ESTADOS UNIDOS EN DECADENCIA, AMENAZA AL MUNDO

El golpe que la pandemia de Covid-19 ha dado a la decadente superpotencia, al demostrar que su sistema de salud estratificado sólo protege a una parte de la sociedad, dejando a las minorías étnicas y a los pobres, desamparados (es el país con más contagiados, 1,810,000; y con más muertes en el mundo con 105,000); más el golpe a su economía por el obligado cierre de actividades para tratar de detener los contagios (14.7% tasa de desempleo en el año; más de 40 millones de solicitudes de ayuda por desempleo) ha llevado a la desesperación a millones de personas, que sólo necesitaron un evento climático, como el asesinato de un miembro de la comunidad negra en Minneapolis, Minnesota, George Floyd, por parte de un policía blanco de la ciudad, para que los desposeídos e inconformes de todo el país se lanzaran a protestas violentas (y algunas pacíficas) en más de 50 ciudades de la Unión Americana.

Trump y varios gobernadores han dado luz verde para la intervención de la Guardia Nacional con objeto de detener los saqueos y la destrucción que se van extendiendo por el territorio de Estados Unidos, que junto con los efectos de la pandemia y la crisis económica, hacen ver a Estados Unidos como una sociedad en decadencia, muy al estilo de las películas post-apocalípticas de Hollywood, en las que Nueva York o Los Angeles quedan totalmente destruidas y a merced de “zombies” o de bandas criminales.

Ante esto, Trump está tratando de desviar la responsabilidad en este desastre económico y social, hacia sus competidores estratégicos en el ámbito internacional, como China, a la que acusa de haber escondido el tamaño de la crisis de la pandemia y no haber actuado a tiempo para evitar su propagación; a la Organización Mundial de la Salud, a la que ya retiró su financiamiento y ahora ha decidido retirar la membresía estadounidense a dicha organización, acusándola de ser “pro-china”; a los gobernadores demócratas por no querer reabrir la economía y las actividades sociales al ritmo que él desea; a medios de comunicación y plataformas de internet, por criticarlo y/o intentar “censurar” sus aventuradas y desinformadas peroratas contra medio mundo, etc.

En el mismo sentido, y ante el desastre económico que enfrenta su país y la muy lenta recuperación que puede esperar en los próximos meses cuando se reabran diversas actividades productivas (siempre y cuando un nuevo rebrote incontrolado de la enfermedad no obligue a cerrarlas otra vez), Trump intenta desviar la atención de su atribulado pueblo y del Occidente en general, hacia una confrontación cada vez más aguda con China[1], Rusia[2], Irán[3], Venezuela[4], Cuba[5] y en general aquellos países que han decidido reafirmar su soberanía y no seguir los dictados y las amenazas de la decadente superpotencia, a pesar de las reiteradas sanciones y amagos de guerra contra todas ellas.

Trump y la mayor parte del establecimiento político de Washington, están conscientes de que la hegemonía económica, militar y tecnológica de Estados Unidos se ha visto seriamente desgastada con el surgimiento del poderío chino y la recuperación estratégica de Rusia en los últimos 20 años, por lo que han tratado de detener a ambas potencias mediante amenazas, sanciones e incluso ya no tan veladas provocaciones bélicas[6].

Sin embargo, una parte de ese establecimiento busca también mantener la presencia internacional de Estados Unidos como un país líder en diversos campos (medio ambiente, salud, desarme, etc.), con objeto de cimentar alianzas en distintas regiones del mundo, y así evitar que Estados Unidos se quede como una fortaleza aislada, con unos cuantos países aliados (la anglósfera, Israel, algunos países árabes y europeos, Japón y Corea del Sur) y subordinados (la mayor parte de América Latina).

Esas dos distintas formas de abordar la decadencia del imperio estadounidense se enfrentarán en las elecciones presidenciales de noviembre, y si bien los demócratas decidieron imponer la candidatura de un miembro ortodoxo del establecimiento político de Washington, como Joe Biden, eso no quiere decir que estén dispuestos a seguir los pasos de Trump de retirar de la escena internacional a Estados Unidos.

De lo que no queda duda es que la creciente belicosidad de Estados Unidos con buena parte del mundo; su retiro de organismos y tratados internacionales que han ayudado a mantener al mundo sin una nueva guerra mundial y a abordar problemas globales de una manera concertada; están poniendo al planeta al borde de una crisis todavía mayor a la que ya enfrenta por la pandemia y la crisis económica; esto es la posibilidad de una guerra de incalculables consecuencias, ya sea contra países a los que supone que puede derrotar como Irán y Venezuela, o incluso contra potencias nucleares como China y Rusia.

---

[1] Acusaciones e “investigaciones” contra China por el inicio y propagación de la pandemia; sanciones por las nuevas leyes de seguridad para Hong Kong; sanciones y estrategia de Occidente contra empresas tecnológicas (inteligencia artificial e informática) chinas, acusándolas de “espionaje”; venta de armas a Taiwán y constante paso de buques estadounidenses por aguas del mar patrimonial chino; acusaciones y amenazas de más sanciones en el tema comercial; eliminación de visas para estudiantes e investigadores chinos; cierre de viajes de China hacia Estados Unidos por la pandemia, etc.

[2] Retiro de diversos tratados firmados durante la Guerra Fría (de misiles intermedios, de cielos abiertos, de armas estratégicas que está a punto de vencer; etc.); sanciones económicas y a funcionarios rusos por anexión de Crimea y conflicto con Ucrania; acusaciones de “interferencia” en las elecciones de Estados Unidos, etc.

[3] Sanciones económicas y retiro del acuerdo nuclear, hasta que Irán no ceda a todas las exigencias políticas y militares de Estados Unidos; provocaciones constantes a Irán en el Golfo Pérsico; bloqueo a todas las transacciones financieras y a la venta de petróleo iraní en el mercado internacional, etc.

[4] Bloqueo económico y sanciones a Venezuela, así como amagos de invasión militar, para provocar la salida del poder del presidente Maduro; sabotajes a instalaciones eléctricas y petroleras; apoyo a grupos golpistas y de mercenarios; acusaciones de proteger el narcotráfico hacia Estados Unidos, etc.

[5] Reinstalación del bloqueo económico a la isla, degradación de relaciones diplomáticas; constantes acusaciones de “terrorismo” y de apoyo al narcotráfico, etc.

[6] Aviones de combate rusos acaban de interceptar a bombarderos estadounidenses muy cerca del espacio aéreo ruso en el Mar Báltico.

The US should stand with Minnesota violent protesters as it did with HK rioters

By Hu Xijin Source: Global Times Published: 2020/5/29

Hong Kong's rioters and police should carefully watch how the "democratic US" deals with the chaos in Minnesota. 

After the tragic death of African-American George Floyd following violent police treatment, enraged protesters in Minneapolis rushed to the city's police building, where a fire later broke out. US President Donald Trump then began to feel uneasy. He sent out a tweet early Friday morning (US time), saying, "I can't stand back & watch this happen." He instructed Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey to "get his act together and bring the city under control," says the alternative was that he would send in the National Guard and "get the job done right."

"When the looting starts, the shooting starts," Trump said. He said he had spoken to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and told him "the military is with him all the way."

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet on Thursday condemned the killings of many unarmed African Americans at the hands of the police over the years. She said that US authorities must take serious action to stop such killings and to ensure that justice is done when they do occur.

In the US, more than 100,000 people have died from COVID-19, most of them weak, elderly, poor, and minorities. The death of George Floyd, from another perspective, reveals the desperate inequality rampant in the US. People in Minnesota were angry and lost control. I sent out a tweet on Friday: "Secretary Pompeo, please stand with the angry people of Minneapolis, just like you did with the people of Hong Kong."

US political elites seem to be fierce in all directions. They directly applauded Hong Kong's riots, calling them a "beautiful sight" of democracy. The chaos in Hong Kong has lasted for over a year and military forces have not been dispatched. Yet after only three days of chaos in Minnesota, Trump publicly threatened the use of firepower and implied military forces could be utilized.

That is the state of US inequality and another example of the country's double standards. Well, America, what should I say?

The author is editor-in-chief of the Global Times. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Russia slams 'dangerous' US foreign policy moves

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/russia-slams-dangerous-us-foreign-policy-moves-220037921.html

Russia said on Thursday the United States was acting in a dangerous and unpredictable way, after Washington, withdrew from a key military treaty and moved to ramp up pressure on Iran.

Foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova made the comments after Washington announced it would end sanctions waivers for nations that remain in a nuclear accord signed with Iran. The remaining parties to the deal include Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.

US officials also said they would walk away from the Open Skies Treaty, which allows each signatory's military to conduct surveillance flights over another member country each year on short notice.

"Washington's actions are becoming more and more dangerous and unpredictable," Zakharova told reporters.

"The nature of this behavior is clearly disruptive," Zakharova said, accusing Washington of undermining international security.

She also criticized the United States for exiting the INF missile treaty last year and failing to commit to renewing the New START arms control accord with Russia, which is due to expire in 2021.

President Donald Trump in 2018 withdrew the United States from a landmark agreement under which Iran had drastically curbed its nuclear activities and reimposed sanctions on Iran.

On Wednesday, Washington said it was ending sanctions waivers for the countries remaining in the Iran deal, bringing the agreement further to the verge of collapse.

Last week Trump also announced that he planned to withdraw the United States from the Open Skies Treaty, citing Russian violations.

Israeli annexation: How will Jordan respond?

The planned annexation of the Jordan Valley in the occupied West Bank presents a dilemma for the neighboring kingdom

By 

Mohammad Ersan

 in 

Amman

Published date: 27 May 2020 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-annexation-how-will-jordan-respond

If Israel really annexed the West Bank valley in July, it would lead to a massive conflict with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.”

This was the unprecedented threat by Jordan’s King Abdullah II during an interview earlier this month with German newspaper Der Spiegel.

As the unity government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is gearing up to begin formally annexing parts of the occupied West Bank along the border with Jordan, the neighbouring kingdom is faced with the heavy question of how to respond to the move.

There is no clear script for the Jordanian monarch, as the kingdom finds itself having to balance its political and diplomatic positions with more pragmatic concerns.

Options on the table

In his interview with Der Spiegel, King Abdullah stated that his country was considering “all options” in response to Israeli annexation - a move deemed illegal under international law.

"I do not want to make any threats and create an atmosphere of controversy, but we are considering all options... We agree with many countries in Europe and with the international community that the law of the fittest should not apply in the Middle East,” he said.

Following the 1948 war, Jordan ruled over the West Bank until Israel occupied the Palestinian territory in 1967. Jordan remains the custodian of Muslim and Christian holy sites in occupied East Jerusalem until this day.

The announcement by the unity government of Netanyahu and former rival Benny Gantz - who will serve as premier following Netanyahu’s 18-month tenure in the role - that it was planning to annex the Jordan Valley has become a serious dilemma for Jordan.

Encompassing roughly a third of the West Bank, the Jordan Valley runs all along the border with Jordan. Should the territory be annexed into Israel, this would mark a possible new threat to Jordan’s national security.

“The king’s statements are clear: the annexation of the Jordan Valley will cause a clash between Israel and Jordan,” Jordanian Minister of Media Affairs Amjad Adaileh told the Middle East Eye.

“We will not deviate from this issue and we will not forget the Palestinian cause. Our position is clear and has been well articulated by King Abdullah II.”

But what kind of action did the king have in mind? As Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas has threatened to fully suspend its adherence to the 1993 Oslo Accords, some politicians and military analysts are suggesting that Jordan suspend its 1994 Wadi Araba peace treaty with Israel.

For Major General Mamoun Abu Nawwar, a retired Jordanian air force pilot, “Jordan has no option except to abrogate the peace treaty with Israel if it annexes the Jordan Valley and settlements.”

“Jordan is in a difficult position and annexation would be an undeclared declaration of war on Jordan,” he told MEE. “I expect that it might be best if Jordan ends the Wadi Araba treaty, and this will mean the cancellation of security, military and economic agreements as well.

"This would be a big geopolitical shift for Jordan within the balance of power in the region.”

Abu Nawwar rejected Israeli claims that annexing the Jordan Valley was necessary to defend itself from outside aggression. 

“Israel’s justification that it needs the Jordan Valley to host early warning equipment is not accurate,” he said. “Iran and even the Houthi (rebels) in Yemen are able to attack the heart of Israel with cruise missiles without such warning sites stopping them.”

Meanwhile, Jordanian expert in Israeli affairs Ayman Hunaiti told MEE that Jordan could take the legal route and go to the Israeli High Court. “This could be part of a move by Jordan,” he said.

Delicate diplomatic context

While some are hoping and advocating for a strong Jordanian response, others believe Jordan will not escalate the situation beyond its usual criticism and possible downgrading of diplomatic relations.

The constitutional court of Jordan ruled on 12 May that international agreements are above national law, and therefore treaties such as the one from 1994 cannot be abrogated by the Jordanian parliament.

Former deputy prime minister of Jordan, Mamdouh al-Abadi, told MEE that he expected Amman to “summon the Jordanian ambassador from Tel Aviv indefinitely and reduce diplomatic representation”.

Recalling a diplomatic incident in 2017 following the killing of a Jordanian citizen by a guard in the Israeli embassy compound in Amman, Abadi said: “The embassies in Amman and Tel Aviv left two ambassadorships empty for months before Israel apologized and compensated the families of the victims financially."

The former deputy premier added that Jordanian officials needed to consider Jordan's interests - such as the country’s access to water, energy sources, and financial aid - before making any moves.

Jordanian figures speaking to MEE broadly expressed their concern that the annexation of the Jordan Valley would constitute a serious threat to Jordan’s national security because it would spell an end to all attempts at creating a viable Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital as part of a two-state solution long touted by the international community.

Abadi said there were some fears that Jordan, which hosts over two million Palestinian refugees would face a new influx of refugees - this time with no hope of return.

Contacts on annexation

Meanwhile, MEE has learned that Jordanian and Palestinian authorities are in contact to coordinate their response to the annexation process.

Should Jordan and the PA agree to stand shoulder to shoulder, this could spell the simultaneous voiding of the Wadi Araba treaty and the Oslo Accords, Abu Nawwar said, stating he expected that “any annexation will result in dissolving the Palestinian Authority and the cancellation of the Oslo peace deal”.

But Abadi told MEE he wasn’t certain Jordan would go this far.

“A realistic look at the Arab world doesn’t bode well for making Israel an enemy, nor is now the right time to clash with the United States,” he said.

“The region is on fire, there is no Arab support and the economy is in tatters. This means that Jordan can’t do more than protest Israel’s moves and lead an international campaign against them.”

International response

King Abdullah’s words have certainly caught the attention of the US administration of President Donald Trump, a staunch supporter of Israel.

“We understand that the king expressed his concern and it is for this reason that we consider it important to return to the vision of President Trump for peace,” US State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said during a press conference on Friday. “All parties should agree to sit at the negotiating table and work out the execution of this peace plan.”

Trump’s Israeli-Palestinian plan - colloquially known as the “deal of the century” - has been categorically rejected by the Palestinian leadership and widely panned for adopting most demands of Israel’s right-wing government while offering disjointed islands of territory for a prospective Palestinian state with no sovereignty over its borders and airspace.

Hunaiti, the Israeli affairs expert pointed out that the Israeli government’s latest move was met with US support.

“The US has given the green light for the annexation of the Jordan Valley in exchange for a deal that Netanyahu and Pompeo agreed to - namely that Israel stops its cooperation with China on technological issues so that US military secrets are not leaked to China by Israel,” he said.

Meanwhile, former foreign minister and Jordan’s first ambassador to Israel, Marwan Muasher, said the Hashemite kingdom could not readily count on the support of other Arab states should it take action in response to annexation.

“There is a gap between the positions of different Gulf states when it comes to annexation, which will kill the two-state solution,” said Muasher. “The Arab reaction is disappointing, as there is a cooperation between Israel and some Arab states on the Iranian issue. But despite the official opposition we hear from Arab countries, there is no evidence of any serious movement by states or even by the Arab League to confront the Israeli plans to annex the [Jordan] Valley.”

Muasher argued for Jordan to take the battle onto the diplomatic stage.

“Jordan can lead diplomatic efforts on different Arab and European fronts and within America’s decision-making corridors. In Congress and even within the Trump administration, Jordan has friends who can be approached and made to understand how devastating annexation will be to the peace process.”

Whatever the outcome, the former ambassador said, Jordan cannot stand idly by.

“The official Jordanian position can’t be to act as a bystander and take cosmetic actions. There has to be a strong movement led by Jordan.”

Grandes empresas hacen trampa para pagar menos por luz: Bartlett

Interpuso un recurso ante la CRE para terminar con el fraude

No hay un mercado eléctrico, sino un atraco, asegura el director de la CFE

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2020/05/25/politica/007n1pol

Andrea Becerril

Periódico La Jornada

Lunes 25 de mayo de 2020, p. 7

El director de la Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), Manuel Bartlett Díaz, informó que ya presentó una serie de recursos ante el órgano rector del sector energético con el fin de que se terminen la simulación y el fraude que cometen las empresas privadas dedicadas a generar la llamada energía limpia.

Dijo que esas compañías no sólo se benefician al no pagar el transporte de la luz ni el respaldo en sus constantes fallos en el suministro, lo que les ahorra miles de millones de pesos al tener un servicio intinerante, sino que además han incurrido en un ilícito al presentar como socias a otras corporaciones, que en realidad son sus clientes.

Se trata de un pliego ante la Comisión Reguladora de Energía (CRE) en el que la CFE exige terminar con el robo cometido por las grandes empresas del país como Grupo Salinas, Oxxo, Walmart, Soriana, Peñoles, Cinépolis y Kimberly Clark, entre muchas otras, que pagan precios muy bajos por la electricidad que consumen, ya que simulan ser socias de Iberdrola, de Enel Energía, American Ligth and Power y otras dedicadas a la generación eléctrica, lo que les permite utilizar gratuitamente la red eléctrica, como lo hacen las propias trasnacionales, que tienen plantas eólicas y fotovoltaicas.

Energías limpias, pero legales

Bartlett Díaz, al ser entrevistado por La Jornada, comentó que esperan que la CRE resuelva pronto esa y otras peticiones que han hecho sobre cuestiones ilegales, irracionales e injustas que tomó esa comisión durante el sexenio de Enrique Peña Nieto para beneficiar a las empresas privadas, en su mayor parte extranjeras, que entraron al llamado mercado eléctrico y a las que se otorgaron beneficios indebidos para que obtuvieran grandes ganancias a costa de la CFE e, incluso, no descartó acudir a las demandas penales.

No estamos en contra de las energías limpias, no se va a reformar ninguna ley; tal como lo expresó el presidente Andrés Manuel López Obrador, se respetara lo establecido en la reforma energética, pero lo que no vamos a aceptar es que se siga utilizando a esta gran empresa de vocación social, que es la CFE, para impulsar a las corporaciones privadas. Sería ir contra los intereses nacionales.

 Es indignante, dijo, que Iberdrola simule ser socia de las 18 mil tiendas de la cadena Oxxo –que mantienen prendida la luz día y noche– cuando son realmente sus clientes. Lo mismo sucede con Walmart o con Kimberly Clark, la empresa de Claudio X. González.

Bartlett recalcó que las grandes empresas de México, las de mayor capital, están haciendo trampa para pagar mucho menos por la electricidad que consumen sus negocios, mientras en la CFE estamos luchando, contando cada centavo para que el pueblo de México empobrecido pague lo menos posible.

El coordinador de Morena en el Senado, Ricardo Monreal, se refirió la semana pasada al sucio negocio de las energías limpias, y en la entrevista el director de la CFE lo corrobora al explicar cómo opera el famoso mercado eléctrico que se estableció en la reforma energética de 2014, donde gana clientes el que más barato genera.

No es un mercado eléctrico, es un atraco, una jauja para los inversionistas que se han apoderado de los grandes consumidores, de forma ilícita, a base de tropelías. Se trata de sociedades de autoconsumo simuladas y esos 17 mil clientes que dicen tener nos los han quitado a base de trampas.

Expuso que eso formaba parte del plan de privatización que empezó Carlos Salinas de Gortari y concluyó Enrique Peña Nieto, con su reforma energética que pretendía liquidar a la CFE y dejar el suministro eléctrico en manos de empresas extranjeras.

Explicó que Salinas de Gortari reformó la entonces Ley Eléctrica para introducir la figura de generadores independientes, esas empresas fueron creciendo y hasta Enron, el gigante energético que en 2001 se declaró en quiebra, instaló antes tres plantas en Monterrey.

La reforma de Peña Nieto fue más allá y abrió el llamado mercado eléctrico para que empresas privadas compitieran con la CFE. Recuperó la figura de autogeneradoras en la que están ahora Ibedrola y otras trasnacionales, pero no estableció que usaran de forma gratuita la red eléctrica nacional para transportar la energía hasta sus miles de clientes, como lo hacen, resaltó el funcionario.

Respaldo gratuito de la CFE cuando fallan

Bartlett afirmó que las empresas privadas dedicadas a generar energía eólica y fotovoltaicas tampoco desembolsan ni un centavo en el respaldo que les proporciona la CFE. Explicó que se permitió que éstas se establecieran donde se les dio la gana, sin planeación alguna, y por eso, cuando no hay viento ni energía solar, dejan de generar el fluido.

“Ello es muy frecuente, cada vez que la nube pasa o no sopla el viento no generan energía y de inmediato, en ese instante, suben la electricidad nuestras plantas. Eso se llama respaldo y no lo pagan tampoco. Por eso la energía que generan es más barata y prueba la falsedad que han difundido: que la nuestra es más cara y que nuestra infraestructura es obsoleta.

Y ahora que queremos acabar con este despojo y este fraude, surgió el gran escándalo y nos acusan de ineficientes y de querer acabar con las energías limpias. El sexenio pasado la CRE dio permisos sin ton ni son, por lo que actualmente están conectadas al sistema eléctrico nacional 589 centrales con una capacidad de 82 mil 568 megavatios, mientras la demanda máxima es de 49 mil 379. Para 2024 se tiene autorizado la instalación de 127 más.

Recordó que cuando el anterior director de la CFE, Enrique Ochoa Reza, entregó las oficinas le dijo que se requerían 100 mil millones de pesos de inmediato para invertir en la red nacional con la finalidad de dar cabida a las empresas privadas. Nosotros no nos oponemos a que se modernice la red, para transitar todos, pero no gratis. El que venga a hacer negocio aquí tiene que pagar lo que cuesta la transmisión, la distribución y el respaldo, no tenemos por qué seguir subsidiándolos.

Consideró que tal decisión está también relacionada con las protestas y las campañas de desprestigio que ha impulsado el Consejo Coordinador Empresarial, cuyo presidente, Carlos Salazar Lomelín, estuvo en una reunión en la Secretaría de Energía en la que se informó que se van a terminar las ilegalidades, así como el PAN, el PRI y otros sectores y voceros de la derecha, por el Acuerdo del Centro Nacional de Energía (Cenace) de posponer la operación de 17 nuevas plantas de generación solar y de viento.

Agregó que ese acuerdo está enmarcado en la propia Constitución para garantizar, durante la pandemia de Covid-19, la confiabilidad del sistema eléctrico y que la red no caiga o que pudiera haber apagones masivos, precisamente por la intermitencia de las empresas dedicadas a la generación limpia. Por eso tiene la seguridad de que los amparos que han presentado serán rechazados.

The New New Cold War is Pretty Much the Old New Cold War

by NICKY REID

MAY 22, 2020

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/05/22/the-new-new-cold-war-is-pretty-much-the-old-new-cold-war/

Remember when the Russians were coming? It seems like just last week Vladimir Putin was whistling the Soviet National Anthem just around every corner of the main street. After the colossal clusterfuck of Hillary 2016, you couldn’t swing a dead cat in a newsroom without hitting another crafty Kremlin conspiracy. Those shifty almond-eyed bastards were the secret sauce behind everything that gave neoliberals heartburn; MAGA, Black Lives Matter, Wikileaks, Bernie Bros, Jill Stein, Sasquatch, Tulsi Gabbard, Colin Kaepernick, the female orgasm. They were behind it all! Putin was everywhere, like Elvis Presley in a Mojo Nixon song, and he was always up to something new, some dastardly new conspiracy to corrupt the precious bodily fluids that only Rachel Maddow and six permanently anonymous intelligence experts could save us from. Donald Trump was constantly on the brink of impeachment for pissing on a Russian prostitute dressed as Abe Lincoln and wrapped in the Constitution or some such noise. It made sense at the moment, I swear it did! It was a new day in Imperial America, a whole new Cold War was upon us, and Adam Schiff would lead us to the promised land like a liberal Joe McCarthy on a gallant white steed.

Now, Russiagate just feels so two-thousand-and-late. Schiff has been outed by his own lazy paperwork as a libelous scumfuck just a few lies and a sex crime short of the Donald himself, and Rachel Maddow’s soaring calls to action against the Kremlin menace have taken on the sea-sick patina of Alex Jones in a sporty pantsuit. Even the devil himself, Vladimir Putin doesn’t seem so scary anymore. So he declares himself president-for-life and has a few more American sponsored journalists tossed in the dreaded Lubyanka, what else is on? The New Cold War is old news. In post-COVID America, the New New Cold War is where it’s at. Who needs those vodka-soaked Russkies when you have the Chinese! (Gong bangs in the background) A super sneaky, disease spewing people who’re currency is actually worth more than double-ply toilet paper, which is worth slightly more than the Dollar. Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have hit the ground spewing with a torrential cavalcade of convoluted race-baiting accusations and innuendo about China’s devilish double-dealings, from the bat labs of Wuhan to the rocks of South China Sea, and Joe Biden and the New York Times aren’t far behind them. Rather than taking the high road for once and denying this bullshit as an excuse for Trump to cover his orange ass on his derelict response to Covid-19, old grabby Joe has taken his usual route, bashing Trump in swing state commercials for not being stupid enough on China. Joe, they promise, could be way more stupid, and somehow, I don’t doubt that for a second.

But as a post-tankie war nerd, I’m left scratching my head. Those cretins in the deep state put so much elbow grease into creating a narrative that the Soviet Union was rising from the grave like a red star bedazzled Babadook that they were willing to impeach one of their own just because he suggested that Vladimir Putin might not be the next Hitler. But now their willingness to just roll over and let Trump have his new bone. I’d say we’re probably just about thirty days from Tucker Carlson giving John Brennan a hummer on live television while he belches about Chinese hackers and our God-given right to protect the freedom of other people’s seas. As best as I can explain the meticulous madness of these fucking vultures, I would suggest that my dearest motherfuckers take a closer look at the original Cold War, and you’ll find that not much has really changed at all. The scapegoats have shifted but the target remains the same.

Contrary to the Marvel sponsored Captain America mythology of the Evil Empire, the Old Cold War was never about the godless evils of communism. It didn’t even really have that much to do with Russian influence, at least not empirically. Russia has always been a crafty but rickety excuse for a superpower. Truth be told, our countries own propaganda is really the only reason half the world took that tin-plated petrol state seriously, to begin with. The true target always was and always will be that geostrategic phantom known as Eurasia. If you want to know what really keeps neocons and their neoliberal siblings up at night, it’s the indisputable fact that a united Eurasian economy that brings together the collective power of Europe and the Orient would crush the Dollar like the toilet paper tiger it is and bury the American Century in its own dust. The moment the Eurozone can get NATO off its ass and realize that the future rises from the east is the moment the American imperial dream dies a rather quick and anti-climactic death.

Russia has long been the target of choice for the simple reason that it’s the weakest link in the chain. The motherland is the land bridge that brings two continents together, and with the advent of the October Uprising in 1917, America has gift-wrapped a perfect theater for instability. The real Cold War began before the First World War had even ended, when the US and it’s sundry allies sent fresh bodies from the trenches to help the Czar’s death squads traumatize the newly Soviet countryside with the White Terror, and that terror never stopped. I was done with those dastardly Bolsheviks the day I read about Kronstadt, but god only knows what kind of republican experiment Lenin and his boys might have cooked up if their new nation hadn’t been born in a bathtub of blood. The Russian people likely never would have welcomed another Czar in the form of Stalin, or Putin for that matter, if they weren’t so damn shell-shocked by American sponsored savagery that they were desperate for any iron man with a Slavic name to save them.

Russia was the perfect enemy because they projected that air of Orthodox stoicism, even while they were crippled and hemorrhaging. But China has always been the true target, the massive competition for Europe’s hand in imperial matrimony. With the worth of Russia’s only cash cow, petrol, spiraling and a new depression exploding from the economic bubble that the Coronavirus burst, America has quite simply run out of time to scapegoat anything but the real deal. Steve Bannon knows it, and his imperial wonk nemesis Bill Kristol knows it too. Evil or not, those twisted fuckers know a thing or two about the deep state’s long game and the long game is either China goes down or America excepts its Karmic fate as their debt-ridden bitch. Either way, why should an anti-imperialist anarchist like me give a shit? They are all bloodthirsty statist scum after all.

Well, I’ll tell you why. For two reasons. The first is the simple fact that I am an American and I feel it is my divine duty as an anti-authoritarian pissant to piss off and smash the authority I live beneath. I’ll leave China to those cyber-punks in Hong Kong or some genderfuck Uighur with a decidedly Oriental manifesto in her burka. That’s not my lane. The second reason is the basic strategic fact that as fucked up and debt-ridden as it is, America is still the world’s only truly unipolar superpower. China may look scary from a distance but as I pointed out above, they are a huge country that can barely handle keeping their own police state from falling to shambles beneath their own weight. China’s best hope for dominance rests in partnership above the competition. A Eurasian Century would be multipolar by nature and any anarchist worth a shit can tell you, Balkanize and conquer is where it’s at.

To meet the New New Cold War, dearest motherfuckers, same as the Old New Cold War. Call me a contrarian cunt, but I’ll be agitating for America’s demise in any damn cold war. That’s what I do. Now bring me, Tucker Carlson. I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to work those tranny-bashing kidneys for long enough.

Nicky Reid is an agoraphobic anarcho-genderqueer gonzo blogger from Central Pennsylvania and assistant editor for Attack the System. You can find her online at Exile in Happy Valley.

Will Trump really start *two* wars instead of “just” one?

May 20, 2020

https://thesaker.is/will-trump-really-start-two-wars-instead-of-just-one/

Amidst the worldwide pandemic induced scare most of we have probably lost track of all the other potential dangers which still threaten international peace and stability.  Allow me to list just a few headlines which, I strongly believe, deserve much more attention than what they got so far.  Here we go:

·         Military Times: “5 Iran tankers sailing to Venezuela amid US pressure tactics“

·         Time: “5 Iranian Tankers Head to Venezuela Amid Heightened Tensions Between U.S. and Tehran“

·         FoxNews: “Iran tankers sailing to Venezuela in an effort to undermine US sanctions“

Notice that Military Times speaks of “US pressure tactics”, Time of “tensions” and FoxNews of “efforts to undermine the US sanctions”?

I don’t think that this is a coincidence.  Folks in the US military are much more in touch with reality than the flag-waving prostitutes which some people call “reporters” or “journalists”.

Furthermore, the USA has embarked on a new policy to justify its acts of piracy on the high seas with something called Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure (VBSS) all under the pretext of the war on drugs.  To get a better understanding of the context of these developments I asked a specialist of Maritime issues of our community, NatSouth, who replied the following: (stress added).

If a ship does not comply with the request to be boarded, it is usual that the pursuing authorities must gain the permission of the ‘flag’ state prior to boarding, on the high seas and the pursuit has to have started in the coastal state’s jurisdictional waters. The caveat here is that in the Caribbean – Caribbean Regional Maritime Agreement (CRA) – (long name: Agreement Concerning Co-operation in Suppressing Illicit Maritime and Air Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in the Caribbean Area).  So, there is an agreement with participating coastal states on boardings and pursuits in EEZs and the like.  You can find more on the legal aspects of boardings at sea here: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2344&context=hlr and more info on so-called “consensual boardings” here: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/international-law/the-legal-implications-of-consensual-boarding-international-law-essay.php

The anti-drug/ counterterrorism angle allows the U.S. Navy and the USCG to carry out interdictions on the high seas. An important point to note whether this approach will be taken to interdict the tankers, given that Venezuela is a declared narco-State. The absurdity is that Venezuela isn’t the primary transit point in the region, Colombia holds that honor. https://orinocotribune.com/narco-state-the-report-that-leaves-venezuela-on-the-sidelines-of-the-cocaine-route/

If I could add at this point, the origins are that Venezuela didn’t wish to play ball with Washington anymore, specifically with the DEA back in 2005, squaring the circle of sorts, (or should that be a vicious circle cunningly used by Washington, because who is going to argue with that narrative, aka the war on terror). March: SOUTHCOM’s Adm. Faller: “There will be an increase in US military presence in the hemisphere later this year. This will include an enhanced presence of ships, aircraft, & security forces to reassure our partners… & counter a range of threats to include illicit narco-terrorism.” At the same time, the State dept released this https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/1260988270302777350 so the US could effectively carry out boardings under the guise of counterterrorism as well.

While the Iranian tankers were in the Mediterranean, Washington released a (delayed) “Global Maritime Sanctions Advisory”, to the maritime industry, setting out guidelines to shipowners and insurers to enable them to avoid the risks of sanctions penalties related to North Korea, Syria, and Iran. This also concerns oil exports from Iran, (but doesn’t apply to Iranian flagged ships).  This came after the State Dept gave warning notice to oil companies  to stop operations, including Rosneft (Russia), Reliance (India) and Repsol (Spain).

Pretty clear, isn’t it?

What the USA is doing is substituting itself for the United Nations and it is now openly claiming the right to board any vessel under whatever kind of pious pretext like, say, narco-trafficking, nuclear proliferation, sanctions against so-called “rogue states”, etc.   Clearly, the AngloZionists expect everybody to roll over and take it.

How likely is that?

Let’s look at a few Iranian headlines, all from PressTV:

·         PressTV, May 16th: “Iran’s fuel shipment to Venezuela guaranteed by its missile power“

·         PressTV, May 17th: “US aware Iran will respond ‘very strongly’ if Venezuela-bound ships attacked: Analyst“

·         PressTV, May 18th: “Iran: The US bears responsibility for any foolish act against tankers heading to Venezuela“

Three days in a row.  I think that it is fair to assume that the Iranians are trying very hard to convince Uncle Shmuel not to mess with these tankers.  Does anybody seriously believe that the Iranians are bluffing?

Before we look at some of the aspects of this potential crisis, let’s just mention a few things here.

First, the US is acting in total and official illegality.  Just like the bombing of Syria, the threats to Iran or the US murderous sanctions Uncle Shmuel imposes left and right – the blockade of Venezuela is a) totally illegal and b) an act of war under international law.

Second, if USN commanders think they can operate with impunity only because the Caribbean is far away from Iran, they are kidding themselves.  Yes, Iranian forces cannot defend these tankers so far away from home, nor can they take any action against the USN in the Atlantic-Caribbean theater of naval operations.  But what they can and will do is retaliate against any AngloZionist target in the Middle-East, including any oil/gas tanker.

Third, while Venezuela’s military is tiny and weak compared to the immensely expensive and bloated US military, being immensely expensive and bloated is no guarantee of success.  In fact, and depending on how the Venezuelan leadership perceives its options, there could be some very real risk for the USA in any attempt to interfere with the free passage of these ships.

What do I mean by that?

Did you know that Venezuela had four squadrons of Su-30MKV for a total of 22 aircraft?  Did you know that Venezuela also had an unknown number of Kh-31A supersonic anti-shipping missiles?  And did you know that Venezuela had a number of S-300VM and 9K317M2 Buk-M2E long-range and medium-range SAMs?

True, that is nowhere near the amount of weapons systems Venezuela would need to withstand a determined US attack, but it is more than enough to create some real headaches for US planners.  Do you remember what the Argentinian Air Force did to the British Navy during the Malvinas war?  Not only did the Argentinians sink two Type 42 guided missile destroyers (the HMS Sheffield and the HMS Coventry) which were providing long-range radar and medium-high altitude missile picket for the British carriers, they also destroyed 2 frigates, 1 landing ship, 1 landing craft, 1 container ship.  Frankly, considering how poorly defended the British carriers were, it is only luck which saved them from destruction (that, and the lack of a sufficient number of Super Étendard strike aircraft and Exocet missiles).  I would add here that the British military, having been defeated on many occasions, has learned the painful lessons of their past defeats and does not suffer from the cocky-sure attitude of the US military.  As a result, they were very careful during the war against Argentina and that caution were one of the factors which gave Britain well-deserved the victory (I mean that in military terms only; in moral terms, this was just another imperialist war with all the evil that entails).  Had the Argentinians had a modern air force and enough anti-shipping missiles, the war could have taken a very different turn.

Returning to the topic of Venezuela, war is a much more complex phenomenon than just a struggle of military forces.  In fact, I strongly believe that political factors will remain the single most important determinant factor of most wars, even in the 21st century.  And chances are that the Venezuelans, being the militarily weaker side, will look to political factors to prevail.  Here is one possible scenario among many other possible ones:

Caracas decides that the US seizing/attacking the Iranian tankers constitute an existential threat to Venezuela because if that action goes unchallenged, then the US will totally “strangle” Venezuela.  Of course, the Venezuelan military cannot take on the immense US military, but what they could do is force a US intervention, say by attacking one/several USN vessel(s).  Such an attack, if even only partially successful, would force the US to retaliate, bringing US forces closer not only to Venezuelan air defenses but also closer to the Venezuelan people which will see any US retaliation as an illegitimate counter-counter-attack following the fully legitimate Venezuelan counter-attack.

Then there is the problem of defining victory.  In the US political “culture” winning is usually defined as pressing a few buttons to fire off some standoff weapons, kill lots of civilians, and then declare that the “indispensable nation” has “kicked the other guy’s ass”.  The problem with that is the following one: if they other guy is very visibly weaker and has no chance for a military victory of his own, then the best option for him is to declare that “surviving is winning” – meaning that if Maduro stays in power, then Venezuela has won.  How would the USA cope with that kind of narrative?  Keep in mind that Caracas is a city of over two million people which even in peacetime is rather dangerous (courtesy of both regular crime and potential guerilla activities).  Yet, for Maduro to “win” all he has to show is that he controls Caracas.  Keep in mind that even if the US forces succeed in creating some kind of “zone of real democracy” somewhere near the Colombian border, that will mean nothing to Maduro, especially considering the terrain between the border and the capital city (please check out this very high resolution map of Venezuela or this medium resolution one).  As for the notion of a USN landing on the shores of Venezuela, all we need to do is to remember how the immense Hodgepodge of units which were tasked with invading Grenada (including 2 Ranger Battalions, Navy Seals, most of an Airborne Division, etc. for a total of over 7,000 soldiers(!) against a tiny nation which never expected to be invaded (for details, and a good laugh, see here for a full list of participating US forces!) was defeated by the waves of the Caribbean and the few Cuban military engineers who resisted with small-arms fire (eventually, most of the 82AB was calling in to fix this mess).

In other words, if Maduro remains in power in Caracas then, in political terms, Venezuela wins even though it would loose in purely military terms.

This phenomenon is hardly something new, as shown by the following famous quote by Ho Chi Minh: “You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and I will win.”

By the way, this is exactly the same problem the Empire faces with Iran: as long as the Islamic Republic remains an Islamic Republic it “wins” in any exchange of strikes with the USA and/or Israel.

Still, it is pretty obvious that the US can turn much of Venezuela into a smoking heap of ruins.  That is true (just like what the USA did to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Serbia, and Israel what did to Lebanon in 2006).  But that would hardly constitute a “victory” in any imaginable sense of the word.  Again, in theory, the US might be able to secure a number of landing locations and then send in an intervention force that could try to take key locations in Caracas.  But what would happen after that?  Not only would the hardcore Chavistas trigger a guerilla insurrection which would be impossible to crush (when is the last time the USA prevailed in a counter-insurgency war?), but many Venezuelans would expect the US to pay for reconstruction (and they would be right, according to the rules of international law, “once you take it, you own it” meaning that the USA would become responsible for the socio-economic situation of the country).  Finally, there is always the option of an anti-leadership “decapitating” strike of some kind.  I believe that in purely military terms, the US has the know-how and resources to accomplish this.  I do not believe that this option would secure anything for the USA, instead – it would further destabilize the situation and would trigger some kind of reaction by the Venezuelan military both outside and inside Venezuela.  If anything, the repeated failures of the various coup attempts against Chavez and Maduro prove that the bulk of the military remains firmly behind the Chavistas (and the failed coup only served to unmask the traitors and replace them anyway!).

The bottom line is this: if Uncle Shmuel decides to seize/attack the Iranian tankers, there is not only a quasi certitude of a war between the US and Iran (or, at the very least, an exchange of strikes), but there is also a non-trivial possibility that Maduro and his government might actually decide to provoke the USA into a war they really can’t win.

Is Trump capable of starting a process which will result in not one, but two wars?

You betcha he is!  A guy who thinks in categories like “my button are bigger than yours” or “super-duper weapons” obviously understands exactly *nothing* about warfare, while the climate of messianic narcissism prevailing among the US ruling classes gives them a sense of total impunity.

Let’s hope that cooler heads, possibly in the military, will prevail.  The last thing the world needs today is another needless war of choice, never mind two more.

The Saker