fact that the chief architect of Operation Ukraine is now being sent to Russia is at once chilling and at the same time predictable.

»After the spectacular failure of US Ambassador Michael McFaul to pull off a color revolution in Russia leading to his demise as the US top color revolution/destabilization specialist, the US as usual, rather than admitting it is wrong and pursuing a path of peace and promoting mutual cooperation, has decided to stubbornly snub its nose at the Kremlin and continue down a road of confrontation. With the leadership of the US State Department prone to statements such as Victoria Nuland’s famous ‘F...-the-EU”, the body responsible for diplomacy on a continuous confrontational war footing and organizations like USAID co-opted to the CIA and involved in destabilization operations all of the world every country that has not been already “annexed” by Washington should take a very close look at who they are allowing to operate in their country.

»This past April I summed up the choice as follows: “John F. Tefft, a Russia hater who served as US Ambassador to Ukraine, Georgia and Lithuania and promoted the invasion of South Ossetia while in Georgia, the current crisis and the resurgence of fascist forces in Ukraine and the rabid Russophobia and demonization of Russia in Lithuania, has been chosen to be the next US Ambassador to Russia. Tefft was extremely active and involved and one might say instrumental in bringing about the aforementioned anti-Russian events. As McFaul failed to organize the destabilization of Russia and the ouster of President Putin, apparently Obama is seeking more experienced hands.” [...]

»The US is bent on destroying Russia and preventing Russia from being a competitive global power. That fact is documented, all but openly stated and is no longer a secret. Ukraine has made it more than obvious even for the staunchest Washington apologists and the idea of some “reset” or peaceful cooperation from the US side has become nothing but a fantasy...»

 

La situation que symbolise l’arrivée de Tefft à Moscou, et la stratégie russe vis-à-vis de cette nomination dans la logique de l’acceptation de cette nomination, est résumée par Karine Bechet-Golovko, sur son blog (Russiepolitic), le 9 juillet 2014, en termes nets et sans ambiguïtés. «Le nouvel homme fort de la diplomatie américaine en Russie est un habitué de la préparation et de l'analyse des révolutions dans l'espace-post soviétique. En Géorgie au bon moment, en Ukraine il a laissé la situation prête à l'emploi, son arrivée officielle à Moscou est un signal à double sens. Et du côté américain, et du côté russe. “Nous lançons une attaque frontale contre la Russie !” “Nous sommes au courant et prêt à vous accueillir”. Les jeux sont faits. [...]

»Il y a encore peu, les Etats Unis hésitaient à envoyer justement cet homme, John Tefft, prendre en main le conflit avec la Russie, car justement cela aurait pu être interprété, vu son parcours, comme un acte “malveillant”. Mais avec l'accélération de la défaite de la politique américaine face à la Russie, au besoin de la radicaliser pour ne plus laisser le temps à la critique, les apparences amicales sont devenues le dernier des soucis. A la guerre comme à la guerre. Et bien sûr la Russie accepte cet ambassadeur. Au moins elle sait à quoi s'en tenir avec celui-ci. C'est un ennemi traditionnel, classique, pur et compétent. Donc le jeu est possible...»

Du point de vue des commentateurs US, on fait à peu près la même analyse, en constatant qu’avec l’ambassadeur Tefft effectivement “les jeux sont faits” et chacun sait à quoi s’en tenir. Voici ce qu’en dit Marc Champion, de Bloomberg.News, le 9 juillet 2014, – on se contente d’enchaîner son introduction et sa conclusion ... «To understand how little the U.S. and Russia expect of their relationship these days, consider this: The Barack Obama administration has put forward John Tefft, who is something of a bogeyman for the Russians, to become the next ambassador to Moscow – and the Kremlin today said it's fine with that. [...] The U.S. has given up on having positive ties with Russia and has accepted a frostiness reminiscent of the Cold War. That suits Putin, who uses anti-Americanism to build support at home. The two countries no longer want to pretend to be friends. What they seek in a U.S. ambassador is someone with a safe pair of hands and no illusions about what the relationship can deliver. Tefft is perfectly cast for that job.»

On observera que, dans son analyse, Champion se réfère à la Guerre froide («The U.S. has given up on having positive ties with Russia and has accepted a frostiness reminiscent of the Cold War»), ce qui est fondamentalement incorrect et mesure la gravité de la situation dans le chef de la politique d’agression des USA (aucune autre expression que cet extrême de “politique d’agression” ne convient). Comme nous l’avons déjà développé (voir le 20 mars 2014), la Guerre froide était une époque où les puissances (les deux superpuissances) avaient le sens de la responsabilité. Les ambassadeurs US à Moscou, de Harriman (1945) à Malcolm Toon (1976-1979) à Jack Matlock (1986-1991) étaient tous des diplomates cherchant au mieux à améliorer les relations entre les USA et l’URSS, à comprendre la politique soviétique, à susciter des accords, à écarter toute rhétorique agressive et toute interférence dans la souveraineté nationale du pays-hôte. (La même chose valait pour les ambassadeurs soviétiques à Washington, notamment avec le formidable Dobrynine, de 1962 à 1986, qui joua un rôle fondamental dans le maintien de relations acceptables et dans les tentatives d’amélioration de ces relations, qui joua un rôle presque équivalent à celui du ministre des affaires étrangères, auprès de Kennedy, de Nixon et de Kissinger, etc.)

Aujourd’hui, avec Tefft, c’est le contraire, c’est même une situation exceptionnelle dans l’histoire diplomatique : un ambassadeur nommé dans le but explicite d’exercer des pressions agressives sur la pays-hôte. C’est une totale inversion de la fonction d’ambassadeur, par rapport à la tradition diplomatique, – et donc parfaitement un événement qui renvoie à la tendance générale de cette époque dans le chef du Système. Il s’agit d’une époque de complète inversion, où les activités humaines dans le chef des directions politiques soumises au Système constituent une recherche constante de la déstructuration et de la dissolution.

Encore faut-il bien voir que le cas de l’ambassadeur Tefft n’est ni une exception, – bien entendu, – ni ce qu’il y a de plus extrême dans l’agression de l’américanisme au service du Système. On pourrait, on devrait même ajouter qu’une Victoria Nuland, dont on sait pourtant l’hystérie activiste, fait parfois, aujourd’hui, figure de modérée dans le climat général de Washington ... Par exemple, lors de cette audition, au Sénat, devant la commission des affaires étrangères. La pauvre Victoria Fuck-the-UE tente désespérément de paraître une “dure” devant les assauts des sénateurs. Elle profère des affirmations absolument rocambolesques (les Russes livrent des chars, de l’artillerie lourde, des avions de combats aux milices du Donbass qui massacrent à qui-mieux-mieux), promet très vite de nouvelles sanctions comme les Russes, – mais rien n’y fait, elle paraît tout de même emportée dans la marée des critiques de sénateurs qui l’accusent de complaisance, de faiblesse... Le spectacle est au-delà d’être surréaliste ; il est d’une autre planète, d’un autre univers. (Dans The Daily Times du 10 juillet 2014.)

«“We are ready to impose more costs — including targeted, sector-specific sanctions — very soon if Russia does not decisively change course and break its ties with separatists,” Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Nuland charged that separatists used a recent 10-day ceasefire to conduct “violence, bloodshed and land grabs,” and that “Russia allowed tanks, heavy artillery and fighters to flow” into Ukraine and built up its own forces on the Russia-Ukraine border. She said Washington was working closely with European allies on timing of the sanctions, and said a decision could come as soon as July 16, when EU leaders meet before a summer break. [...]

»But in a series of tense exchanges, the panel’s top Republican, Senator Bob Corker, told Nuland the United States was “acting like a paper tiger,” unwilling to take specific steps against Moscow. “I’m embarrassed for us,” he said. “I just wish the administration would quit saying publicly (that the US will take tough action) when we’re not going to act.” Committee chairman Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat, also expressed concern Washington was failing to keep pressure on Russia. He pointed to EU calls for Russia to end support for the separatists, control the border, return seized checkpoints to Ukrainian forces, release hostages and begin negotiations on Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s peace plan. “I see no advance in any of those standards. So what are we waiting for?” he asked Nuland. Nuland said that while new sanctions would be more effective if done in concert with Europe, “the president has always made clear that if necessary we will act on our own.”»

Pour décrire la situation, à nouveau le jugement de l’ancien chef des services soviétiques de renseignement extérieur Chebarchine a sa place («La seule chose que l’Ouest attend de la Russie c’est que la Russie n’existe plus»). Malgré sa politique qui est l’objet de critique de la part de l’aile nationaliste dure des milieux politiques, la direction politique russe est sans aucun doute consciente de cette avancée irrésistible vers la confrontation, parce qu’il est simplement impossible de la nier, de l’ignorer, etc. Nous en sommes même à un point où même une capitulation, par ailleurs difficilement concevable, de la direction russe ne satisferait sans doute en rien cette poussée d’agression, qui serait même vue comme une nouvelle ruse, une incitation à pousser plus encore les feux. La politique de Poutine consiste pour l’instant à exercer toute la pression possible pour détacher les pays européens des USA, d’ailleurs avec certains résultats. (Par exemple, on note un coup de téléphone Fabius-Lavrov le 9 juillet, où les deux ministres sont tombés d’accord sur le constat que le pouvoir de Kiev ne respecte pas l’accord de cessez-le-feu obtenu à quatre à Berlin, le 2 juillet.)

On évoquait hier sur ce site comme point de confrontation les combats en cours dans le Donbass, avec ce qui pourrait être une sorte de “bataille de Donetsk”, et l’hypothèse que le pouvoir de Kiev serait mis en danger. Une autre possibilité apparaît, qui serait l’hypothèse d’une attaque contre la Crimée. (La chose est envisageable, par exemple si le pouvoir à Kiev, confronté à des très dures conditions intérieures, ou menacé, choisit une fuite en avant en lançant une attaque pour récupérer la Crimée, – comme l’a promis d’ailleurs le nouveau ministre ukrainien de la défense.) Hier, lors d’une conférence de presse commune avec la ministre italienne des affaires étrangères Federica Mogherini, Lavrov a observé, en réponse à une question : «Je ne suggère à personne (de tenter une telle action). Nous avons une doctrine de sécurité nationale et elle illustre clairement quelles actions seraient décidées (de notre part) dans ce cas...» D’une façon ou d’une autre et quel que soit le lieu choisi, les Russes n’ignorent donc pas qu’ils pourraient être placés devant le choix suprême, et Lavrov signifie qu’ils ne reculeront pas dans ce cas.

Un “extrémisme absolu automatisé”

Il s’agit maintenant d’examiner de quoi il est question. A ce degré de détermination, de pression, d’irresponsabilité, d’absence du moindre intérêt pour les contradictions entre telle décision et telle déclaration, pour les vérités de situation, etc., il nous apparaît de plus en plus évident que ce qui est en cours n’a plus rien de commun avec une politique extérieure, voire à une pression d’une ambition hégémonique, voire à un complot d’agression d’une puissante, etc. La dynamique en cours est d’une sorte qui dépasse la seule activité humaine habituelle. Notre appréciation est que nous sommes au-delà des conceptions et des manigances humaines, et le désarroi d’une Nuland qui a trouvé plus extrémiste qu’elle dans le rassemblement des dignes sénateurs de la commission des relations extérieures constitue un excellent symbole de cet événement. A la phrase ci-dessus sur “extrémistes de tous ordres, neocon, R2P ou d’obédience, etc., [qui] contrôlent la ‘diplomatie’ US et ne rencontrent plus aucun obstacle”, on devrait substituer qu’il n’est nul besoin de “contrôler”, parce que la “politique” US est devenue extrémisme pur.

La poussée actuelle, furieuse, irrésistible, sans aucun intérêt ni pour l’arrangement politique, ni pour la légalité, ni pour la vérité de la situation, dépasse les projets humains et doit se ranger dans la dimension métahistorique selon notre conception. Désormais, le Système est à visage découvert et c’est lui qui active directement ce qui paraît être une “politique” et qui n’est plus qu’un “déchaînement”, – déchaînement de puissance, déchaînement de fureur, déchaînement de force, déchaînement aveugle et nihiliste, dont la logique nous ramène évidemment à notre explication initiale de la séquence métahistorique qu’est le “déchaînement de la Matière” accompagné de l’habillage conceptuel de l’idéal de puissance”. Cette dynamique se précipite sur ce qu’elle juge, à juste raison, être le principal obstacle sur sa voie d’accomplissement de la déstructuration et de la dissolution, c’est-à-dire la Russie.

Il s’agit d’une activité dynamique que nous jugeons quasiment autonome du système, et qui s’affiche désormais comme telle, en fait qui est identifiable comme telle dans diverses occurrences où l’on voit les acteurs, ou les figurants humains, renoncer à toute logique, à toute raison dans leurs jugements, à abandonner même leurs positions idéologiques pour simplement développer un extrémisme sans frein. Cette activité est beaucoup plus possible aux USA qu’ailleurs, d’abord pour des raisons conjoncturelles qui rendent plus difficile le développement des polémiques habituelles, avec notamment l’affaiblissement du rôle contradictoire joué par les “dissidents” antiSystème qui trouvent dans la crise ukrainienne moins d’aliments pour leur critique de la politique-Système, impérialiste et belliciste, de l’américanisme ; on a déjà noté que la crise ukrainienne y avait beaucoup moins d’écho que les crises du Moyen-Orient, parce que, instinctivement assimilée à la complexité européenne historiquement suspecte aux USA, elle ne soulève pas l’intérêt qu’on trouve pour les crises du Moyen-Orient fortement liées à la narrative du terrorisme qui gouverne la séquence historique US depuis 9/11. D’autre part, on constate la puissance extrême et la persistance du réflexe antirusse aux USA à cause des pesanteurs de l’histoire et des narrative qui l’accompagnent (la Russie socialiste/communiste, la Russie étatiste, etc.), ce qui diminue également la possibilité que la crise ukrainienne puisse être un terrain pour cette polémique entre partisans et adversaires de la politique washingtonienne, et que la tension extrémiste puisse ainsi être nuancée, ou retournée contre elle-même par des dissidents décidés. (Les Européens ont une façon différente de voir et de comprendre cette crise ukrainienne, étant beaucoup plus proche de la vérité de la situation, et éventuellement plus sensibles aux nuances que leur a appris leur passé historique. )

Dans de telles conditions, les USA développent d’autant plus leur position traditionnelle d’extrême sensibilité, en tant que groupe humain, à la puissance niveleuse et conformiste du système de la communication, et se retrouve beaucoup plus aisément emportés par l’impulsion du Système. La psychologie américaniste, qui se développe selon les caractères d’inculpabilité et d’indéfectibilité, est d’une extrême vulnérabilité à l’entraînement de la dynamique lancée par le Système, dès lors que cette dynamique est assimilée par elle à l’exceptionnalisme américaniste. (On notera que cette psychologie s’est préparée à l’extrême sensibilité qu’elle montre aujourd’hui au déchaînement de la dynamique-Système, par le renouveau depuis l'automne 2013, – à cause de Poutine et de son article dans le New York Times ! – du débat sur l’exceptionnalisme des USA, qui est très rapidement devenu une opération de communication pour réhabiliter cette notion. L’entraînement du Système permet de conforter cette orientation.)

Le comportement de la direction politique US, dans tous ses composants, apparaît alors beaucoup plus automatisé dans le sens de l’extrémisme le plus constant, qu’on pourrait même qualifier d’extrémisme absolu automatisé puisqu’il implique effectivement l’hypothèse qui va presque de soi, qui n’a même pas besoin d’être exprimée, de la disparition de la Russie («La seule chose que l’Ouest attend de la Russie c’est que la Russie n’existe plus») ; cet “extrémisme absolu automatisé” n’ayant alors plus aucun rapport avec l’étiquetage idéologique habituel. L’épisode de l’audition de Nuland au Congrès, que nous avons découvert par hasard et qui ne soulève aucune interrogation, aucun intérêt aux USA, est nous semble-t-il particulièrement révélateur. L’incontestable meneuse de la faction neocon dans l’ensemble “diplomatique” US (département d’État, NSC, etc.) se retrouve presque mise en accusation comme modérée, comme l’étaient pendant la Guerre froide les partisans de la détente face aux factions extrémistes d’extrême-droite. Ce n’est pas parce que la commission des affaires étrangères a modifié en quoi que ce soit son opinion, mais simplement parce qu’elle cède à la dynamique en question, parce qu’elle est particulièrement bien disposée pour le faire. Elle n’a même pas besoin d’un McCain pour cela (McCain se trouve, comme président de la minorité républicaine, dans la commission des forces armées). Elle évolue, comme l’on dirait, en “roue libre” de la pensée, c’est-à-dire la pensée réduite à la dynamique en question.

On comprend dans ce cas que nous persistions à juger la crise ukrainienne comme beaucoup plus grave que la crise irakienne qui se déroule en parallèle, alors qu’aux USA la crise irakienne fait toutes les manchettes de la presse-Système autant que les attaques critiques des réseaux antiSystème, tandis que la place accordée à la crise ukrainienne est minime. (De fait les deux crises se complètent et devraient interférer de plus en plus, les Russes se rapprochant des Irakiens et des Iraniens d’une façon marquée, selon un jugement qui est nettement influencé par l’antagonisme du bloc BAO qu’ils ressentent au niveau de la crise ukrainienne.) Nous pensons en effet que l’épisode décisif pour le Système va plus que jamais naître au cœur de la crise ukrainienne et de ses divers prolongements, plutôt que dans la crise de l’Irak et du Moyen-Orient. Cet épisode décisif sera nécessairement explosif aux USA au niveau de la communication, et pour la psychologie, puisqu’il confrontera une psychologie réduite aux deux éléments du désintérêt pour la crise et de l’extrémisme antirusse absolue, à la possibilité s’avérant brutalement réelle d’un affrontement avec la Russie, avec potentialité d’un conflit nucléaire. C’est alors, lorsqu’on réalisera cette potentialité, qu’on peut envisager des prolongements et des effets indirects extrêmement brutaux et complètement incontrôlables, vers un épisode qui pourrait susciter le dernier épisode de la crise d’effondrement du Système.

MH17: World See Tragedy, US Sees “Game Changer”

vol-mh17malaysia.jpg

MH17: World See Tragedy, US Sees “Game Changer”

United States Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power made a series of baseless, contradictory accusations aimed at politically exploiting the tragic loss of Malaysia Boeing 777 flight MH17 with nearly 300 civilians on board.

Power asserted that the most likely culprits behind the downing of MH17 were eastern Ukrainian separatists. Because of the high altitude MH17 was travelling at – approximately 33,000 feet – Power conceded that the weapons separatists have been using to down Ukrainian military aircraft would have been inadequate to down MH17. After claiming separatists had “bragged” about downing the airliner based on information from “social media,” she explained that Russia most likely assisted the separatists in operating the sophisticated anti-air missile systems required to reach MH17′s altitude.

Power gives no explanation as to why after multiple successful downings of Ukrainian military aircraft with man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), Russia and the separatists decided to employ larger, more complex weapon systems that would link any incident directly back to Moscow. Power also failed to explain how in one breath she suggests the separatists shot down MH17, then in the next claimed they did not have the ability to do so, and that Russia instead “assisted.”

Power appears to be suggesting Russia rolled self-propelled anti-air missile systems into Ukrainian territory and assisted separatists in firing at MH17 specifically – since all other incidents of separatists shooting down aircraft involved man-portable systems incapable of hitting MH17.

Separatists Haven’t Used Buks, Nor Do They Need To

Jane’s Defense Weekly’s articles, “Two Ukrainian Mi-24s shot down by MANPADS,” “Ukrainian Mi-8 shot down near Slavyansk,” and “Polish Grom MANPADS appear in east Ukraine conflict,” illustrate the scale of proliferation in both numbers and varieties of man-portable anti-air systems that have ended up in separatist hands. Power and other Western sources have claimed higher flying military transports being shot down by separatists indicate that indeed they have begun deploying – with Russia’s help – sophisticated self-propelled missile systems.

However, Jane’s article, “Ukraine claims Malaysian airliner was shot down in its territory,” gave an alternative explanation as to how separatists were able to down military transports flying at higher altitudes – the use of newer SA-24 man-portable systems. While the SA-24 allows separatists to target turboprop transporters at cruising altitudes, it still would have left MH17 out of reach.

If separatists did use a Buk (SA-11) self-propelled surface-to-air missile system to down MH17, it would have been the first attempt made with the sophisticated weapon, against the highest flying aircraft targeted thus far in the conflict, and done so at incredible risk when man-portable systems had already proven such a success. In other words – it is a scenario that is very unlikely – and a scenario Samantha Power and the special interests she represents have failed to underpin with evidence.

Strategically, politically, and even tactically, Russia and the separatists gained nothing by employing the larger Buk systems within Ukrainian territory as Power is suggesting.

Where the World Sees Tragedy, NATO Sees a “Game Changing” Opportunity 

Power’s comments and conclusions were echoes from the halls of the West’s corporate-financier funded policy think-tanks. The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in a statement titled, “The Downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17: Russia in the Dock,” provides a self-incriminating indictment as to the motives Kiev and its NATO backers had in carrying out the attack on MH17 and subsequently framing Russia for it. RUSI’s statement claims:

A Game Change: Within days, however, the real debate will shift from one about producing the right evidence and culprits, to more about what can be saved from the rapidly-deteriorating relations between Russia and the West.

The tragedy will stain Russia’s relations with the world for years to come. Nations determined to keep on good terms with Russia – such as China or Vietnam which relies on Russian weapon supplies and wishes these to continue – will keep quiet. And there will always be some plausible deniability, giving other countries enough room for manoeuvre to avoid accusing Russia directly for this disaster. But the culprits for the crime will be pursued by international investigators and tribunals. And many Russian officials will be added to the ‘wanted’ lists of police forces around the world. The story will linger, and won’t be pretty for Russian diplomats.

Given the fact that the majority of the victims are European citizens, it is also getting increasingly difficult to see how France would be able to deliver the Mistral ships which Russia ordered for its navy, or how Britain could continue shielding Russia from financial sanctions. And, given the fact that scores of US citizens were also killed on the MH17 flight means that the US Congress will demand greater sanctions on Russia, making any improvement in relations with Washington highly unlikely.

vol-mh17.png

RUSI explains in great detail the possible motivation Kiev and NATO had to shoot down MH17 and subsequently frame Russia. An international flight, with passengers from across the globe would invoke unifying outrage against Russia as well as universal support for NATO’s so far unsuccessful attempts to isolate Moscow. RUSI itself admits that individual members of the EU have until now, been reluctant to back sanctions and further confrontation with Moscow.

NATO’s Atlantic Council claimed in a statement titled, “In the Ukraine War, Putin’s Veil of Deniability Has Vanished,” claims:

The Kremlin’s thin veil concealing its waging of war against Ukraine effectively disappeared weeks ago for anyone carefully watching the evidence. But now it has vanished even for the casual observer. Moscow’s escalation of the war since the start of July has created too much clear evidence to permit President Vladimir Putin any further benefit of the doubt.

NATO needed a “game changer,” because it was playing a game it was clearly losing. The dubious circumstances surrounding the downing of MH17 – occurring just as Kiev’s forces were deteriorating across the country and additional US sanctions against Russia fell flat –  is more than a mere coincidence. RUSI and the Atlantic Council’s statement represent an increasingly desperate and shrinking corner the West finds itself in. With the ascension of Russia along with other BRICS nations, a “game changer” was desperately needed to “stain Russia’s relations with the world for years to come,” and help arrest what appeared to be the irreversible rise of the global East and South, in tandem with the irreversible decline of the West.

If the West was so sure of who was responsible for the downing of MH17, it would patiently allow the facts to reveal themselves, giving them unassailable credibility as they begin an effective campaign to contain, isolate, and dismantle Russia’s global influence. However, just like in Damascus, Syria in August 2013 when NATO gassed thousands of Syrians in what is now confirmed to be a false flag attack, the West is racing against the clock to do maximum damage before the truth of MH17 emerges.

The very expediency the West pursues its smear campaign against Russia with raises suspicion. The world has been at critical junctures like this before, with Western politicians and media personalities making well-scripted, passionate pleas – but based on little to no “evidence.” Weathering the psychological inertia the West is seeking to stampede its political assault on Russia through with, will cause the West’s attempts to reverse its fortunes in Ukraine to fail. Failing in Ukraine will weaken the West’s position in Syria and Iraq, further undermine its “pivot” in Asia, and diminish its ability to visit upon humanity yet another horrific staged event it may finally realize will only further compromise its place among a new emerging, multipolar global order – not help it restore its antiquated “unipolar” empire.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

 

US Aims at Blowing EU-Russia Rift with Downed Airliner

volbig.jpg

US Aims at Blowing EU-Russia Rift with Downed Airliner

Finian CUNNINGHAM

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

 
The downing of Malaysian Airlines MH17 over eastern Ukraine with the loss of all 298 onboard comes amid mounting frustration between Washington and its European allies over the imposition of further trade sanctions on Russia.

Days before the doomed flight, American officials were quietly voicing their agitation at European leaders’ reluctance to apply sanctions that would hit Russia’s key economic sectors. 

While media reports earlier this week suggested that the US and the European Union were adopting a «united front» in the ramping up of penalties on Moscow, the underlying reality was very different. EU leaders were actually telling media that they were not yet ready to go beyond existing sanctions against Russian individuals, by following Washington’s latest measures against Russia’s energy, banking and defence sectors.

Now various Western media pundits are talking of a «game-changer» with the downing of the Malaysian Boeing 777 near Donetsk in eastern Ukraine. The flight was most likely hit by a sophisticated surface-to-air missile while cruising at a mid-air altitude of 10,000 meters (33,000 feet).

Perhaps significantly, most of the passengers onboard the flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur were European nationals, mainly from the Netherlands and Britain, as well as Germany and Belgium. At over 170 passengers, the Dutch contingency was the largest onboard.

Let’s step back a bit. Following the Western-backed illegal coup in Ukraine on February 23, geopolitical tensions escalated further during March when the southern Crimea Peninsula voted in a referendum to join the Russian Federation. Washington and its European allies immediately launched vitriolic attacks on Russian President Vladimir Putin for what they said was «an illegal annexation» of Ukrainian territory. Western media chimed in with lurid claims that Putin was the «new Hitler» and that the Russian leader was trying to resurrect the old Soviet Union.

Initially, Washington and European governments threatened that they would together ratchet up trade sanctions on Russia if Moscow did not hand back Crimea and also if it did not stop (allegedly) stoking other separatist revolts in the Ukraine’s eastern regions of Luhansk and Donetsk. 

On March 25 while hosting US President Barack Obama in The Hague, Dutch premier Mark Rutte spoke of a united front.  

Rutte told US news channel CNBC: «It’s difficult to foresee whether he [Russian President Vladimir Putin] will retract from Crimea or not, but I do feel that Russia senses we are serious and we want them to give up the Crimea, and at least prevent this conflict from spiralling to other regions of Ukraine.»

However, since that time there has been a notable divergence between the American and European positions over the Ukraine crisis. Washington has been pushing a more aggressive policy to hit Russian economic sectors, while Europe is reluctant to go beyond the more symbolic sanctions that target Russian individual politicians and businessmen.

With Europe heavily dependent on Russian trade, particularly in the energy sector, European governments soon realised that ratcheting up more aggressive sanctions would inflict serious damage on their own economies far more than the American economy. 

Germany, Austria, Italy, Greece and Spain have emerged as some of the main political obstacles in Europe to implementing the American tough line. 

Prominent among the European commercial concerns are those of its energy companies. Royal Dutch Shell is one of the most exposed European conglomerates if Western sanctions were to be stepped up further on Russia.

It is notable that within days of the Dutch premier’s seemingly tough stance reported in March, the Chief Executive of Shell, Ben van Beurden, travelled to Moscow in early April to meet Vladimir Putin at the latter’s Moscow residence. The Shell boss reportedly reassured Putin that the energy giant was still proceeding with ambitious plans to expand oil and gas projects in Russia’s far-east «despite Western sanctions». 

Shell is partnered with Russia’s state-owned Gazprom in developing the Sakhalin-2 Project, which is reputed to be one of the world’s biggest oil and gas exploration ventures. In particular, the project is aimed at developing Liquefied Natural Gas for the Japanese and South Korean markets – in direct competition to American commercial interests in its own new LNG industry.

If the EU were to adopt US-led sanctions on Russia’s energy sector, Royal Dutch Shell and other European giants, such as British Petroleum, stand to lose billions of dollars-worth of investments. It can be safely assumed therefore that these companies have been lobbying their respective governments to show restraint on applying sectoral sanctions. 

This was clear earlier this week when the White House announced a further round of economic penalties against Russia. 

The New York Times reported: «President Obama escalated sanctions against Russia on Wednesday by targeting a series of large banks and energy and defence firms in what officials described as the most punishing measures to date for Moscow’s intervention in Ukraine.»

But The Times further adds: «The moves were coordinated with European leaders, who were meeting in Brussels on Wednesday to consider their own package of penalties against Russia. The Europeans declined to go as far as the United States, instead focusing on a plan to block loans for new projects in Russia by European investment and development banks.»

What would it take for the Americans to pull the Europeans into a more aggressive line?

Within hours of the Malaysian airliner smashing into the wheat fields in eastern Ukraine near the Russian border on Thursday evening, American official sources began drip-feeding their trusted news outlets with a narrative implicating Russia. 

On Friday, the Reuters news agency reported: «One US  official said Washington strongly suspected the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 was downed by a sophisticated surface-to-air missile fired by Ukrainian separatists backed by Moscow.»

On the same day, the Wall Street Journal had this: «US  agencies are divided over whether the missile was launched by the Russian military or by pro-Russia separatist rebels, who officials say lack the expertise on their own to bring down a commercial airliner in mid-flight.»

An astounding giveaway in the above Reuters report is the following editorial comment carried in subsequent paragraphs:

«While the West has imposed sanctions on Russia over Ukraine, the United States has been more aggressive than the European Union in this respect. Analysts believe the response of Germany and other European powers to the incident [of the downed airliner] - possibly imposing more sanctions - could be crucial in deciding the next phase of the stand-off with Moscow».

Officially, Washington has refrained from making explicit accusations against Moscow. That role has been taken up by hot-heads and mavericks like the Senator John McCain and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who both rushed to lay the blame on Russia over the crashed airliner.

The Washington-installed regime in Kiev has also predictably piled on the inflammatory rhetoric accusing Moscow of involvement in the catastrophe without producing a shred of evidence.

The dubiously elected pro-American President Petro Poroshenko immediately labelled «Russian-backed terrorists» as the culprits, while the acting Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk demanded international action against Moscow.

With typical hysteria, Yatsenyuk said: «This is a crime against humanity. All red lines have been already crossed. This is the deadline,» he said. «We ask our international partners to call an emergency UN Security Council meeting and to do everything we can to stop this war: a war against Ukraine, a war against Europe, and after these terrorists shot down a Malaysian aircraft, this is the war against the world.» 

The CIA-groomed Yatsenyuk added: «Everyone is to be accountable and responsible. I mean everyone who supports these terrorists, including Russians and the Russian regime».

The Kiev junta may lack the sophistication of Washington in the finer points of black arts. But it seems clear that there is a concerted effort to frame Russia over this horrendous air disaster. In the stampede to lay the blame, crucial facts are irrelevant or dismissed. What about local eyewitness reports that claim they saw Ukrainian army units fire surface-to-air missiles, or official Russian military sources who say they have radar traces on the ill-fated day also implicating the pro-Kiev forces? 

When assessing culpability, it is not only significant to ask the criminologist’s question: who benefits? It is also significant to observe how the political and media reaction to events quickly takes on an unmistakably scripted pre-ordained formula. In this case, there is more than a pungent whiff of premeditated action-reaction dialectic going on.

American geopolitical interests are best served by this atrocity, by shocking a laggardly Europe into adopting its aggressive sanctions towards Russia, even though that militates against European economic concerns. Shooting down a civilian airliner would ensure blowing a decisive rift between Europe and Russia.