Iconos

Iconos
Zapata

lunes, 31 de enero de 2022

Panic and chaos is clearly setting in as the West fears peace above all else

January 28, 2022

https://thesaker.is/panic-and-chaos-is-clearly-stetting-in-as-the-west-fears-peace-above-all-else/

Fun headlines for CNN:

What??  Is that really CNN?

It is.

Furthermore, there are reports that Biden and Ze had a stormy telephone conversation which saw a furious Biden telling Ze that the invasion would happen.  Apparently, Ze disagreed.

So what is going on here????

Bernard at Moon of Alabama things that “Washington Will Soon Dump Ukraine’s President Zelensky“.

I concur.  In fact, I think that the US is basically dumping country 404 aka Banderastan, and as I explained here and here in some details, there is only one thing Uncle Shmuel wants from Ze and Ukraine: for them to force Russia to intervene, either by a suicidal attack on the LDNR or by means of a false flag, or by some kind of atrocity.

A real nightmare for the AngloZionists is taking shape.  Here are its components:

  • In spite of all the external (and even INTERNAL!) pressures, the Kremlin does not want to invade Ukraine at all.  There are exactly ZERO signs that an attack is imminent or even planned.
  • In case of a Ukie attack on the LDNR, there is a very real possibility that Russia will not openly intervene, I explained it all in detail here.
  • The US PSYOP about Putin being weak, indecisive, or a puppet of the USA/Israel (I explained the nature, function, and purpose of this CIA PSYOP in detail here) is falling apart, not only was the ultimatum very much an ultimatum, but the Russians are backing it with things like these.
  • NATO is cracking at the seams: the Croatians already said “no thanks”, the French and Germans don’t want to commit energetic seppuku, the Bulgarians are demanding details and guarantees and the French MPs are discussing whether to stay in NATO or not (they will stay, of course, but the topic is now raised).
  • Neocon freaks like Nuland and Blinken are in full panic mode, they more than anybody else want a war, and now that Russia seems to be able to deny them that, they will stay stuck with their own corruption, failures, and potential electoral apocalypse in November.
  • The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley warned a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be “horrific” for the country and would result in “significant” casualties.  No kidding!

As for Ze, here are three headlines linked to his latest and, frankly, amazing statements:

If anything, this open conflict between “Ze” and “Biden” shows two things:

1.   Zelenskii does not want to die, not even for the United States

2.   Biden is losing control of the Ukie narrative, thus losing control of country 404

Keep in mind that all this fake news about a Russian invasion is resulting in an economic disaster for Ukraine.  Just like the AngloZionist sanctions ended up hurting the West a lot more than Russia (hence they had to give up the plan to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT).

Interestingly, the head of the German intelligence service felt compelled to support Biden’s “Russia is about to attack in 30 seconds, and that’s a fact” point of view.  That will result in internal tensions inside Germany just firing the head of the German Navy for disagreeing with the official AngloZionist narrative.

Chaos and panic at all levels and everywhere.

Except in Russia and least of all in the Kremlin, of course.

There are signs that the worst nightmare for the Neocons might actually happen and Russia won’t be forced to invade Ukraine.

What do Neocons do when they panic?  Correct – false flag operations: that is MH-17 was all about.  And the Skripals.  And the “chemical attacks” in Syria.  And Navalny. And so many others that I won’t list them here.

We can be sure they will try, what is uncertain is whether they will succeed.

These are the same people who did 9/11, and they are literally capable of *anything*, including a dirty bomb in downtown Kyiv, a nuclear accident in Ukraine blamed on Russian “saboteurs” or missiles, another civilian aircraft (or ship) that destroyed a la MH-17, blow up a damn – you name it: if it is depraved, evil, ugly and based on accusations but zero evidence – you know its the Neocons which are at it.

Let’s wait for the US and NATO replies to become public before we try to guess what will happen next.  The actual texts should be leaked soon.

Andrei

domingo, 30 de enero de 2022

 El CIDE: ¡qué necedad, qué necesidad!

Jorge Durand

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2022/01/30/opinion/012a1pol

En diciembre de 2018, en una cena navideña con colegas del CIDE, obviamente se hablaba sobre el rumbo del país con la llegada de López Obrador. Alguno comentó sobre el anunciado proyecto del Tren Maya y fijó su posición crítica al respecto. Otros más opinaron para bien o para mal y, al final, propuse que podíamos seguir hablando de trenes y pasar al tema del mentado Tren Bala a Querétaro, la adjudicación al grupo Higa y la deuda pendiente con los chinos.

A tres años de esa tertulia, vemos un avance en el Tren Maya, un chequeo constante, e impertinente, del mismo Presidente sobre el ritmo de la obra y unos resultados que veremos con el tiempo. Pero ahí estará el tren, con sus pifias, aciertos, errores y potencialidades. Y al respecto, recuerdo que el nuevo aeropuerto de Texcoco era un proyecto de Vicente Fox, quien nunca fue a ver la obra, ni se preocupó por su financiamiento, hasta que se canceló por el conflicto con los ejidatarios. Luego, Calderón se lavó las manos, no hizo nada y Peña Nieto empezó tarde y mal, para dejarle a AMLO una herencia maldita, que éste se encargó de exorcizar. De lo que suceda con el nuevo aeropuerto de Santa Lucía, lo veremos en los próximos años. Pero ahí está, con museo paleontológico y todo.

Ciertamente, AMLO es un presidente constructor y va a pasar a la historia por su terquedad en supervisar y terminar sus obras. Lo que no se puede decir es que sea un constructor de instituciones, como lo fue el presidente Cárdenas. Más bien, está desmantelando instituciones que fueron creadas para suplir muchas de las ineficiencias e inequidades del aparato gubernamental. Es una tradición política mexicana, crear comisiones e institutos cuando estallan los problemas y cuando no hay modo de que el aparato burocrático estatal se encargue de transformar y revolucionar el sistema desde dentro.

La creación de los colegios y centros de investigación, al igual que el Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (SNI) son un ejemplo perfecto de esta compleja realidad y esta modalidad mexicana de solucionar los problemas. Para el secretario de Educación Reyes Heroles era imposible transformar a las universidades por dentro, levantar su nivel, promover la investigación y evitar la fuga de cerebros. Por eso el Colegio de Michoacán se ubicó en Zamora, para estar lejos de la influencia de la Nicolaita, y se convirtió en un centro de investigación con maestrías y doctorados a semejanza del Colegio de México, así surgieron muchos otros.

Estos centros de investigación formarían investigadores que luego irían a parar a las universidades públicas, con maestrías y doctorados, se fomentaría la investigación, se elevaría el nivel, pero no subirían los salarios. Para eso se conformó otra institución, el SNI, que, de manera paralela y separada de las universidades, les sube los ingresos a los investigadores, en una competencia abierta y pareja a escala nacional.

Un parche, ciertamente, pero mal que bien ha funcionado. El Conacyt y no las universidades se encargaría, en un primer momento, de promover la investigación con centros de investigación, becas, financiamiento a proyectos y apoyo a los investigadores. Pero el suelo y el sueldo, sigue siendo disparejo entre las mismas universidades públicas y no se diga con las privadas. Cada una tiene sus propias reglas y programas; sindicatos blancoscharros y rojos, y establece diferentes arreglos con los gobiernos estatal y federal. Pero un profesor de la UNAM o la UAM, gana mucho más y cuenta con más recursos que uno de Guadalajara o Zacatecas, teniendo las mismas credenciales y nivel del SNI.

Pasa igual con los colegios, el CIDE y otros centros de investigación. Cada uno ha buscado la forma de mejorar las condiciones laborales y salariales a partir de recursos autogenerados y para eso se fundaron los fideicomisos que los administraban. Unos profesores tienen seguros médicos y buenos sistemas de jubilación y otros nada. Algunas instituciones son autocráticas, otras corporativas y algunas caciquiles. Hay mucho que transformar en el sistema educativo universitario. Pero también existen instituciones democráticas, donde hay reglamentos, comités, comisiones, auscultaciones, evaluaciones y concursos públicos para acceder a las plazas. Entre ellas el CIDE.

Y para volver a aquella cena navideña, la conversación prosiguió sobre la posible injerencia de AMLO en la vida académica y en la posibilidad de imponer una ideología marxista, o de izquierda, en las escuelas y universidades. El comentario me pareció extremo y que rayaba en la ingenuidad. Me parecía descabellado que se pudiera dar cualquier injerencia ideológica en el sistema universitario. Me equivoqué.

Entre mis colegas del CIDE, ciertamente, hay muchos neoliberales, pero también los hay de tendencia marxista, funcionalista, posmoderna, socialista o anarquista. Es un centro universitario donde se respetan las ideas y se discuten; donde se construyó un modelo de administración eficiente; donde los profesores, administrativos, trabajadores y estudiantes pueden comer de manera decente y pagar por ello; donde las asesorías y proyectos externos se rigen por reglas claras y transparentes; donde los estudiantes con recursos pagan cuotas que sirven para otorgarle becas a sus propios compañeros; donde el rendimiento escolar es exigente con alumnos y profesores.

Queremos más instituciones de éstas, no menos. Y lo que no se puede admitir es la injerencia ideológica en la vida académica universitaria y la destrucción de las instituciones que funcionan con estándares de excelencia y que se rigen por criterios de funcionamiento establecidos de manera consensuada por su comunidad.

Lo que pasa con el CIDE es un claro ejemplo de impunidad institucional y puede ser el precedente de lo que ocurra en otras universidades públicas del país.

Por eso, #YoDefiendoAlCIDE y, con ello, la libertad académica, de investigación y de cátedra en México.

sábado, 29 de enero de 2022

 Índice de Percepción de la Corrupción 2021 de Transparencia Internacional: México y el mundo están estancados

La Jornada Maya

28/01/2022 | Mérida, Yucatán

Jorge Reyes Escatel 

Como lo habíamos comentado hace algunos días , la organización Transparencia Internacional (TI) dio a conocer ya su Índice de Percepción de la Corrupción 2021

https://www.lajornadamaya.mx/opinion/188987/indice-de-percepcion-de-la-corrupcion-2021-de-transparencia-internacional-mexico-y-el-mundo-estan-estancados

El IPC es considerado como un referente mundial, y su versión 2021 contiene las más recientes mediciones de percepción de los niveles de corrupción en el sector público en los 180 países analizados. Dichas mediciones se ven reflejadas en el índice a través de dos calificaciones que TI otorga a cada uno de los países que evalúa. La primera, consiste en una puntuación del nivel percibido de corrupción en una escala de 0 a 100, donde cero significa “muy corrupto” y 100 “nada corrupto”. La segunda calificación es simplemente resultado de realizar un ranqueo todos los países evaluados con base en su puntaje.

Este año, los países con mejor puntuación fueron (en orden decreciente): Dinamarca, Finlandia y Nueva Zelanda, Noruega, Singapur, Suecia, Suiza, los Países Bajos, Luxemburgo y Alemania; cada uno con 80 o más puntos de calificación. En el extremo opuesto del espectro están Sudán del Sur, Siria, Somalia, Venezuela, Yemen, Corea del Norte y Afganistán como los países peor evaluados con una calificación que comienza en los 11 puntos y no rebasa los 16.

Por su parte, en el continente americano, Canadá, Uruguay, Chile y los Estados Unidos fueron los países que obtuvieron mayor puntaje (con 74, 73, 67 y 67 puntos, respectivamente) mientras que Haití, Nicaragua y Venezuela fueron los peor calificados (con 20, 20 y 14 puntos).

En esta ocasión, ¿cómo salió calificado México? A ver qué opina usted. Como recordará, el IPC 2020 calificó a México con 31 puntos, lo cual nos ubicó en el lugar 124 del ranqueo entre 180 países. Pues bien, fíjese que el IPC 2021 nuevamente otorgó la misma calificación: 31 puntos. Este puntaje, comparado con el obtenido por los otros 179 países evaluados, nos vuelve a colocar exactamente en el mismo lugar de la lista general: en el lugar 124.

Esto me parece a mí una mala noticia, sobre todo si analizamos los datos del IPC para México durante el periodo que va del 2012 al 2021 en su conjunto. En estos diez años, la tendencia del puntaje de nuestro país en el índice ha sido marginalmente a la baja (menos 3 puntos en promedio, con una calificación máxima de 35 puntos en el 2014 y una mínima de 28 en el 2018). Sin embargo, en realidad, en términos estadísticos (analizando los “intervalos de confianza” de las mediciones), estos cambios no pueden ser considerados como “significativos”. Es decir, aunque la percepción que tienen los expertos de la corrupción en nuestro país ha empeorado un poquito, básicamente estamos igual hoy que en el 2012. Diez años en los que no ha cambiado nada.

Otra señal que nos da el IPC 2021 que confirma que seguimos igual que hace un año, la podemos encontrar en los datos utilizados para construir el índice: si consideramos las nueve variables estandarizadas que aplican para México (de las trece que utiliza Transparencia Internacional para elaborar su indicador), en cinco de ellas recibimos en 2021 exactamente el mismo puntaje que en 2020; en dos de ellas mejoramos mínimamente, mientras que en otras dos empeoramos marginalmente. Es decir, las cosas siguen igual también desde este punto de vista. 

En resumen: el CPI 2021 muestra que la percepción de la corrupción a nivel global se ha estancado durante la última década. Del año 2012 a la fecha, solamente 25 países han mejorado significativamente sus puntajes en el IPC; mientras que 23 países empeoraron durante el mismo periodo y la enorme mayoría (131 países) permanecieron igual.

A nivel regional, en la mayoría de los países del continente americano no hay evidencia de progreso y en algunos, más bien hay de deterioro. México, en este sentido, no es la excepción. Seguimos estancados. 

jorge.escatel@gmail.com

viernes, 28 de enero de 2022

Will Putin Accept Half a Loaf?

by Ray McGovern Posted on January 28, 2022

https://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2022/01/27/forecast-putin-will-accept-half-a-loaf/

The eagerly awaited "written response" from the U.S. and NATO to Russia’s security proposals is now in the hands of President Vladimir Putin. And yet there is no sign the West caved in on Moscow’s insistence that NATO rescinds its 14-year-old invitation to Ukraine to join NATO.

Those who expected the Russians to react to the West’s refusal to "redraw the security architecture of Europe" by promptly attacking Ukraine can breathe a bit easier. Although Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters Thursday that the responses from the US and NATO provide "little ground for optimism," he quickly added, "there always are prospects for continuing a dialogue, it’s in the interests of both us and the Americans."

Amidst the foreboding din in Western corporate media that, absent a written pledge to bar Ukraine from NATO, nothing else really matters to Putin and war is likely, Peskov has been much less gloomy on prospects for the bilateral talks. Immediately after the first bilateral talks on Jan. 9/10 in Geneva, for example, he noted: "It would be naive to think that one round of negotiations can bring comprehensive results." (Bear in mind that few have been as close to President Putin as Dmitri Peskov. Their working relationship goes back more than two decades; since 2012, Peskov has been Putin’s press secretary.)

How Might Putin Regard His Half a Loaf

Call me old-fashioned, but I have been practicing a simplified version of Kremlinology since the days of Nikita Khrushchev. It is called media analysis and includes a close reading of what prominent leaders say.

When he became CIA director, William Casey admitted being astonished at what we could glean from Soviet media. Well, media analysis was our bread and butter then and can provide helpful insights now as well. How best to decipher what Putin has said about the need for written agreements preventing further NATO expansion? He addressed this – and much more – head-on during a major speech on Dec. 21, 2021, before the senior military. (Please see if you can get an idea of what might be the rhetorical aim behind his emphasis on "written"; and hang in there long enough to get some feel for what he is, first and foremost, concerned about.)

Here is President Putin speaking to his top military officers:

"In particular, the growth of the US and NATO military forces in direct proximity to the Russian border and major military drills, including unscheduled ones, are a cause for concern.

"It is extremely alarming that … Mk 41 launchers, which are located in Romania and are to be deployed in Poland, are adapted for launching Tomahawk strike missiles. If this infrastructure continues to move forward, and if US and NATO missile systems are deployed in Ukraine, their flight time to Moscow will be only 7–10 minutes or even five minutes for hypersonic systems.

"This is a huge challenge for us, for our security. In this context, as you are aware, I invited the US President to start talks on the drafting of concrete agreements. … We need long-term legally binding guarantees. Well, we know very well that even legal guarantees cannot be completely fail-safe, because the United States easily pulls out of any international treaty that has ceased to be interesting to it for some reason, sometimes offering explanations and sometimes not, as was the case with the ABM and the Open Skies treaties – nothing at all.

"However, we need at least something, at least a legally binding agreement rather than just verbal assurances."

Gorbachev Should Have Said ‘Put It in Writing’

At this point in his speech, Putin asserts that verbal assurances from the US can be worthless, and recalls that Moscow was repeatedly told that Russian concerns about NATO expansion were without merit. "Take the recent past, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when we were told that our concerns about NATO’s potential expansion eastwards were absolutely groundless."

Informed observers are well aware, though, that the most glaring broken promise came earlier, in Feb. 1990, when Gorbachev was persuaded to swallow the giant bitter pill of German reunification in return for an oral assurance from then-Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would not expand "one inch" to the east. There is copious documentary evidence proving that this is exactly what happened.

Thus, in this major speech, Putin is telling his generals and admirals that, this time, Russia must demand written assurances. Lest he appears naive, he immediately adds that he is well aware that written pledges, as in treaties, have not stopped the US from doing whatever it wants.

Rhetoric

The point, of course, is a rhetorical one, and Moscow is well aware that Russia holds the high ground on this key issue – to which can be traced all manner of high tension to this day. It is no exaggeration: Gorbachev was tricked by a fast-talkin’ lawyer; Putin knows that; and this won’t happen on his watch.

It strains credulity to imagine that Putin really thought he could get the US and NATO to sign a document limiting NATO membership. No less incredulous was/is the widespread impression spread wide, so to speak, in the Establishment media, that Putin planned to exploit an anticipated Western rejection to "justify" a military strike on Ukraine.

If we can allow ourselves to get back to reality for a second – given the disarray becoming more and more open within NATO, does anyone really believe that Ukraine could become a member of NATO anytime soon? The point about every country being free to choose alliances to join is actually moot if you take the time to read the text of the NATO treaty on this point.

Unlikely Likelihood

Sure, Ukraine is free to apply to join NATO. Here’s the rub: all NATO members must give unanimous approval to Ukraine’s "application’. The charter provides sole discretion to the unanimous membership about inviting new candidates and contains no requirement to invite or to consider new applicants. Thus, Article 10 of the charter states:

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.

In that light, what are the chances of Ukraine passing muster any time soon? And, were that not enough, President Joe Biden has himself acknowledged that "The likelihood that Ukraine is going to join NATO in the near term is not very likely."

In view of the historical background and current reality of this issue, it would not appear beyond the ability of negotiators to finesse the issue to dovetail with "the facts on the ground," so to speak, and perhaps even make it appear to be something of a win-win. This, of course, would assume a modicum of goodwill on both sides and would require the corporate media to eat some crow.

The Other Half-Loaf: ‘Secondary’ Issues

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said yesterday that the US written response could result in "the start of a serious talk on secondary issues," even though the document "contains no positive response on the main issue" (presumably NATO expansion). Even NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has taken a similar line, adding that a political solution is still possible.

The rhetoric about NATO membership aside, so-called "secondary issues" remain of primary importance to President Putin who is calling the shots on the Russian side. For several years now, his attention has been focused on the pretend "ABM sites" in Romania and Poland that are easily adapted for launching Tomahawk missiles, putting in jeopardy a large portion of Russia’s strategic forces.

Read again, if you will, what Putin told his admirals and generals on Dec. 21, and try for a moment to switch places with the Russian president:

"It is extremely alarming that … Mk 41 launchers, which are located in Romania and are to be deployed in Poland, are adapted for launching Tomahawk strike missiles. If this infrastructure continues to move forward, and if US and NATO missile systems are deployed in Ukraine, their flight time to Moscow will be only 7–10 minutes or even five minutes for hypersonic systems.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President’s Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

jueves, 27 de enero de 2022

 Qué onda con el Presidente

La virulencia que tiene contra ciertos medios y periodistas tiene correlación con las informaciones que lo confrontan o que muestran sus contradicciones e inconsistencias.

Raymundo Riva Palacio

enero 27, 2022

https://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/opinion/raymundo-riva-palacio/2022/01/27/que-onda-con-el-presidente/

Las actitudes del presidente Andrés Manuel López Obrador suelen ser disruptivas y provocadoras. En ocasiones son intempestivas, improvisadas, inesperadas, donde rompe lanzas y teje nuevas alianzas que, al día siguiente, puede dinamitar también. Este zigzagueo lo hace ser un hombre de tempestades y consistente en sus inconsistencias, como ayer, al dar un ejemplo mañanero de lo que es capaz de hacer: dar un triple salto mortal sin red de protección que deja un sabor de boca amargo, porque las decisiones presidenciales, cada vez es más claro, las modula la prensa. Ese salto fue salir en defensa apasionada y firme de una persona acusada de acoso sexual, y asegurar convencido que lo que dijo la víspera no salió de su boca.

El Presidente se refirió primero al cesado director de Fonatur, Rogelio Jiménez Pons, por las demoras en la ejecución de la obra del Tren Maya. Nadie le preguntó ayer por él, pero de la nada, molesto por la forma como Carmen Aristegui, su vieja aliada, y Reforma, dijeron que lo había responsabilizado por los retrasos, dijo que no era cierto. “Yo no dije eso, yo no lo culpé, así lo interpretaron”, defendió. “(Fue) una distorsión completa”. ¿Lo fue? A la pregunta el martes del porqué había salido Jiménez Pons, López Obrador respondió:

“Es que necesitamos terminar estas obras y necesitamos responsables que estén comprometidos por entero, que no se detengan ante nada y que se apliquen a fondo. Es un poco el método de trabajo. Para poder llevar a cabo una obra se requiere un mando y se requiere una supervisión permanente, constante, y si hablamos de la obra de transformación, que es algo de mayores dimensiones, no vamos a estar considerando que son nuestros amigos o nuestros familiares o nuestros compañeros, pero resulta que no dan resultados. Lo lamentamos mucho, nos da pena, pero por encima de todo está el interés superior, el interés del pueblo y de la nación, y nosotros tenemos un compromiso con la transformación del país”.

“Podemos querer mucho a una persona, pero si esa persona no se aplica, no se entusiasma, no tiene las convicciones suficientes, no internaliza de que estamos viviendo un tiempo histórico, un momento estelar de la vida pública de México, un tiempo interesante; si está pensando que es la misma vida rutinaria del gobierno, que todo es ortodoxo, que todo es plano, que no importa que se pase el tiempo, pues entonces no está entendiendo de que una transformación es un cambio profundo, es una revolución de las conciencias”.

A López Obrador no le gustó la manera como se leyeron sus declaraciones y se arrepintió. Culpó, como siempre, a los medios, que lo colocan en el aparador donde no le gusta verse, ni acepta como error la ligereza en la que incurre con algunas de sus afirmaciones. La virulencia que tiene contra ciertos medios y periodistas tiene correlación con las informaciones que lo confrontan todos los días o que muestran sus contradicciones e inconsistencias. Reacciona impulsivamente, mostrando una inteligencia emocional que a veces es inexplicable, como fue ayer, cuando también, de la nada, se metió en un pantano, comenzó a patalear, sacó la espada y metió las manos al fuego por quien carga en su equipaje la infame acusación de acosador sexual, Pedro Salmerón, a quien anunció –sin haber pedido el beneplácito– como embajador en Panamá.

No le debe haber gustado que la canciller panameña anunciara el martes que ya habían respondido a la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores su decisión sobre Salmerón, y menos aún que tuviera una difusión amplia en los medios. “¿Y ya entonces van a haber tribunales como los de la Inquisición, nada más porque hay denuncias de sectores si no se actúa de conformidad con la ley?”, espetó el Presidente, quien ha minimizado las varias acusaciones de acoso sexual porque no se han presentado ante un Ministerio Público.

Las denuncias contra Salmerón provocaron su salida del ITAM, una institución educativa a la que detesta López Obrador –aunque varios morenistas connotados son egresados del instituto–, pero no fueron las únicas. Hay registro en las redes sociales que varias militantes que estuvieron en la campaña presidencial, denunciaron la proclividad acosadora de Salmerón, uno de los protegidos de la esposa del Presidente, Beatriz Gutiérrez Müller. De ahí, quizá, su reticencia a modificar la decisión, que podría explicar, además, que cuando le preguntaron en la mañanera si reconsideraría el nombramiento, lo rechazó, por ser capaz, dijo, y por ser “uno de los mejores historiadores en el país”.

López Obrador dijo que todo se trata de campañas mediáticas de los conservadores. Es decir, más de lo mismo, pero en esta ocasión no fue más de lo mismo. La negación irracional de sus palabras motiva a la reflexión si el caso de Jiménez Pons fue algo excepcional, o si es parte de su comportamiento cotidiano en las reuniones de gabinete o en los procesos de toma de decisión. Y perder todo el decoro institucional para hacer una defensa de Salmerón, que tiene como antecedente la que hizo de Félix Salgado Macedonio, por las mismas razones, cuando aspiraba al gobierno de Guerrero, muestra una falta de empatía con las mujeres, cuyos agravios está dispuesto a ignorar porque piensa que hay una motivación política detrás que busca dañarlo.

El Presidente está procesando todo con el mismo filtro reduccionista, y sus fijaciones deben ser motivo de preocupación. Si está tan cerrado y tiene una mirada tan obtusa de las cosas, ¿puede someter su toma de decisión a procesos objetivos? Claro que no. Revisando sus mañaneras, es notorio que la agenda se la imponen los medios, que gobierna para llevarle la contra a los medios, y que la propia conversación está subordinada a lo que informen los medios. Así no se gobierna. Así sólo se pelea y no llegará al puerto esperado si sigue gobernando para los medios y no para los ciudadanos.

miércoles, 26 de enero de 2022

US media smearing China-Russia ties on Ukraine issue: foreign ministry

EU not on the same page as the US, unlikely to be ‘mediator’

By 

Chen Qingqing

Liu Xin

and Xu Yelu Published: Jan 24, 2022 

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202201/1246802.shtml

With the US and UK ordering families of embassy employees in Kyiv to depart Ukraine and authorizing non-emergency personnel to leave on Sunday, fears of war are mounting over Russia's alleged "impending invasion" of Ukraine. 

Disinformation about the Ukraine crisis widely circulating among some Western media including Bloomberg could affect China-Russia mutual trust, and this reflects the "ill intention" of the Western forces trying to instigate divergences between Beijing and Moscow, analysts said. 

On Monday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry refuted a Bloomberg report which claimed that the Chinese leader had allegedly "asked Russian President Vladimir Putin not to invade Ukraine during the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games." 

"The report was purely made out of thin air. It seeks not only to smear and drive a wedge in China-Russia relations but also to deliberately disrupt and undermine the Beijing Winter Olympics. Such a despicable trick cannot fool the international community," Zhao Lijian, spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said at a routine press conference. 

The Chinese Embassy in Russia also refuted the report, saying in a statement sent to Russian news agency TASS on Saturday that the news "is a hoax and provocation." The embassy noted that China's position on the Ukrainian issue is consistent and clear.

In addition to the Bloomberg disinformation aimed at disrupting China-Russia relations, Russia's foreign ministry Sunday rejected what it described as "disinformation" from Britain, as the AFP reported after London accused Moscow of working to install a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine as tensions soar.

Disinformation circulated by the British government is yet another indication that it is the NATO members led by the Anglo-Saxon nations that are escalating tensions around Ukraine, the Russian foreign ministry said in a tweet.

'Forced to react'
The military standoff on the Ukrainian border has reached a very dangerous point, Yang Jin, an associate research fellow at the Institute of Russian, Eastern European, and Central Asian Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Monday.

"No one wants to escalate the crisis into a war, but conflicts could be sparked easily by accidents, and it's hard to fully prevent accidents in the intense stand-off," Yang noted.

"China has always hoped that Russia and the US could solve the problem over Ukraine through dialogue, and this position will not change," Yang said.

Even if some conflicts occur in the coming days, Russia is unlikely to be the one to initiate provocations, since Moscow has previously supported the UN-adopted Olympic Truce during the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games, while some countries like the US, the UK, and Australia refused to sign it, said, experts. They stressed that the US and its followers are more likely to launch conflicts and Russia is more likely to be the one who is forced to react if the conflicts escalate, similar to what happened in Georgia during the Beijing Olympics 2008.

While some Western media outlets are trying to disrupt China-Russia ties, unity within the West, or between the US and EU members, is in trouble as the EU stance and actions are quite different from those of the US in recent days crisis. Experts said the deep-seated divisions inside Europe are making it difficult for the EU to act as a mediator on the current tensions.

EU foreign ministers met in Brussels on Monday calling for a "de-escalation" of the situation around Ukraine, and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was scheduled to join the meeting via a video link after the US government had ordered families of US diplomats to leave Ukraine. The order came after some US media reported that Russia had deployed 100,000 troops and heavy weapons along the Ukrainian border, sounding alarm bells over its perceived aims in Ukraine, but Moscow insisted that it has no such plans, according to media reports. 

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said on Monday that the EU will not follow the US move to withdraw embassy personnel and families in Ukraine, but "all members of the EU are united," and are showing unprecedented unity over the situation in Ukraine, the AP reported. 

Amid growing tensions, Ukraine's Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov said his country had received the second consignment of weapons from the US as part of defense aid totaling $200 million, Reuters reported on Sunday, noting that the US government will continue supporting Ukraine amid concerns over the Russian buildup of military defenses on the border. 

Also, Blinken appeared on CNN on Sunday rebuffing calls to immediately impose economic sanctions on Russia, saying that "when it comes to sanctions, the purpose of those sanctions is to deter Russian aggression. And so if they're triggered now, you lose the deterrent effect." 

Tensions between the US and Russia over Ukraine showed that both sides are imposing extreme pressure to test each other's bottom lines. The essence of the current Ukraine issue concerns "security guarantees" which both sides want to negotiate but have always failed to reach an agreement on, Cui Heng, an assistant research fellow from the Center for Russian Studies of East China Normal University, told the Global Times on Monday. 

Europe 'not an iron plate'
The lack of unity within the EU is also obvious in the Ukraine crisis, and the recent resignation of German navy chief Kay-Achim Schonbach for his "pro-Russia" comments exposed the deep-seated divergences within the West over regional security issues, Chinese analysts noted. 

Schonbach stepped down after he told a think tank panel during his visit to India on Friday that Putin "probably" deserved respect, and Crimea was "gone" and would "never come back" to Ukraine, arguing in favor of cooperating with Russia to contain China's rise. 

Some media reports described the comments as an unprecedented diplomatic incident, and the German government distanced itself from Schonbach's comments, according to German media outlet Deutsche Welle. 

On the issues of Ukraine, the traditional EU powers differ with the new members of the block which are usually not as big as the former. "The latter does not want to make a trade with Russia at the cost of any country as they worry their own country would also be sacrificed by the US and EU powers in the future, and this is why they keep pushing the US to take tougher tones," Cui noted.

Position within Europe on Russia is clearly at odds with that of the US, some experts said. "Europe is not an iron plate, some countries may have less prejudice against Russia, and the German commander may have no hostility toward the Russian regime," Yang said. 

As Russia and Germany enjoy a special relationship in their history and their current cooperation extends to sectors such as energy, the attitude of the German navy chief also reflects the country's practical view on foreign relations, which would be beneficial to the development of the national economy and to the stability and security of Europe, experts said. 

"Many of the European countries want peace with Russia, unlike the US," Yang said. "Only the US wants chaos." Yang also believed that Europe can't be the meditator on the issue as it has no longer dominance in its own security affairs, since the US has much say in the security affairs of Europe through NATO.

lunes, 24 de enero de 2022

 Munich Is Not in Ukraine: Appeasement Begins at Home

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, January 23, 2022

https://worldbeyondwar.org/munich-is-not-in-ukraine-appeasement-begins-at-home

The word “Munich” — for me it calls up images of surfing in a giant park with nude sunbathers and nearby beer halls. But in U.S. news media it means the unconscionable failure to launch a war more quickly.

According to the new Munich movie on Netflix — the latest in the relentless avalanche of WWII propaganda — the decision made at Munich not to launch WWII just yet was not the horrendous moral failure we’ve all come to know and love, but actually a shrewd part of the battleplan aimed at allowing time for Britain to build up its military, thereby winning the utterly inevitable war.

Oh boy. Where to start? Britain and the United States played minor roles in WWII, which was principally won by the Soviet Union. The war was not decided by the state of the British military. WWII was not a moral good, but the worst thing was ever done in any short space of time. If we want to travel back in time and prevent the war, we’ll do better to go back and prevent part one, otherwise known as the Great War. We’ll also do well to stop U.S. and British companies funding and arming the Nazis, to undo decades of U.S. and British prioritization of keeping leftists down in Germany, and to persuade England and France to accept the Soviet proposal to join in opposition to German war rather than seeking a militarized Germany and hoping to direct its assaults toward Russia.

Whether the famous original sin of “appeasement” created the war or actually won it, it’s still part of a cultural saturation effort to make war appear inevitable, even in a radically different world. Once you fantasize that war is inevitable in some new spot, like Ukraine, you’re best off preparing for it, even starting it, or at least provoking it. This is what’s called a self-fulfilling belief.

But what if the great appeasement fear is missing the mark completely? What if “Munich” is not in Ukraine. What if it’s in Washington, D.C.? When President Biden says it’s his sacred duty to go on arming Eastern Europe, how much of that is “standing up to” Russia, and how much of it is bowing down before the weapons dealers, the warmongers, the NATO bureaucrats, the bloodthirsty media, and the Pentagon? What if Munich is actually not in Europe at all?

If we insist on finding Munich in Ukraine, we had better get clear on who is playing the role of the Nazis. I know it’s forbidden to compare anyone to Nazis, unless it’s the Russians or the Syrians or the Serbians or the Iraqis or Iranians or Chinese or North Koreans or Venezuelans or doctors advocating vaccinations or rioters at the U.S. Capitol or, really, just about anyone other than, perhaps, the self-identified neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian government and military. But it’s mostly forbidden because of the Nazis’ sadistic and genocidal domestic policies, majorly inspired by the United States, and openly tolerated by the U.S., UK, and other nations that publicly refused for years to help refugees — and did so for openly antisemitic reasons. So, again, let’s be clear who’s expanding an empire and who’s afraid of losing territory.

When Germany recently refused to allow Estonia to send weapons to Ukraine, was it perhaps nationally playing the role of those who courageously stood up against Nazism? When the President of France recently urged Europe to decide its own approach toward Russia and make it a less hostile one, what can he have had in mind? When Russia sees all the weapons and troops amassing and practicing near its borders, shouldn’t the Pentagon Entertainment Office — an office that promotes the Munich/Appeasement story through film and television — want the very last thought in the minds of Russian officials to be “We must not appease”?

domingo, 23 de enero de 2022

After a Year of Biden, Why Do We Still Have Trump’s Foreign Policy?

BY MEDEA BENJAMIN - NICOLAS J. S. DAVIES

JANUARY 21, 2022

https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/01/21/after-a-year-of-biden-why-do-we-still-have-trumps-foreign-policy/

President Biden and the Democrats were highly critical of President Trump’s foreign policy, so it was reasonable to expect that Biden would quickly remedy its worst impacts. As a senior member of the Obama administration, Biden surely needed no schooling on Obama’s diplomatic agreements with Cuba and Iran, both of which began to resolve long-standing foreign policy problems and provided models for the renewed emphasis on diplomacy that Biden was promising.

Tragically for America and the world, Biden has failed to restore Obama’s progressive initiatives and has instead doubled down on many of Trump’s most dangerous and destabilizing policies. It is especially ironic and sad that a president who ran so stridently on being different from Trump has been so reluctant to reverse his regressive policies. Now the Democrats’ failure to deliver on their promises with respect to both domestic and foreign policy is undermining their prospects in November’s midterm election.

Here is our assessment of Biden’s handling of ten critical foreign policy issues:

1. Prolonging the agony of the people of Afghanistan. It is perhaps symptomatic of Biden’s foreign policy problems that the signal achievement of his first year in office was an initiative launched by Trump, to withdraw the United States from its 20-year war in Afghanistan. But Biden’s implementation of this policy was tainted by the same failure to understand Afghanistan that doomed and dogged at least three prior administrations and the U.S.’s hostile military occupation for 20 years, leading to the speedy restoration of the Taliban government and the televised chaos of the U.S. withdrawal.

Now, instead of helping the Afghan people recover from two decades of U.S.-inflicted destruction, Biden has seized $9.4 billion in Afghan foreign currency reserves, while the people of Afghanistan suffer through a desperate humanitarian crisis. It is hard to imagine how even Donald Trump could be more cruel or vindictive.

2. Provoking a crisis with Russia over Ukraine. Biden’s first year in office is ending with a dangerous escalation of tensions at the Russia/Ukraine border, a situation that threatens to devolve into a military conflict between the world’s two most heavily armed nuclear states–the United States and Russia. The United States bears much responsibility for this crisis by supporting the violent overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine in 2014, backing NATO expansion right up to Russia’s border, and arming and training Ukrainian forces.

Biden’s failure to acknowledge Russia’s legitimate security concerns has led to the present impasse, and Cold Warriors within his administration are threatening Russia instead of proposing concrete measures to de-escalate the situation.

3. Escalating Cold War tensions and a dangerous arms race with China. President Trump launched a tariff war with China that economically damaged both countries, and reignited a dangerous Cold War and arms race with China and Russia to justify an ever-increasing U.S. military budget.

After a decade of unprecedented U.S. military spending and aggressive military expansion under Bush II and Obama, the U.S. “pivot to Asia” militarily encircled China, forcing it to invest in more robust defense forces and advanced weapons. Trump, in turn, used China’s strengthened defenses as a pretext for further increases in U.S. military spending, launching a new arms race that has raised the existential risk of nuclear war to a new level.

Biden has only exacerbated these dangerous international tensions. Alongside the risk of war, his aggressive policies toward China have led to an ominous rise in hate crimes against Asian Americans and created obstacles to much-needed cooperation with China to address climate change, the pandemic, and other global problems.

4. Abandoning Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. After President Obama’s sanctions against Iran utterly failed to force it to halt its civilian nuclear program, he finally took a progressive, diplomatic approach, which led to the JCPOA nuclear agreement in 2015. Iran scrupulously met all its obligations under the treaty, but Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in 2018. Trump’s withdrawal was vigorously condemned by Democrats, including candidate Biden, and Senator Sanders promised to rejoin the JCPOA on his first day in office if he became president.

Instead of immediately rejoining an agreement that worked for all parties, the Biden administration thought it could pressure Iran to negotiate a “better deal.” Exasperated Iranians instead elected a more conservative government and Iran moved forward on enhancing its nuclear program.

A year later, and after eight rounds of shuttle diplomacy in Vienna, Biden has still not rejoined the agreement. Ending his first year in the White House with the threat of another Middle East war is enough to give Biden an “F” in diplomacy.

5. Backing Big Pharma over a People’s Vaccine. Biden took office as the first Covid vaccines were being approved and rolled out across the United States and the world. Severe inequities in global vaccine distribution between rich and poor countries were immediately apparent and became known as “vaccine apartheid.”

Instead of manufacturing and distributing vaccines on a non-profit basis to tackle the pandemic as the global public health crisis that it is, the United States and other Western countries chose to maintain the neoliberal regime of patents and corporate monopolies on vaccine manufacture and distribution. The failure to open up the manufacture and distribution of vaccines to poorer countries gave the Covid virus-free rein to spread and mutate, leading to new global waves of infection and death from the Delta and Omicron variants.

Biden belatedly agreed to support a patent waiver for Covid vaccines under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, but with no real plan for a “People’s Vaccine,” Biden’s concession has made no impact on millions of preventable deaths.

6. Ensuring catastrophic global warming at COP26 in Glasgow. After Trump stubbornly ignored the climate crisis for four years, environmentalists were encouraged when Biden used his first days in office to rejoin the Paris climate accord and cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline.

But by the time Biden got to Glasgow, he had let the centerpiece of his own climate plan, the Clean Energy Performance Program (CEPP), be stripped out of the Build Back Better bill in Congress at the behest of fossil-fuel industry sock-puppet Joe Manchin, turning the U.S. pledge of a 50% cut from 2005 emissions by 2030 into an empty promise.

Biden’s speech in Glasgow highlighted China and Russia’s failures, neglecting to mention that the United States has higher emissions per capita than either of them. Even as COP26 was taking place, the Biden administration infuriated activists by putting oil and gas leases up for auction for 730,000 acres of the American West and 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico. At the one-year mark, Biden has talked the talk, but when it comes to confronting Big Oil, he is not walking the walk, and the whole world is paying the price.

7. Political prosecutions of Julian Assange, Daniel Hale, and Guantanamo torture victims. Under President Biden, the United States remains a country where the systematic killing of civilians and other war crimes go unpunished, while whistleblowers who muster the courage to expose these horrific crimes to the public are prosecuted and jailed as political prisoners.

In July 2021, former drone pilot Daniel Hale was sentenced to 45 months in prison for exposing the killing of civilians in America’s drone wars. WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange still languishes in Belmarsh Prison in England, after 11 years fighting extradition to the United States for exposing U.S. war crimes.

Twenty years after it set up an illegal concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to imprison 779 mostly innocent people kidnapped around the world, 39 prisoners remain there in illegal, extrajudicial detention. Despite promises to close this sordid chapter of U.S. history, the prison is still functioning and Biden is allowing the Pentagon to actually build a new, closed courtroom at Guantanamo to more easily keep the workings of this gulag hidden from public scrutiny.

8. Economic siege warfare against the people of Cuba, Venezuela, and other countries. Trump unilaterally rolled back Obama’s reforms on Cuba and recognized unelected Juan Guaidó as the “president” of Venezuela, as the United States tightened the screws on its economy with “maximum pressure” sanctions.

Biden has continued Trump’s failed economic siege warfare against countries that resist U.S. imperial dictates, inflicting endless pain on their people without seriously imperiling, let alone bringing down, their governments. Brutal U.S. sanctions and efforts at regime change have universally failed for decades, serving mainly to undermine the United States’s own democratic and human rights credentials.

Juan Guaidó is now the least popular opposition figure in Venezuela, and genuine grassroots movements opposed to U.S. intervention are bringing popular-democratic and socialist governments to power across Latin America, in Bolivia, Peru, Chile, Honduras – and maybe Brazil in 2022.

9. Still supporting Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen and its repressive ruler. Under Trump, Democrats and a minority of Republicans in Congress gradually built a bipartisan majority that voted to withdraw from the Saudi-led coalition attacking Yemen and stop sending arms to Saudi Arabia. Trump vetoed their efforts, but the Democratic election victory in 2020 should have led to an end to the war and humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

Instead, Biden only issued an order to stop selling “offensive” weapons to Saudi Arabia, without clearly defining that term, and went on to okay a $650 million weapons sale. The United States still supports the Saudi war, even as the resulting humanitarian crisis kills thousands of Yemeni children. And despite Biden’s pledge to treat the Saudis’ cruel leader, MBS, as a pariah, Biden refused to even sanction MBS for his barbaric murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

10. Still complicit in the illegal Israeli occupation, settlements, and war crimes. The United States is Israel’s largest arms supplier, and Israel is the world’s largest recipient of U.S. military aid (approximately $4 billion annually), despite its illegal occupation of Palestine, widely condemned war crimes in Gaza, and illegal settlement building. U.S. military aid and arms sales to Israel clearly violate the U.S. Leahy Laws and Arms Export Control Act.

Donald Trump was flagrant in his disdain for Palestinian rights, including transferring the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to a property in Jerusalem that is only partly within Israel’s internationally recognized border, a move that infuriated Palestinians and drew international condemnation.

But nothing has changed under Biden. The U.S. position on Israel and Palestine is as illegitimate and contradictory as ever, and the U.S. Embassy to Israel remains on illegally occupied land. In May, Biden supported the latest Israeli assault on Gaza, which killed 256 Palestinians, half of them civilians, including 66 children.

Conclusion

Each part of this foreign policy fiasco costs human lives and creates regional–even global–instability. In every case, progressive alternative policies are readily available. The only thing lacking is political will and independence from corrupt vested interests.

The United States has squandered unprecedented wealth, global goodwill, and a historic position of international leadership to pursue unattainable imperial ambitions, using military force and other forms of violence and coercion in flagrant violation of the UN Charter and international law.

Candidate Biden promised to restore America’s position of global leadership but has instead doubled down on the policies through which the United States lost that position in the first place, under a succession of Republican and Democratic administrations. Trump was only the latest iteration in America’s race to the bottom.

Biden has wasted a vital year doubling down on Trump’s failed policies. In the coming year, we hope that the public will remind Biden of its deep-seated aversion to war and that he will respond—albeit reluctantly—by adopting more dovish and rational ways.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US-Saudi ConnectionNicolas J. S. Davies is a writer for Consortium News and a researcher with CODEPINK, and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq