Iconos

Iconos
Zapata

viernes, 30 de diciembre de 2022

2023: el inicio del derrumbe

La economía perderá impulso por el frenazo de EU, la dura (y muy necesaria) política monetaria del Banco de México para bajar la inflación y una inversión privada que carece de incentivos.

https://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/opinion/sergio-negrete-cardenas/2022/12/30/2023-el-inicio-del-derrumbe/

diciembre 30, 2022

Sergio Negrete Cárdenas

Un año de desaceleración económica y creciente incertidumbre política. El quinto año era tradicionalmente el pináculo del sexenio en la era del priato, y así debería ser en el morenato, pero Andrés Manuel López Obrador ha optado por la ambición desmedida y la destrucción. Será el año en que el destino empezará a alcanzarlo, ese trecho que mostrará el abismo al que está llevando al país.

La economía perderá impulso por el frenazo de Estados Unidos, la dura (y muy necesaria) política monetaria del Banco de México para bajar la inflación y una inversión privada que carece de incentivos, sobre todo por el crimen, como es la extorsión, y los ataques presidenciales en ciertos sectores, destacadamente el energético. La inversión pública seguirá concentrándose en proyectos sin impacto en el crecimiento, como son Pemex (incluyendo Dos Bocas) y el Tren Maya. Básicamente, seguirá tirando cientos de miles de millones de pesos en agujeros negros que son elefantes blancos.

El PIB aumentará alrededor de 1% el año entrante, acercando el valor de la economía al que tenía en 2018, y mostrando claramente el sexenio perdido. En términos de PIB por habitante, habrá que esperar a 2026 para alcanzar el nivel registrado entonces. La pandemia en parte explica el desastre, pero el resto de la responsabilidad le corresponde al inquilino de Palacio Nacional, quien no se cansó de criticar a los sexenios anteriores por el bajo crecimiento. Ahora el 2% promedio de esos gobiernos parece una expansión asiática comparada con el registro negativo que llevan acumulados los primeros cuatro años lopistas. Lo que AMLO prometió en 2019 es que habría un crecimiento promedio de 4% en su administración, y que en 2024 se crecería a una tasa de 6%.

En 2023 destacarán otras promesas fallidas. Dos Bocas no solo no empezará a producir gasolina, sino que es probable que no lo haga en todo el sexenio, mientras que el costo estimado del proyecto al menos se duplica. Lo que también se duplicó fue el presupuesto para construir el Tren Maya, que se supone debe estar terminado a fines del año. Pero el ofrecimiento estelar es que entonces los mexicanos gozarán de un sistema de salud como Dinamarca, lo mismo que ofreció en 2020. No habrá ni gasolina, ni tren ni salud.

Un año en que las corcholatas se darán hasta con la cubeta, gracias al afán presidencial de jugar al tapado como en la época del PRI, solo que sin la menor discreción o mano izquierda. Esto mientras trata de controlar el aparato electoral por medio de su Plan B, en medio de controversias sobre su inconstitucionalidad. Resolverá una Suprema Corte que quizá será presidida por una persona que plagió (prácticamente calcó) la tesis de licenciatura que presentó para titularse como abogada en la UNAM. Una vez más, la marca AMLO: 100% de lealtad aunque sea corrupta, como es apropiarse del trabajo intelectual de quien sí hizo el trabajo original.

Un año en que seguirá ofreciendo abrazos a los criminales mientras continúan los balazos, en que repetirá, como con la salud danesa, que pronto se tendrán resultados. Un año que al terminar dejará a López Obrador con solo nueve meses de gobierno, pues será el primero en terminar el 1 de octubre. El 2023 será el último en que podrá seguir fantaseando y decir que “en un año” se cumplirá esto o aquello, en tanto sigue dinamitando a las instituciones democráticas, barrenando los cimientos de la economía y minando a la sociedad por medio de la polarización.

jueves, 29 de diciembre de 2022

Prospectiva, pendientes y desafíos para 2023

Mario Patrón

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2022/12/29/opinion/011a2pol

El año 2022 está por llegar a su fin, por lo que es un momento óptimo para elaborar, como cada fin de año, un balance sobre los avances, pendientes y desafíos con los que cierra el panorama sociopolítico en México, así como adelantar una prospectiva de la urgente agenda que deberá ser trabajada conjuntamente por gobierno y sociedad civil en el transcurso de 2023. Una lectura responsable del contexto requiere reconocer tanto los aspectos positivos con los que se cierran el presente año como los grandes pendientes que persisten, evitando caer así en las dinámicas actuales de polarización que poco abonan para el fortalecimiento democrático y ciudadano del país.

De un lado de la balanza, hemos de destacar el comportamiento macroeconómico del país. A pesar de la crisis económica global pospandemia y la complejidad geopolítica detonada este año, el peso se mantiene como la moneda más estable frente al dólar. La inflación, aunque alta, mantiene bajos niveles en términos comparativos frente a las principales economías del mundo. Por su parte, son plausibles los incrementos sostenidos al salario mínimo cuyo aumento hace frente, aunque de manera todavía insuficiente, a la gran deuda que este rubro viene acarreando de décadas atrás. Igualmente plausibles son las reformas en materia laboral que han devuelto a la clase trabajadora algunas libertades y reivindicaciones que dignifican la realidad laboral del país.

Desde el otro lado de la balanza hemos de partir reconociendo que, a cuatro años de gobierno de López Obrador, las problemáticas estructurales que más aquejan a nuestra sociedad, como corrupción, impunidad y violencia, no han encontrado remedio pese a las promesas que auguraban una transformación de la vida pública del país. Al mismo tiempo, el discurso anticlasista empleado por la 4T no se ha transformado en un desmantelamiento de las estructuras de privilegios y desigualdades que se han anexado al sistema político mexicano, ni sus alusiones populares han evitado que se gobierne junto a una élite empresarial selecta.

En materia de seguridad, las fuerzas armadas, aún bajo la denominación de la Guardia Nacional, han sido incapaces de contrarrestar la ola de violencia que arrastra el país desde hace 16 años. Por el contrario, la violencia llega a cada vez mayores rincones, y la macrocriminalidad se apodera de territorios, mercados y comunidades que ponen en jaque la gobernabilidad del país y su estabilidad social. La justicia sigue siendo un anhelo incumplido para miles de ciudadanas y ciudadanos, como sucede en la comunidad de Cerocahui, Chihuahua, donde fueron asesinados los jesuitas Javier Campos y Joaquín Mora. Datos oficiales señalan que, hasta el cierre de noviembre, México registra 28 mil 190 homicidios en 2022 y un acumulado de más de 109 mil personas desaparecidas y no localizadas. A su vez, con 12 periodistas asesinados en 2022 se empata el máximo histórico de 2017 como el año más violento para el periodismo en México.

Misma suerte corre la agenda ambiental del país. México se enfrenta a un estrés hídrico histórico y en aumento prácticamente irremediable en el corto plazo. La apuesta por los combustibles fósiles y el desarrollismo basado en extractivismo y destrucción de ecosistemas van a contracorriente de la urgencia por contrarrestar un calentamiento global que en México es 1.4 grados por encima de la media global. Urge diseñar y ejecutar políticas públicas transversales y contundentes para la planificación hídrica y la transición energética hacia sistemas con una mayor eficiencia en el uso de los recursos.

Con un Poder Ejecutivo poco dispuesto a la configuración de pesos y contrapesos característicos de una sana democracia, y con una narrativa envolvente y polarizada que se genera y se regenera cada mañana, el panorama permanece en un entorno de claroscuros. Frente a él la oposición tiene el enorme reto de responsabilizarse de su propio vaciamiento y construir una plataforma política digna que otorgue nuevos balances al sistema político mexicano y que trascienda la actual política reaccionaria.

Será 2023 un año clave de cara a los procesos democráticos de 2024. Esta cercanía al proceso electoral pone en riesgo los endebles canales de diálogo y mediación política que se han precarizado en los últimos años. Nos corresponde como sociedad civil permanecer atentos a las coyunturas que están por venir y no claudicar en la exigencia por justicia, verdad, dignidad y paz, en un país herido por la violencia y la crispación social.

Reivindicamos, por ende, que 2023 será un año de oportunidad para ejercer nuestra ciudadanía en la generación de diálogos pertinentes que trasciendan la arena partidocrática para construir, desde la participación y la inclusión, las estructuras y redes necesarias para el fortalecimiento de nuestra democracia y el mejoramiento del país frente a la amenaza de la polarización y la apatía que han caracterizado los años recientes.

miércoles, 28 de diciembre de 2022

The Ukraine Crisis Is a Classic ‘Security Dilemma’

by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies Posted on December 28, 2022

https://original.antiwar.com/mbenjamin/2022/12/27/the-ukraine-crisis-is-a-classic-security-dilemma/

On December 27, 2022, both Russia and Ukraine issued calls for ending the war in Ukraine, but only on non-negotiable terms that they each know the other side will reject.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Kuleba proposed a "peace summit" in February to be chaired by UN Secretary-General Guterres, but with the precondition that Russia must first face prosecution for war crimes in an international court. On the other side, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov issued a chilling ultimatum that Ukraine must accept Russia’s terms for peace or "the issue will be decided by the Russian Army."

But what if there were a way of understanding this conflict and possible solutions that encompassed the views of all sides and could take us beyond one-sided narratives and proposals that serve only to fuel and escalate the war? The crisis in Ukraine is in fact a classic case of what International Relations scholars call a "security dilemma," and this provides a more objective way of looking at it.

A security dilemma is a situation in which countries on each side take actions for their own defense that countries on the other side then see as a threat. Since offensive and defensive weapons and forces are often indistinguishable, one side’s defensive buildup can easily be seen as an offensive buildup by the other side. As each side responds to the actions of the other, the net result is a spiral of militarization and escalation, even though both sides insist, and may even believe, that their own actions are defensive.

In the case of Ukraine, this has happened on different levels, both between Russia and national and regional governments in Ukraine, but also on a larger geopolitical scale between Russia and the United States/NATO.

The very essence of a security dilemma is the lack of trust between the parties. In the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Cuban Missile Crisis served as an alarm bell that forced both sides to start negotiating arms control treaties and safeguard mechanisms that would limit escalation, even as deep levels of mistrust remained. Both sides recognized that the other was not hell-bent on destroying the world, and this provided the necessary minimum basis for negotiations and safeguards to try to ensure that this did not come to pass.

After the end of the Cold War, both sides cooperated with major reductions in their nuclear arsenals, but the United States gradually withdrew from a succession of arms control treaties, violated its promises not to expand NATO into Eastern Europe, and used military force in ways that directly violated the UN Charter’s prohibition against the "threat or use of force." U.S. leaders claimed that the conjunction of terrorism and the existence of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons gave them a new right to wage "preemptive war," but neither the UN nor any other country ever agreed to that.

US aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere was alarming to people all over the world, and even to many Americans, so it was no wonder that Russian leaders were especially worried by America’s renewed post-Cold War militarism. As NATO incorporated more and more countries in Eastern Europe, a classic security dilemma began to play out.

President Putin, who was elected in 2000, began to use international fora to challenge NATO expansion and US war-making, insisting that new diplomacy was needed to ensure the security of all countries in Europe, not only those invited to join NATO.

The former Communist countries in Eastern Europe joined NATO out of defensive concerns about possible Russian aggression, but this also exacerbated Russia’s security concerns about the ambitious and aggressive military alliance gathering around its borders, especially as the United States and NATO refused to address those concerns.

In this context, broken promises on NATO expansion, US serial aggression in the greater Middle East and elsewhere, and absurd claims that US missile defense batteries in Poland and Romania were to protect Europe from Iran, not Russia, set alarm bells ringing in Moscow.

The US withdrawal from nuclear arms control treaties and its refusal to alter its nuclear first strike policy raised even greater fears that a new generation of US nuclear weapons were being designed to give the United States a nuclear first strike capability against Russia.

On the other side, Russia’s increasing assertiveness on the world stage, including its military actions to defend Russian enclaves in Georgia and its intervention in Syria to defend its ally the Assad government, raised security concerns in other former Soviet republics and allies, including new NATO members. Where might Russia intervene next?

As the United States refused to diplomatically address Russia’s security concerns, each side took actions that ratcheted up the security dilemma. The United States backed the violent overthrow of President Yanukovych in Ukraine in 2014, which led to rebellions against the post-coup government in Crimea and Donbas. Russia responded by annexing Crimea and supporting the breakaway "people’s republics" of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Even if all sides were acting in good faith and out of defensive concerns, in the absence of effective diplomacy they all assumed the worst about each other’s motives as the crisis spun further out of control, exactly as the "security dilemma" model predicts that nations will do amid such rising tensions.

Of course, since mutual mistrust lies at the heart of any security dilemma, the situation is further complicated when any of the parties is seen to act in bad faith. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently admitted that Western leaders had no intention of enforcing Ukraine’s compliance with the terms of the Minsk II agreement in 2015, and only agreed to it to buy time to build up Ukraine militarily.

The breakdown of the Minsk II peace agreement and the continuing diplomatic impasse in the larger geopolitical conflict between the United States, NATO and Russia plunged relations into a deepening crisis and led to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Officials on all sides must have recognized the dynamics of the underlying security dilemma, and yet they failed to take the necessary diplomatic initiatives to resolve the crisis.

Peaceful, diplomatic alternatives have always been available if the parties chose to pursue them, but they did not. Does that mean that all sides deliberately chose war over peace? They would all deny that.

Yet all sides apparently now see advantages in a prolonged conflict, despite the relentless daily slaughter, dreadful and deteriorating conditions for millions of civilians, and the unthinkable dangers of full-scale war between NATO and Russia. All sides have convinced themselves they can or must win, and so they keep escalating the war, along with all its impacts and the risks that it will spin out of control.

President Biden came to office promising a new era of American diplomacy but has instead led the United States and the world to the brink of World War III.

Clearly, the only solution to a security dilemma like this is a cease-fire and peace agreement to stop the carnage, followed by the kind of diplomacy that took place between the United States and the Soviet Union in the decades that followed the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, which led to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963 and successive arms control treaties. Former UN official Alfred de Zayas has also called for UN-administered referenda to determine the wishes of the people of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk.

It is not an endorsement of an adversary’s conduct or position to negotiate a path to peaceful coexistence. We are witnessing the absolutist alternative in Ukraine today. There is no moral high ground in relentless, open-ended mass slaughter, managed, directed and in fact perpetrated by people in smart suits and military uniforms in imperial capitals thousands of miles from the crashing of shells, the cries of the wounded and the stench of death.

If proposals for peace talks are to be more than PR exercises, they must be firmly grounded in an understanding of the security needs of all sides, and a willingness to compromise to see that those needs are met and that all the underlying conflicts are addressed.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflictavailable from OR Books in November 2022.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

martes, 27 de diciembre de 2022

 

EL PAÍS

México

Caso Yasmín Esquivel: ¿Cuál sería la sentencia de la Suprema Corte?

Por Carmen Morán Breña

La ministra Yasmín Esquivel presentó una tesis plagiada cuando se licenció en la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, un misil informativo que estalló la semana pasada a pocos días de renovar la presidencia de la Suprema Corte de Justicia, para lo que se postula la magistrada. Se postula, así, en presente, porque el escándalo no arredra a la candidata, que se defiende diciendo que esas acusaciones contra ella son "mentiras y difamaciones" insertas en una "campaña perversa" para apartarla de la carrera por la presidencia de la Corte. Su estrategia de defensa se basa ahora en que ella comenzó a escribir la tesis en 1985, por tanto, la de Edgar Ulises Báez, que se presentó en 1986, es la copia, no la original. Esquivel entregó la suya en 1987 y ambas son idénticas. Pobre defensa para un escándalo tan grande. 

La directora de aquel trabajo titulado Inoperancia de los sindicatos en los trabajadores de confianza del Artículo 123 Apartado A fue Martha Rodríguez Ortiz, quien ha declarado la inocencia de su antigua pupila y confesado su admiración por ella "como abogada, profesora, mujer y madre". Todas esas cosas podrá ser la ministra Esquivel, pero una candidata a presidir la Corte quizá ya no. Cabrían pocas dudas si un juez tuviera que decidir sobre este caso. La tesis de Báez se presentó un año antes y encima es más completa porque incluye un trabajo de campo del que carece la de Esquivel, a la que, como dice Juan Jesús Garza Onofre, del Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la UNAM, "lo único que le falta por plagiar son los agradecimientos".   

Señor juez, ¿puede una persona postularse para presidir el máximo órgano judicial de un país, la casa de la honestidad, la objetividad y la justicia, con estos antecedentes? ¿Puede, señor juez, aspirar a tan alta responsabilidad alguien que quizá no sea ni licenciada en Derecho? No hay sentencia aún, pero las pruebas parecen irrefutables, lo suficiente para hacerse a un lado, para retirarse como aspirante a la elección y como ministra misma y prepararse exhaustivamente a limpiar una dignidad manchada, si lo logra. ¿Qué sentido tendría ocupar un cargo que no goza de la confianza ciudadana en lo más mínimo? 

La ministra empezó argumentando que la atacaban por ser mujer, después se dijo que por ser la tapada del presidente Andrés Manuel López Obrador para el cargo. Y todo eso podría ser verdad, pero ¿y qué? Son hechos contra opiniones. Y los hechos han destapado un pozo de irregularidades en la UNAM, que van a ser investigadas. Las primeras pesquisas de la institución académica señalan “un alto nivel de coincidencias” entre los dos trabajos de licenciatura. Este periódico comprobó que había una tercera tesis igual a las de la polémica y otras seis plagiadas dirigidas también por Martha Rodríguez Ortiz entre 1986 y 2010. Los controles académicos no parecen haber sido muy rigurosos, por decirlo diplomáticamente. 

El presidente López Obrador pudo haber guardado silencio, después de todo la cosa no iba con él, pero prefirió opinar: "Cualquier error cometido por la ministra Yasmín cuando fue estudiante es infinitamente menor al daño que ha ocasionado a México el señor que hace la denuncia, Sheridan". Viene a exculpar los pecados de la ministra como propios de la juventud. Si un estudiante no tiene la energía y la ilusión por completar su licenciatura con una buena tesis, ¿se podrán esperar mayores ánimos con el paso de la edad o, en cambio, un mejor perfeccionamiento de las mañas? 

La UNAM ha declarado su intención de investigar el asunto. Es lo mejor para no malacostumbrar a los estudiantes. La impunidad es la gran mácula en México, la que protege al delincuente e incita al delito. Pero los ministros y la presidencia de la Corte están formados para combatir todo esto. ¿O no?  

lunes, 26 de diciembre de 2022

The World can’t sit idly by if the US insists on going its own way: Global Times editorial 

By Global Times Published: Dec 25, 2022

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202212/1282614.shtml

The British newspaper The Guardian published a report on December 24 with the headline "Australia and China team up to protest WTO blockages caused by US vetoes on appeal body." In fact, it is not just the "China-Australia team," but a joint proposal by as many as 127 members to protest the US' long-term obstruction of the appointment of judges to the WTO's Supreme Appellate Body, which has paralyzed it for three years. The proposal calls for the immediate start of the judge selection process and restoring the normal operation of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism as soon as possible.

This was the 61st proposal made by the vast majority of WTO members on this issue, and it represents the common and strong voice of justice in the world. What is infuriating is that the US also responded with contempt for the 61st time. The Guardian singled out China and Australia, perhaps thinking that it would be eye-catching to say that even Australia is standing with China against the US. But this does reflect that, on a major international issue, the US stands on the absolute mainstream opposite side of the international society. What's even worse is that it is completely indifferent to this, refusing to accept or provide legitimate legal reasons for obstructing the selection process, and confronting the world with its own selfishness.

The proposal stressed "the urgency and importance" for all to see, and the urgency and importance are becoming more pronounced over time. Anne Osborn Krueger, the former chief economist of the World Bank, recently published an article warning that countries around the world are sleepwalking toward a global trade war. Both the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act will come into effect on January 1, 2023. It can be said that these are two trade time bombs that the US has sent to the world. Among them, the discriminatory trade protectionist provisions have been unanimously opposed by the international community, including most of the allies of the US, which is likely to ignite a super-large-scale global trade war. It is conceivable that this will be an unbearable burden for the global economy next year. 

It feels like, with flood coming, the US has poked a hole in the disaster prevention dam built by the international community, and no one else is allowed to block it. This is a perilous situation facing international trade today. Leaders of many international organizations such as the WTO, World Bank and International Monetary Fund have expressed concerns about the global economic recession next year. Against this backdrop, if a global trade war breaks out, it will not just add insult to injury. A report released by WTO predicts sharp slowdown in world trade growth in 2023, with the growth to slow to 1 percent next year, a sharp decline from the 3.4 percent previously estimated. The situation is evidently very grave. The world's trading powers must act to prevent a global trade war. If the US continues to add fuel to the fire at such a time of global crisis, it is engaging in criminal acts against the common interests of humankind.

To some extent, the US has become the grey rhino of the international trade system. The damage aroused by its collision may lead to the collapse of the international trade system, which will inevitably trigger severe global consequences and aggravate social unrest and political anger on the global scale. All these should be put on the US. It is hoped that the US knows what it is releasing from the box.

The WTO's recent consecutive judgments, which were against the US, have dealt a heavy blow to the country, and may intensify the US' rebellious mentality. Given the US' character, it will not look for problems on its own. Instead, it is more likely to feel that the problems are all rooted in the WTO mechanism. At the same time, it's clear that an increasing number of countries have expressed their opposition to the selfishness and arrogance shown by the US in the field of international trade. The US' four characterizations summarized by Li Chenggang, China's Ambassador to the WTO, are appropriate, that is, "a saboteur of the multilateral trading system," "an expert of unilateralism and bullying," "a manipulator applying double standards in industrial policies" and "a disruptor of global industrial and supply chains." In the matter of international trade, the US has gradually fallen into an "alienated" situation.

Some argue that if the US insists on going its own way, there is nothing we can do about it. Words cannot be said like that and this is not the case. For example, in regard to the joint proposal of 127 members, although the US rejected it once again, every time it turns it down, the cost of credibility and the moral pressure it faces will increase exponentially, and it will eventually reach the critical point it can bear. Standing alone on the opposite side of international justice, where it is freezing, the US can hardly bear the cold no matter how brazen the US is.

sábado, 24 de diciembre de 2022

 Can China help Brazil restart its global soft power?

December 23, 2022

by Pepe Escobar, posted with the author’s permission and widely cross-posted

https://thesaker.is/can-china-help-brazil-restart-its-global-soft-power/

Bolsonaro reduced Brazil to resources-exporter status; now Lula should follow Argentina’s lead into Belt and Road

Ten days of full immersion in Brazil are not for the faint-hearted. Even restricted to the top two megalopolises, Sao Paulo and Rio, watching live the impact of interlocking economic, political, social and environmental crises exacerbated by the Jair Bolsonaro project leaves one stunned.

The return of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for what will be his third presidential term, starting January 1, 2023, is an extraordinary story trespassed by Sisyphean tasks. All at the same time he will have to

  • fight poverty;
  • reconnect with economic development while redistributing wealth;
  • re-industrialize the nation; and
  • tame environmental pillage.

That will force his new government to summon unforeseen creative powers of political and financial persuasion.

Even a mediocre, conservative politician such as Geraldo Alckmin, former governor of the wealthiest state of the union, Sao Paulo, and coordinator of the presidential transition, was simply astonished at how four years of the Bolsonaro project let loose a cornucopia of vanished documents, a black hole concerning all sorts of data and inexplicable financial losses.

It’s impossible to ascertain the extent of corruption across the spectrum because simply nothing is in the books: Governmental systems have not been fed since 2020.

Alckmin summed it all up: “The Bolsonaro government happened in the Stone Age, where there were no words and numbers.”

Now every single public policy will have to be created, or re-created from scratch, and serious mistakes will be inevitable because of lack of data.

And we’re not talking about a banana republic – even though the country concerned features plenty of (delicious) bananas.

By purchasing power parity (PPP), according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Brazil remains the eighth-ranked economic power in the world even after the Bolsonaro devastation years – behind China, the US, India, Japan, Germany, Russia and Indonesia, and ahead of the UK and France.

A concerted imperial campaign since 2010, duly denounced by WikiLeaks, and implemented by local comprador elites, targeted the Dilma Rousseff presidency – the Brazilian national entrepreneurial champions – and led to Rousseff’s (illegal) impeachment and the jailing of Lula for 580 days on spurious charges (all subsequently dropped), paved the way for Bolsonaro to win the presidency in 2018.

Were it not for this accumulation of disasters, Brazil – a natural leader of the Global South – by now might possibly be placed as the fifth-largest geo-economic power in the world.

What the investment gang wants

Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr, a former vice-president of the New Development Bank (NDB), or BRICS bank, goes straight to the point: Brazil’s dependence on Lula is immensely problematic.

Batista sees Lula facing at least three hostile blocs.

  • The extreme right supported by a significant, powerful faction of the armed forces – and this includes not only Bolsonarists, who are still in front of a few army barracks contesting the presidential election result;
  • The physiological right that dominates Congress – known in Brazil as “The Big Center”;
  • International financial capital – which, predictably, controls the bulk of mainstream media.

The third bloc, to a great extent, gleefully embraced Lula’s notion of a United Front capable of defeating the Bolsonaro project (which project, by the way, never ceased to be immensely profitable for the third bloc).

Now they want their cut. Mainstream media instantly turned to corralling Lula, operating a sort of “financial inquisition,” as described by crack economist Luiz Gonzaga Belluzzo.

By appointing longtime Workers’ Party loyalist Fernando Haddad as finance minister, Lula signaled that he, in fact, will be in charge of the economy. Haddad is a political-science professor and was a decent minister of education, but he’s no sharp economic guru. Acolytes of the Goddess of the Market, of course, dismiss him.

Once again, this is the trademark Lula swing in action: He chose to place more importance on what will be complex, protracted negotiations with a hostile Congress to advance his social agenda, confident that all the lineaments of economic policy are in his head.

A lunch party with some members of Sao Paulo’s financial elite, even before Haddad’s name was announced, offered a few fascinating clues. These people are known as the “Faria Limers” – after the high-toned Faria Lima Avenue, which houses quite a few post-mod investment banks’ offices as well as Google and Facebook HQs.

Lunch attendees included a smattering of rabid anti-Workers’ Party investors, the proverbial unreconstructed neoliberals, yet most were enthusiastic about opportunities ahead to make a killing, including an investor looking for deals involving Chinese companies.

The neoliberal mantra of those willing – perhaps – to place their bets on Lula (for a price) is “fiscal responsibility.” That frontally clashes with Lula’s focus on social justice.

That’s where Haddad comes up as a helpful, polite interlocutor because he does privilege nuance, pointing out that only looking at market indicators and forgetting about the 38% of Brazilians who only earn the minimum wage (1,212 Brazilian real or US$233 per month) is not exactly good for business.

The dark arts of non-government

Lula is already winning his first battle: approving a constitutional amendment that allows financing of more social spending.

That allows the government to keep the flagship Bolsa Família welfare program – of roughly $13 a month per poverty-level family – at least for the next two years.

A stroll across downtown Sao Paulo – which in the 1960s was as chic as mid-Manhattan – offers a sorrowful crash course on impoverishment, shut-down businesses, homelessness and raging unemployment. The notorious “Crack Land” – once limited to a street – now encompasses a whole neighborhood, much like junkie, post-pandemic Los Angeles.

Rio offers a completely different vibe if one goes for a walk in Ipanema on a sunny day, always a smashing experience. But Ipanema lives in a bubble. The real Rio of the Bolsonaro years – economically massacred, de-industrialized, occupied by militias – came up in a roundtable downtown where I interacted with, among others, a former energy minister and the man who discovered the immensely valuable pre-salt oil reserves.

In the Q&A, a black man from a very poor community advanced the key challenge for Lula’s third term: To be stable, and able to govern, he has to have the vast poorest sectors of the population backing him up.

This man voiced what seems not to be debated in Brazil at all: How did there come to be millions of poor Bolsonarists – street cleaners, delivery guys, the unemployed? Right-wing populism seduced them – and the established wings of the woke left had, and still have, nothing to offer them.

Addressing this problem is as serious as the destruction of Brazilian  engineering giants by the Car Wash “corruption” racket. Brazil now has a huge number of well-qualified unemployed engineers. How come they have not amassed enough political organization to reclaim their jobs? Why should they resign themselves to becoming Uber drivers?

José Manuel Salazar-Xirinachs, the new head of the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), may carp about the region’s economic failure as even worse now than in the “lost decade” of the 1980s: Average annual economic growth in Latin America in the decade up to 2023 is set to be just 0.8%.

Yet what the UN is incapable of analyzing is how a plundering neoliberal regime such as Bolsonaro’s managed to “elevate” to unforeseen toxic levels the dark arts of little or no investment, low productivity and less than zero emphasis on education.

President Dilma in da house

Lula was quick to summarize Brazil’s new foreign policy – which will go totally multipolar, with emphasis on increasing Latin American integration, stronger ties across the Global South and a push to reform the UN Security Council (in sync with BRICS members Russia, China and India).

Mauro Vieira, an able diplomat, will be the new foreign minister. But the man fine-tuning Brazil on the world stage will be Celso Amorim, Lula’s former foreign minister from 2003 to 2010.

In a conference that reunited us in Sao Paulo, Amorim elaborated on the complexity of the world Lula is now inheriting, compared with 2003. Yet along with climate change the main priorities – achieving closer integration with South America, reviving Unasur (the Union of South American Nations) and re-approaching Africa – remain the same.

And then there’s the Holy Grail: “good relations with both the US and China.”

The Empire, predictably, will be on extreme close watch. US national security adviser Jake Sullivan dropped in to Brasilia, during the fist days of the World Cup soccer tournament, and was absolutely charmed by Lula, who’s a master of charisma. Yet the Monroe Doctrine always prevails. Lula getting closer and closer to BRICS – and the expanded BRICS+ – is considered virtual anathema in Washington.

So Lula will play most overtly in the environment arena. Covertly, it will be a sophisticated balancing act.

The combo behind US President Joe Biden called Lula to congratulate him soon after the election results. Sullivan was in Brasilia setting the stage for a Lula visit to Washington. Chinese President Xi Jinping for his part sent him an affectionate letter, emphasizing the “global strategic partnership” between Brazil and China. Russian President Vladimir Putin called Lula earlier this week – and emphasized their common strategic approach to BRICS.

China has been Brazil’s top trade partner since 2009, ahead of the US. Bilateral trade in 2021 hit $135 billion. The problem is lack of diversification and focus on low added value: iron ore, soybeans, raw crude and animal protein accounted for 87.4% of exports in 2021. China exports, on the other hand, are mostly high-tech manufactured products.

Brazil’s dependence on commodity exports has indeed contributed for years to its rising foreign reserves. But that implies high concentration of wealth, low taxes, low job creation and dependence on cyclical price oscillations.

There’s no question China is focused on Brazilian natural resources to fuel its new development push – or “peaceful modernization,” as established by the latest Party Congress.

But Lula will have to strive for a more equal trade balance in case he manages to restart the nation as a solid economy. In 2000, for instance, Brazil’s top export item was Embraer jets. Now, it’s iron ore and soybeans; yet another dire indicator of the ferocious de-industrialization operated by the Bolsonaro project.

China is already investing substantially in the Brazilian electric sector – mostly due to state companies being bought by Chinese companies. That was the case in 2017 of State Grid buying CPFL in Sao Paulo, for instance, which in turn bought a state company from southern Brazil in 2021.

From Lula’s point of view, that’s inadmissible: a classic case of privatization of strategic public assets.

A different scenario plays in neighboring Argentina. Buenos Aires in February became an official partner of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative, with at least $23 billion in new projects on the pipeline. The Argentine railway system will be upgraded by – who else? – Chinese companies, to the tune of $4.6 billion.

The Chinese will also be investing in the largest solar energy plant in Latin America, a hydroelectric plant in Patagonia, and a nuclear energy plant – complete with transfer of Chinese technology to the Argentine state.

Lula, beaming with invaluable soft power not only personally when it comes to Xi but also appealing to Chinese public opinion, can get similar strategic partnership deals, with even more amplitude. Brasilia may follow the Iranian partnership model – offering oil and gas in exchange for building critical infrastructure.

Inevitably, the golden path ahead will be via joint ventures, not mergers and acquisitions. No wonder many in Rio are already dreaming of high-speed rail linking it to Sao Paulo in just over an hour, instead of the current, congested highway journey of six hours (if you’re lucky).

A key role will be played by former president Dilma Rousseff, who had a long, leisurely lunch with a few of us in Sao Paulo, taking her time to recount, in minutiae, everything from the day she was officially arrested by the military dictatorship (January 16, 1970) to her off-the-record conversations with then-German chancellor Angela Merkel, Putin, and Xi.

It goes without saying that her political – and personal – capital with both Xi and Putin is stellar. Lula offered her any post she wanted in the new government. Although still a state secret, this will be part of a serious drive to polish Brazil’s global profile, especially across the Global South.

To recover from the previous, disastrous six years – which included a two-year no man’s land (2016-2018) after the impeachment of president Dilma – Brazil will need an unparalleled national drive of re-industrialization at virtually every level, complete with serious investment in research and development, training of specialized workforces and technology transfer.

There is a superpower that can play a crucial role in this process: China, Brazil’s close partner in the expanding BRICS+. Brazil is one of the natural leaders of the Global South, a role much prized by the Chinese leadership.

The key now is for both partners to establish a high-level strategic dialogue – all over again. Lula’s first high-profile foreign visit may be to Washington. But the destination that really matters, as we watch the river of history flow, will be Beijing.

Pepe Escobar is a Brazilian journalist who has written for Asia Times for many years, covering events throughout Asia and the Middle East. He has also been an analyst for RT and Sputnik News, and previously worked for Al Jazeera.

viernes, 23 de diciembre de 2022

 The Christmas Truce of World War I

For a tragically short time, the Spirit of the Prince of Peace drowned out the murderous demands of the State.

Monday, December 25, 2017

William N. Grigg

https://fee.org/articles/the-christmas-truce-of-world-war-i/

In August 1914, Europe's major powers threw themselves into war with gleeful abandon. Germany, a rising power with vast aspirations, plowed across Belgium, seeking to checkmate France quickly before Russia could mobilize, thereby averting the prospect of a two-front war. Thousands of young Germans, anticipating a six-week conflict, boarded troop trains singing the optimistic refrain: "Ausflug nach Paris. Auf Widersehen auf dem Boulevard." ("Excursion to Paris. See you again on the Boulevard.")

The French were eager to avenge the loss of Alsace and Lorraine to Germany in 1870. The British government, leery of Germany's growing power, mobilized hundreds of thousands of young men to "teach the Hun a lesson." Across the continent, writes British historian Simon Rees, "millions of servicemen, reservists and volunteers ... rushed enthusiastically to the banners of war.... The atmosphere was one of holiday rather than conflict."

Each side expected to be victorious by Christmas. But as December dawned, the antagonists found themselves mired along the Western Front – a static line of trenches running for hundreds of miles through France and Belgium. At some points along the Front, combatants were separated by less than 100 feet. Their crude redoubts were little more than large ditches scooped out of miry, whitish-gray soil. Ill-equipped for winter, soldiers slogged through brackish water that was too cold for human comfort, but too warm to freeze.

The unclaimed territory designated No Man's Land was littered with the awful residue of war – expended ammunition and the lifeless bodies of those on whom the ammunition had been spent. The mortal remains of many slain soldiers could be found grotesquely woven into barbed wire fences. Villages and homes lay in ruins. Abandoned churches had been appropriated for use as military bases.

As losses mounted and the stalemate hardened, war fever began to dissipate on both sides. Many of those pressed into service on the Western Front had not succumbed to the initial frenzy of bloodlust. Fighting alongside French, Belgian, and English troops were Hindus and Sikhs from India, as well as Gurkhas from the Himalayan Kingdom of Nepal.

These colonial conscripts had been transported from their native soil and deployed in trenches carved out of wintry Belgian cabbage patches. Highland Scots were also found at the Front, proudly wearing their kilts in defiance of the bitter December cold.

The German troops were led by elite Prussian officers, representatives of the bellicose Junker aristocracy. The German rank and file included Bavarian, Saxon, Westphalian, and Hessian reservists, more than a few of whom had lived – or even been born – in England and spoke perfect English. Bismarck's efforts to unite the scattered German principalities notwithstanding, many German troops remained more attached to their local communities than to what for them was an abstract German nation.

Comrades at Arms

Wallowing in what amounted to cold, fetid sewers, pelted by freezing rain, and surrounded by the decaying remains of their comrades, soldiers on both sides grimly maintained their military discipline. On December 7, Pope Benedict XV called for a Christmas cease-fire. This suggestion earned little enthusiasm from political and military leaders on both sides. But the story was different for the exhausted frontline troops.

A December 4 dispatch from the commander of the British II Corps took disapproving notice of a "live-and-let-live theory of life" that had descended on the Front. Although little overt fraternization was seen between hostile forces, just as little initiative was shown in pressing potential advantages. Neither side fired at the other during meal times, and friendly comments were frequently bandied about across No Man's Land. In a letter published by the Edinburgh Scotsman, Andrew Todd of the Royal Engineers reported that soldiers along his stretch of the Front, "only 60 yards apart at one place ... [had become] very 'pally' with each other."

Rather than flinging lead at their opponents, the troops would occasionally hurl newspapers (weighted with stones) and ration tins across the lines. Barrages of insults sometimes erupted as well, but they were delivered "generally with less venom than a couple of London cabbies after a mild collision," reported Leslie Walkinton of the Queen's Westminster Rifles.

As December waxed, the combat ardor of the frontline troops waned. With Christmas approaching, the scattered and infrequent gestures of goodwill across enemy lines increased. About a week before Christmas, German troops near Armentieres slipped a "splendid" chocolate cake across the lines to their British counterparts. Attached to that delectable peace offering was a remarkable invitation:

We propose having a concert tonight as it is our Captain's birthday, and we cordially invite you to attend – provided you will give us your word of honor as guests that you agree to cease hostilities between 7:30 and 8:30.... When you see us light the candles and footlights at the edge of our trench at 7:30 sharp you can safely put your heads above your trenches, and we shall do the same, and begin the concert.

The concert proceeded on time, with the bewhiskered German troops singing "like Christy Minstrels," according to one eyewitness account. Each song earned enthusiastic applause from the British troops, prompting a German to invite the Tommies to "come mit us into the chorus." One British soldier boldly shouted, "We'd rather die than sing German." This jibe was parried instantly with a good-natured reply from the German ranks: "It would kill us if you did." The concert ended with an earnest rendition of "Die Wacht am Rhein," and was closed with a few shots deliberately aimed at the darkening skies – a signal that the brief pre-Christmas respite was ended.

Elsewhere along the Front, arrangements were worked out to retrieve fallen soldiers and give them proper treatment or burial.

In a letter to his mother, Lt. Geoffrey Heinekey of the 2nd Queen's Westminster Rifles described one such event that took place on December 19. "Some Germans came out and held up their hands and began to take in some of their wounded and so we ourselves immediately got out of our trenches and began bringing in our wounded also," he recalled. "The Germans then beckoned to us and a lot of us went over and talked to them and they helped us to bury our dead. This lasted the whole morning and I talked to several of them and I must say they seemed extraordinarily fine men.... It seemed too ironical for words. There, the night before we had been having a terrific battle and the morning after, there we were smoking their cigarettes and they smoking ours."

Football in No Man's Land

Soon talk along the Front turned to the prospect of a formal cessation of hostilities in honor of Christmas. Again, this idea met resistance from above. Comments historian Stanley Weintraub, in his book, Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce:

Most higher-ups had looked the other way when scattered fraternization occurred earlier. A Christmas truce, however, was another matter. Any slackening in action during Christmas week might undermine whatever sacrificial spirit there was among troops who lacked ideological fervor. Despite the efforts of propagandists, German reservists evidenced little hate. Urged to despise the Germans, [British] Tommies saw no compelling interest in retrieving French and Belgian crossroads and cabbage patches. Rather, both sides fought as soldiers fought in most wars – for survival, and to protect the men who had become extended family.

In a sense, the war was being waged within an extended family, since both Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm II and England's King George V were grandsons of Queen Victoria. More importantly, the warring nations were all part of what had once been known as Christendom. The irony of this fact was not lost on those sentenced to spend Christmas at the Front.

By Christmas Eve, the German side of the Front was radiant with glowing Tannenbeume – small Christmas trees set up, sometimes under fire, by troops determined to commemorate the holy day. "For most British soldiers, the German insistence on celebrating Christmas was a shock after the propaganda about Teutonic bestiality, while the Germans had long dismissed the British as well as the French as soulless and materialistic and incapable of appreciating the festival in the proper spirit," writes Weintraub. "Regarded by the French and British as pagans – even savages – the pragmatic Germans were not expected to risk their lives on behalf of each beloved Tannenbaum. Yet when a few were felled by Scrooge-like gunfire, the Saxons opposite the [British line] stubbornly climbed the parapets to set the endangered trees up once more."

The radiant Christmas trees reminded some Indian conscripts of lanterns used to celebrate the Hindu "Festival of Lights." Some of them must have been puzzled over finding themselves freezing, undernourished, and confronting a lonely death thousands of miles from their homes as soldiers in a war which pitted Christian nations against each other. "Do not think that this is war," wrote one Punjabi soldier in a letter to a relative. "This is not war. It is the ending of the world."

But there were souls on each side of that fratricidal conflict determined to preserve the decencies of Christendom, even amid the conflict. As Christmas dawned, German Saxon troops shouted greetings to the British unit across from it: "A happy Christmas to you, Englishmen!" That welcome greeting prompted a mock-insulting reply from one of the Scottish troops, who was mildly irritated at being called an Englishman: "The same to you Fritz, but dinna o'er eat youself wi' they sausages!"

A sudden cold snap had left the battlefield frozen, which was actually a relief for troops wallowing in sodden mire. Along the Front, troops extracted themselves from their trenches and dugouts, approaching each other warily, and then eagerly, across No Man's Land. Greetings and handshakes were exchanged, as were gifts scavenged from care packages sent from home. German souvenirs that ordinarily would have been obtained only through bloodshed – such as spiked pickelhaube helmets, or Gott mit uns belt buckles – were bartered for similar British trinkets. Carols were sung in German, English, and French. A few photographs were taken of British and German officers standing alongside each other, unarmed, in No Man's Land.

Near the Ypres salient, Germans and Scotsmen chased after wild hares that, once caught, served as an unexpected Christmas feast. Perhaps the sudden exertion of chasing wild hares prompted some of the soldiers to think of having a football match. Then again, little prompting would have been necessary to inspire young, competitive men – many of whom were English youth recruited off soccer fields – to stage a match. In any case, numerous accounts in letters and journals attest to the fact that on Christmas 1914, German and English soldiers played soccer on the frozen turf of No Man's Land.

British Field Artillery Lieutenant John Wedderburn-Maxwell described the event as "probably the most extraordinary event of the whole war – a soldier's truce without any higher sanction by officers and generals...."

This isn't to say that the event met with unqualified approval. Random exchanges of gunfire along the Front offered lethal reminders that the war was still underway.

From his rearward position behind the lines, a "gaunt, sallow soldier with a thick, dark mustache and hooded eyes" witnessed the spontaneous eruption of Christian fellowship with hateful contempt. The German Field Messenger of Austrian birth heaped scorn on his comrades who were exchanging Christmas greetings with their British counterparts. "Such a thing should not happen in wartime," groused Corporal Adolf Hitler. "Have you no German sense of honor left at all?" "More than patriotic scruples were involved" in Hitler's reaction, notes Weintraub. "Although a baptized Catholic, he rejected every vestige of religious observance while his unit marked the day in the cellar of the Messines monastery."

What If ...?

In a January 2, 1915 account of the Christmas Truce, the London Daily Mirror reflected that "the gospel of hate" had lost its allure to soldiers who had come to know each other.

"The soldier's heart rarely has any hatred in it," commented the paper. "He goes out to fight because that is his job. What came before – the causes of the war and the why and wherefore – bother him little. He fights for his country and against his country's enemies. Collectively, they are to be condemned and blown to pieces. Individually, he knows they're not bad sorts."

"Many British and German soldiers, and line officers, viewed each other as gentlemen and men of honor," writes Weintraub. The rank and file came to understand that the man on the other end of the rifle, rather than the soulless monster depicted in ideological propaganda, was frightened and desperate to survive and return to his family. For many along the Front, these realities first became clear in the light cast by the German Tannenbaum.

In the shared symbol of the Christmas tree – an ornament of pagan origins appropriated by Christians centuries ago – British and German troops found "a sudden and extraordinary link," observed British author Arthur Conan Doyle after the war (a conflict that claimed his son's life). "It was an amazing spectacle," Doyle reflected, "and must arouse bitter thought concerning the high-born conspirators against the peace of the world, who in their mad ambition had hounded such men on to take each other by the throat rather than by the hand."

In a remarkable letter published by The Times of London on January 4, a German soldier stated that "as the wonderful scenes in the trenches [during Christmas] show, there is no malice on our side, and none in many of those who have been marshaled against us." But this was certainly not true of those who orchestrated the war, the "high-born conspirators against the peace of the world." As British historian Niall Ferguson points out, the war-makers' plans for the world required "Maximum slaughter at minimum expense."

The informal truce held through Christmas and, at some points along the Front, through the following day (known as "Boxing Day" to British troops). But before New Year's Day the war had resumed in all of its malignant fury, and the suicide of Christendom continued apace.

Most wars are pointless exercises in mass murder and needless destruction. World War I, however, is remarkable not only for being more avoidable and less justifiable than most wars, but also for its role in opening the gates of hell. Mass starvation and economic ruin inflicted on Germany during the war and its aftermath cultivated the National Socialist (Nazi) movement. Nearly identical ruin wrought in Russia thrust Lenin and the Bolsheviks to power. Benito Mussolini, a socialist agitator once regarded as Lenin's heir, rose to power in Italy. Radical variants of intolerant totalitarian nationalism ulcerated Europe. The seeds of future wars and terrorism were deeply sewn in the Middle East.

What if the Christmas Truce of 1914 had held? Might a negotiated peace have ensued, preserving Christendom for at least a while longer? We do not know. It is doubtful that the "high-born conspirators against the peace of the world" would have been long deterred in pursuing their demented plans. But the truce – a welcome fermata in the symphony of destruction – illustrated a timeless truth of the nature of the human soul as designed by its Creator.

Reflecting on the Christmas Truce, Scottish historian Roland Watson writes: "The State bellows the orders 'Kill! Maim! Conquer!' but a deeper instinct within the individual does not readily put a bullet through another who has done no great offense, but who rather says with them, 'What am I doing here?'"

For a tragically short time, the Spirit of the Prince of Peace drowned out the murderous demands of the State.

Reprinted from the author's blog. Originally published in The New American Magazine.

jueves, 22 de diciembre de 2022

No Evidence Russia Was Behind Nord Stream Sabotage

The Washington Post reported that Western officials doubt Moscow was responsible for bombing its own pipelines

by Dave DeCamp Posted on December 21, 2022

https://news.antiwar.com/2022/12/21/no-evidence-russia-was-behind-nord-stream-sabotage/

After months of investigations into the sabotage of the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines that connect Russia to Germany, no evidence has been found linking Russia to the attack, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing interviews with 23 diplomats and intelligence officials from nine different countries.

“There is no evidence at this point that Russia was behind the sabotage,” one European official said. Some Western officials were quick to blame Russia for the September attacks, but the report said some officials now say Russia is not to blame.

Russia has little motive to attack the Nord Stream pipelines, which are mainly owned by the Russian state gas company Gazprom. Nord Stream 2 never delivered gas to Germany, and Nord Stream 1 stopped making shipments a few weeks before the blasts. But Russia would have an interest in keeping the pipelines intact to maintain some leverage over Europe as it faces an energy crisis.

The Post report recognized that Russia had a little motive for the sabotage. “The rationale that it was Russia [that attacked the pipelines] never made sense to me,” one European official said. A handful of officials said they regretted how quickly many in the West were to put the blame on Moscow.

Investigators believe the perpetrators were state actors, and a German official said it appears explosives were placed on the outside of the pipelines. One state actor that had a motive for the attacks is the US, as Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the explosions a “tremendous opportunity” to wean Europe off Russian gas.

The US had long tried to stop the construction of Nord Stream 2 through sanctions, and President Biden said back in January that the US would “bring an end” to the pipeline if Russia invaded. Radek Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister and current Member of the European Parliament, suggested Washington was responsible by thanking the US on Twitter for the incident shortly after the leaks were reported.

But at this point, there’s still no evidence that the US or its allies were behind the blasts, and its unlikely conclusive proof of who was responsible will be made public anytime soon. “Forensics on an investigation like this is going to be exceedingly difficult,” a senior US State Department official told the Post.

For their part, Russia has blamed the blasts on the UK, an allegation that London denies. “Our intelligence services have data indicating that British military specialists were directing and coordinating the attack,’ Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in November.

The explosions and leaks took place in the Baltic Sea in the exclusive economic zones of Sweden and Denmark, which are both investigating the incidents. Given the relatively shallow depth of the blasts, the report said potential perpetrators aren’t limited only to countries that possess manned submarines or deep-sea demolition capabilities.