How To Avoid WWIII

by Edward Lozansky Posted on April 22, 2021

https://original.antiwar.com/Edward_Lozansky/2021/04/21/how-to-avoid-wwiii/

When President Biden called Russian President Vladimir Putin and invited him for a summit, I felt relief almost like back in 1962 when I heard on the news that John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev had made a deal to resolve the Cuban missile crisis and avoid nuclear war.

When the gentleman invites someone for a serious business talk, especially in the search of peace, he does not start with insults, threats, and sanctions, but as we see in this case he does what obviously put the probability of this meeting in huge doubt.

So, it is too early to celebrate, and I agree with Sen. Sam Nunn, who came up with the expression “sleepwalking into nuclear a catastrophe,” when describing the state of U.S.-Russian relations. Many other foreign policy experts began using this term and some supplemented it with the word “cyber” next to nuclear, especially after Mr. Biden directly threatened Moscow with the use of this relatively new weapon.

As for the country where World War III is likely to start, it is obviously Ukraine, whose leaders are desperately applying for the dubious prize of following the example of Serbia in the outbreak of World War I and Poland in World War II. At the same time, Kyiv is trying to “wag the dog” and draw America and NATO into their dangerous game.

Ironically, one of the main actors in this looming tragedy is a Jewish comic, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who won the 2019 presidential elections in Ukraine by pledging to bring peace to a country torn by civil war after the 2014 Western-backed coup. Regrettably, he is finding eager backers in Washington and Brussels. As the result, we see the merger of an unlikely partnership that includes Ukrainian ultranationalists and Western democracies led by the Biden administration.

Actually, this fraternity also happened in the past when, after the end of World War II, U.S. and Canada welcomed thousands of German Nazi war criminals and their Ukrainian collaborators to be used in the Cold War against the USSR. Another similar and more recent example was in Syria when Washington financed, armed and trained Middle Eastern terrorists, calling them “moderate” rebels.

So far, we haven’t heard a single word of condemnation or even mild criticism from Washington or Brussels of the Ukrainian-armed neo-Nazi battalions, their torch marches in the capital city of Kyiv, or the burning of live people in Odesa. Western democracies do not object when Ukrainian authorities praise Nazi collaborators as heroes and rename streets and sports stadiums in their honor. Nor is there condemnation when electrical and water stations in areas controlled by separatists are blown up by Ukrainian infiltrators, or even when the Ukrainian government built a dam to block water supplies to Crimea. This is despite Kyiv’s calling these territories a part of Ukraine, which means that the authorities are torturing their own people with the tacit support of the West. Some Western values.

The road map to peace was clearly outlined in the Minsk accords, which were accepted and signed by all sides of the conflict, plus leaders of Russia, Germany, and France as guarantors, and approved by the U.N. Security Council. However, powerful forces, both inside and outside of Ukraine, prevented Mr. Zelenskiy’s fulfillment of his campaign promises and, moreover, managed to transform him from a master of clownish stage escapades, like playing on the piano with his genitals, into a war hawk using the anti-Russia lobby in the US and European Union to get Washington and NATO to take action on Ukraine’s behalf. And they are listening, by providing plenty of military advisers and trainers, billions of dollars in military supplies and verbal assurances that the West is ready to support Kyiv all the way. One should add that it was NATO’s expansion to the East and stand by invitation to include Georgia and Ukraine in this process was the major factor in the devastating wars in these countries.

According to the Army Times, Defender Europe 2021 is one of the world’s largest military exercises, led by the US and NATO. It will continue until June with 28,000 troops from 27 nations. In advance of the exercise, an entire US Army division arrived in Europe. The Europe-Africa Command announced that operations will take place in the Balkans and the Black Sea region, and operations using maritime routes that bridge Europe, Asia and Africa will be practiced. No one is hiding that this operation is directed at Russia. When a Ukrainian diplomat said “The scenario is that from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, we are practicing for, well, let’s put it directly, the war with Russia,” no one objected.

In his phone call to Mr. Putin, Mr. Biden called on Russia to “de-escalate tensions,” but the US has not indicated any willingness to scale back its exercises.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the naval deployment was openly provocative and that “American ships have absolutely nothing to do near our shores. They are testing our strength and playing on our nerves,” he said. “Seeing itself as the Queen of the Seas, the US should realize that the risk of incidents is high.”

Washington keeps accusing Russia of violating the Minsk accords when it is he, Mr. Zelenskiy, who openly declares that these accords are not acceptable in their current formulations. Ruslan Khomchak, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Ukraine, announced increases of Ukraine’s forces deployed against the Donbas, as well as in the direction of Crimea, so Russia is obviously responding by deploying its military personnel and equipment and as usual gets all the blame.

When on March 29 the Ukrainian parliament, the Supreme Rada, passed a bill removing any need for Kyiv to fulfill its obligations under the Minsk Agreements, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg called the new Russian behavior “unjustified and deeply concerning”

Mr. Zelenskiy has urged NATO to speed up Ukrainian membership, but that would require the approval of all 30 members, which is presently unlikely. Nonetheless, Mr. Stoltenberg said NATO is helping Ukraine’s military with modernization, training, and joint exercises.

Whether NATO is ready to use its troops in case of a direct military conflict is a big question. If it does, then World War III is inevitable, which would mean the end of our civilization as we know it.

So, almost 60 years later, Mr. Biden and Mr. Putin find themselves in the same situation as John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev during their Caribbean crisis. Our fate depends on whether they have enough geopolitical strategic vision to follow in the steps of their predecessors.

My colleague, professor Herbert Reginbogin from the Catholic University of America, and I have sent an open letter to both Mr. Biden and Mr. Putin asking them to take a deep breath and think about their responsibility to their nations and all humankind. In this letter, we said that April 25, which is the 76th anniversary of the historical linkage of the two countries, at the time Allied nations, meeting at the Elbe River in Germany to end World War II, provides an opportunity to recall that vision of alliance and to become a watershed to rebalance U.S.-Russian relations.

During the April 15 emergency address to the nation, Mr. Biden said, “Now is the time to de-escalate. The way forward is through thoughtful dialogue and diplomatic process. The US is prepared to continue constructively to move forward that process.”

Why not jump-start the U.S.-Russian dialogue by planting symbolic trees in the White House and Kremlin gardens with the respective ambassadors present as a gesture in need of a better outcome for our nations and the world?

Edward Lozansky is president of the American University in Moscow. Reprinted from the Washington Times with permission from the author.

 

Sens. Sanders, Warren called for ‘restricting’ US aid to Israel at J Street confab

Progressive lawmakers urge Israel to help vaccinate Palestinians, say foreign assistance shouldn’t be used to advance policies that ‘violate Palestinian rights’

By JACOB MAGID 20 April 2021

https://www.timesofisrael.com/sens-sanders-warren-call-for-restricting-us-aid-to-israel-at-j-street-confab/

The Republican Jewish Committee lashed out at Warren’s remarks, calling them “disgusting.”

Prominent progressive senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both used their Monday addresses at the J Street lobby’s national conference to call for regulating US aid to Israel, asserting that such assistance should not be allowed to bankroll Israeli policies in the West Bank that damage prospects for a two-state solution.

The stances appeared to mark a shift by more left-wing Democrats away from talk of “conditioning” aid to Israel to “restricting” it.

The former term was used by several candidates during the recent US presidential campaign, including Sanders and Warren — implying that some or all of the $3.8 billion in aid that the US has agreed to give Israel over a 10-year period should potentially be withheld based on actions taken by the Israeli government.

In shifting to talk of “restricting” aid, progressive Democrats, with J Street’s backing, is not calling to limit the amount of already-agreed-upon aid, but are rather seeking greater control of how it may and may not be used.

“If we’re serious about arresting settlement expansion and helping move the parties toward a two-state solution, then it would be irresponsible not to consider all of the tools we have at our disposal,” Warren told J Street in prerecorded remarks played on the second day of the left-wing, pro-Israel lobby’s virtual conference.

“One of those is restricting military aid from being used in the occupied territories. By continuing to provide military aid without restriction, we provide no incentive for Israel to adjust course,” she added.

The Republican Jewish Committee lashed out at Warren’s remarks, calling them “disgusting.”

“To advocate, as Sen. Warren does, that the US pressure Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians while the Palestinian Authority condemns Israel’s existence, incites violence against Israel and Jews everywhere, and continues its ‘Pay for Slay’ salaries to terrorists and their families, is disgusting,” said RJC executive director Matt Brooks.

For his part, Sanders also declared himself in favor of the US using its aid as leverage.

“I strongly believe that we must also be willing to bring real pressure to bear, including restricting the US aid, in response to moves by either side that undermine the chances for peace,” he said.

“The truth is that the United States gives an enormous amount of military aid to Israel. It also provides some humanitarian and economic aid to the Palestinians. It is totally appropriate for the United States to say what that aid may and may not be used for,” Sanders argued.

“In terms of aid to Israel, in my view, the American people do not want to see that money being used to support policies that violate human rights and treat the Palestinian people as second-class human beings,” he added.

Sanders insisted the strategy is not about “singling out any one country” but rather “acting in an evenhanded way” to advance American values in the region.

Warren also used the opportunity to chastise both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

On Netanyahu, she said that if the long-serving prime minister fails in the task of forming a government, “the majority [in the Knesset] that opposes him must decide what to do next. Will they continue to fight among themselves and, in the process, prop up a corrupt leader who puts his own interests ahead of those of his country? Or will they join together to begin the difficult task of rooting out corruption and reinstating the rule of law?” she asked.

As for the Palestinian leadership, Warren said that “the West Bank is ruled by a corrupt and increasingly authoritarian leadership under President Abbas” while Gaza is governed by “Hamas — a terrorist organization that has yet to renounce violence.”

Both Warren and Sanders called on Israel to do more to ensure that Palestinians are vaccinated.

“Jewish settlers in the West Bank are receiving vaccinations, while few Palestinians have any access to life-saving shots,” Warren said.

While Israel has been a world leader in inoculating its citizens, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza lags well behind. So far, only around 3.44 percent of them have received a coronavirus vaccine, with supplies rapidly depleting in the Gaza Strip.

Palestinians received 72,000 doses of AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine through the international COVAX initiative on Monday. But even with that shipment, Palestinians are still far from herd immunity. Ramallah has received some 196,200 doses from various sources, far fewer than it needs to vaccinate the nearly 3 million Palestinians who live in the West Bank.

Israel has immunized 105,000 West Bank Palestinians who hold permits to work in Israel and the settlements. It has also transferred several thousand more of its own doses to Palestinian officials and medical workers.

Nonetheless, the Jewish state has come under criticism for not vaccinating Palestinians, many of whom live under Israeli military rule. Human rights groups charge that international law requires Israel as an occupying power to provide vaccines for Palestinians.

Israel rejects the characterization that it occupies Palestinian territory, deeming the West Bank “disputed.” Israeli officials have also pointed to the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinians, which assign responsibility for health care to the PA. However, the agreement also states that the sides should cooperate on such issues.

While Sanders and Warren typically receive warm receptions at J Street conferences, it is unclear whether their more critical approach on Israel will reign supreme in the Democratic Party.

US President Joe Biden is similarly supportive of a two-state solution and has already acted to restore aid to the Palestinians slashed by his predecessor Donald Trump, but as a candidate, he pushed back against efforts by J Street and others in the progressive wing of the party to insert language more critical of Israel onto the party platform.

 

When Israel Leaves its Calling Card

by Ted Snider Posted on April 19, 2021

https://original.antiwar.com/Ted_Snider/2021/04/18/when-israel-leaves-its-calling-card/

On March 4, 2021, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz very publicly told Fox News that the "Israeli military is updating plans to strike Iranian nuclear sites and is prepared to act independently." He added that "If the world stops them before, it’s very much good. But if not, we must stand independently and we must defend ourselves by ourselves.”

Gantz seems to be announcing that if the U.S. participated in discussions with Iran and the rest of the P5+1 to open the possibility of returning to the JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran, then, the world has missed its opportunity to "stop them," Israel would "strike Iranian nuclear sites."

The US did return to the JCPOA negotiations. And on April 11, Israel detonated an explosion in Iran’s Natanz civilian nuclear facility. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran described the act of sabotage as a "small explosion." The explosion destroyed the power supply that runs the centrifuges that enrich uranium. Reports suggest that an explosive device was smuggled into the Natanz facility and detonated remotely.

There is nothing new about Israel sabotaging Iran’s Natanz facility. The Flame and Stuxnet viruses that wiped out 20% of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges were joint operations of the CIA, NSA, and Israel’s unit 8200. The July 3, 2020 explosion at Natanz also seems to have been carried out by Israel.

What is new this time is that Israel left its calling card. Israel always stays hidden: they never publicly claim responsibility for their attacks on Iran. This time Israel made sure everyone knew. General Aviv Kochavi, chief of staff of the Israeli army, said that "the Israeli military’s "operations in the Middle East are not hidden from the eyes of the enemy."

Multiple Israeli media outlets have quoted intelligence sources who attribute the attack to the Mossad. Israel’s public radio broadcaster Kan cited intelligence sources as saying that Mossad carried out the attack. The Jerusalem Post turned up the echo chamber, repeating that the Mossad "was reportedly behind the attack on Natanz." Both American and Israeli officials confirmed to The New York Times that Israel had a role in the attack.

The United States made its first appearance at the Vienna talks on the Iran nuclear deal on April 6. The same day, right on cue, Israel attacked an Iranian military vessel in the Red Sea. The ship broke into flames and smoke when a mine that had been attached to it exploded.

Like Israel blowing up the Natanz facility, there is nothing new in Israel blowing up Iranian ship. Though this may be the first time Israel has attacked a military vessel, since late 2019, Israel has attacked at least a dozen commercial ships carrying Iranian oil.

But, again, a new pattern emerges. What is new this time is that Israel left its calling card. The New York Times reports that "an American official said the Israelis had notified the United States that its forces had struck the vessel at about 7:30 a.m. local time."

Why are the normally clandestine Israelis leaving calling cards since the start of the reborn JCPOA negotiations? Because it is not nuclear facilities and military ships that are being sabotaged. It is American diplomacy that would bring Iran out of international isolation. Israel is not sabotaging Iran. Israel is sabotaging the U.S.

Iran seldom publicizes Israeli acts of sabotage. And there’s a reason. If they made the attacks public and did nothing, they would look impotent; if they made the attacks public and retaliated, the world would see the Iranian retaliation and not the Israeli provocation, and the US would be forced to further isolate Iran and abort diplomacy. That’s what Israel is trying to provoke; that’s what Iran is trying to avoid. That’s what Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif was explaining when he said that the Israelis "want to take revenge because of our progress in the way to lift sanctions…We will not fall into their trap."

Iran wasn’t falling into the trap. So, Israel started leaving its calling card by informing the US and the world of their responsibility for the attacks. "Once Israeli officials are quoted, it requires the Iranians to take revenge," former head of the Mossad Danny Yatom said Monday on an Israeli Army-run radio station. Now if Iran lets the attacks go, they looked weak; if Iran retaliates, they looked like the aggressor, like terrorists. If the US lets Israel get away with it – which they consistently have – it either embarrasses the US and shows they’ll let Israel do what they want, or it makes the US look complicit in Iran’s eyes. Either way, it weakens renewed Iranian and American efforts at diplomacy.

Because Israel brazenly carried out the attack while US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was in Israel, it is hard for the US to claim they didn’t know about it. So, when Austin stood beside Netanyahu in front of reporters and continued to promise America’s support for Israel’s qualitative military edge, the Israeli design is that it will look complicity to Iran and sabotage the talks. In an April 12 media availability, when asked about what he would say to Netanyahu after the Israeli attack, Austin refused to mention Iran and said only that he is in Israel "to reassure the leadership of our commitment as a…strategic partner, only worsening that diplomacy damaging perception.

Israel is leaving its calling card to provoke Iran into self-damaging retaliation and to cast the US as complicit in attacks on Iran. The first threatens America’s willingness to engage in diplomacy with Iran; the second threatens Iran’s willingness to engage in diplomacy with America.

Israel is leaving its calling card in an attempt to sabotage America’s attempt to re-engage in diplomacy with Iran.

Ted Snider has a graduate degree in philosophy and writes on analyzing patterns in US foreign policy and history.

 

¿QUÉ SUCEDIÓ CON LA GIRA DE EBRARD POR ESTADOS UNIDOS, CHINA, RUSIA Y LA INDIA?

El secretario de Relaciones Exteriores de México, Marcelo Ebrard, que es también una especie de secretario de Salud y de Gobernación, en vista de que es quien anuncia las medidas más relevantes en torno a la estrategia gubernamental para conseguir vacunas y en materia migratoria, había anticipado que visitaría a los países aludidos en el encabezado de este artículo, para agilizar la entrega de vacunas ya comprometidas para nuestro país.

Por lo pronto, la cancillería mexicana ha anunciado que Ebrard hará una visita oficial a Rusia del 24 al 28 de abril próximos[1]. Se señala en el comunicado que el objetivo de la visita “se enmarca en el diálogo político ágil y abierto que mantienen ambos países, y en el espíritu de cooperación bilateral, en diversos temas, notablemente el del combate a la pandemia del COVID-19”.

Se informa que durante la “gira de trabajo (Ebrard y el Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Rusia, Serguéi Lavrov) analizarán mecanismos para fortalecer las relaciones entre ambos países; evaluarán las acciones emprendidas durante la pandemia e identificarán prioridades para la etapa de recuperación”.[2]

Así también, Ebrard visitará al Instituto Gamaleya en donde se desarrolló y se produce la vacuna Sputnik V, que México ha adquirido para su esquema de vacunación anti-Covid 19.

Esta visita de Ebrard se realiza en un momento muy singular, por decir lo menos, en la política internacional, dado el enfrentamiento cada vez más intenso entre Estados Unidos y Rusia, que en estos días ha dado lugar a más sanciones económicas y diplomáticas de parte de Washington contra el gobierno de Putin; y la respuesta del gobierno ruso con sanciones diplomáticas (en vista de que en el ámbito económico, el mismo Lavrov reconoció que no tienen la capacidad de responder de manera simétrica a los estadounidenses).

El gobierno de Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), después de un inicial distanciamiento con el de Biden, en vista de que no reconoció el triunfo electoral de éste hasta que todas las instancias legales del proceso electoral habían terminado, ha demostrado ahora una gran cercanía con el gobierno norteamericano, en especial a raíz de la crisis migratoria en la frontera entre ambos países, propiciada por el cambio inicial de la política restrictiva que había aplicado Trump, y que Biden relajó, lo que incentivó una descontrolada migración de centroamericanos hacia Estados Unidos. Ello finalmente obligó a Biden a reimponer restricciones similares a las establecidas por Trump, y a pedir a México y a los gobiernos del Triángulo Norte de Centroamérica a utilizar nuevamente a sus fuerzas armadas y de seguridad, para detener el flujo migratorio hacia Estados Unidos.

Este cambio de política, en menos de 100 días de la administración Biden, ya provocó su primera baja política, con la renuncia de la exembajadora en México, Roberta Jacobson, a su puesto como encargada de la política migratoria en la frontera sur de Estados Unidos, puesto que su posición era más conciliatoria y en favor de una migración regular, ordenada y segura.

AMLO ha recibido como compensación por su ayuda para detener el flujo de migrantes, 2.7 millones de dosis de la cuestionada vacuna Astra Zeneca[3] (por más que ambos gobiernos insisten en que no hubo quid pro quo), y es de los pocos mandatarios en el mundo que ya ha hablado por teléfono con el presidente Biden, en dos ocasiones.

La visita de Ebrard a Rusia entraña por lo tanto, numerosos riesgos, en vista de que la política de la administración Biden es escalar la guerra híbrida contra Rusia y China, iniciada en la anterior administración de Donald Trump; y para ello, está tratando de que todos los países aliados y vasallos de Estados Unidos, asuman como propias las muchas medidas antirrusas y antichinas que están aplicando en estos primeros días de su gobierno.

Es sin duda positivo, que el gobierno de AMLO no siga encerrándose en la relación bilateral con Estados Unidos, pues eso lo hace más vulnerable a los chantajes y presiones de Washington, tal como sucedió en los dos primeros años de su administración, que coincidieron con el gobierno de Trump.

Y aún más positivo es que se acerque a las otras dos grandes potencias del actual escenario multipolar, esto es, Rusia y China, por más que Estados Unidos insista en que el mundo tiene que seguir obedeciendo sólo sus órdenes y demandas.

Pero ello no quita que desde Washington se inicie una estrategia de presión contra México, para que no intensifique las relaciones con Moscú y Beijing; e incluso para que se sume a las sanciones económicas y boicots (como contra las empresas tecnológicas chinas) que está implementando el gobierno estadounidense, y que exige a sus aliados y vasallos que repliquen a su vez.

Ya veremos si Ebrard puede realizar una visita exitosa a Moscú y después a Beijing, en donde se reafirme que México no se va a enganchar en la lucha por la hegemonía mundial entre las potencias; que colaborará con todas ellas, ahí en donde le convenga, y se distanciará de enfrentamientos diplomáticos y sobre todo militares, entre dichas potencias, pues ello es en beneficio de nuestro país; e incluso, de iniciarse hostilidades entre dichas potencias (existe un alto riesgo de ello, especialmente en los casos de Ucrania y Taiwán), nuestro país deberá declararse abiertamente neutral.

Ojalá que las presiones, que sin duda existen ahora, y se incrementarán más adelante, por la creciente hostilidad entre Occidente, Rusia y China, no tome a México desprevenido; y sobre todo, que pueda conformar un bloque de países que, con toda proporción guardada, represente algo similar a los No Alineados de las décadas de 50, 60 y 70 del siglo pasado, que en la actual coyuntura, puedan proponer vías alternativas para la paz, el desarrollo y la cooperación internacional en materia de salud, medio ambiente, etc.

---

[1] https://www.gob.mx/sre/prensa/el-canciller-marcelo-ebrard-realizara-visita-de-trabajo-a-rusia

[2] Ibidem.

[3] Por los eventos de coágulos cerebrales que han sufrido algunas personas que recibieron la vacuna, en Estados Unidos y Europa Occidental.

 

Estados Unidos pretende “venezolizar” a Rusia

Después de que el presidente de Estados Unidos llamara por teléfono al de Rusia, Vladimir Putin (13 de abril), con objeto de hablar sobre las deterioradas relaciones entre ambas potencias, parecía lógico esperar un poco de prudencia de parte del gobierno estadounidense, antes de aplicar más sanciones a los rusos. Esta vez, relativas a la posibilidad de las autoridades rusas de colocar bonos en su moneda, en los mercados internacionales; además de la expulsión de diplomáticos.

Tal parece que la administración Biden, plagada de “halcones” y rusófobos, pretende acorralar por completo al gobierno de Putin, no sólo con las sabidas sanciones económicas, para estrechar cada vez más la capacidad de maniobra, ya bastante restringida, del gobierno ruso (ahí está la posibilidad de que el gasoducto Nord Stream 2 no pueda terminarse, debido a la amenaza de sanciones contra las empresas europeas que participan en él); sino también obligando a Rusia a definirse militarmente en el caso de Ucrania, en el que Occidente está empujando al régimen títere de Kiev a provocar una guerra abierta con Rusia, que así le dé el último pretexto que necesita Washington para que Ucrania sea aceptada en la OTAN y con ello, se puedan establecer bases militares e incluso misiles de corto y mediano alcance en ese territorio, apuntados hacia Rusia.

Por ello, el Kremlin está dispuesto a ocupar una parte importante del territorio ucraniano, en caso de que desde Kiev inicien las hostilidades con objeto de recuperar a las provincias rebeldes de Donetsk y Luhansk, para evitar que Occidente establezca en Ucrania una plataforma de permanente amenaza a la seguridad e integridad territoriales rusas.

Putin está en una posición muy difícil pues si con cualquier provocación, muerde el anzuelo de iniciar hostilidades contra Ucrania, esa será la llamada para que todo Occidente aplique un bloqueo completo en materia económica a Rusia; y al mismo tiempo, la OTAN tenga el pretexto perfecto para apoyar militarmente a los ucranianos y aumentar significativamente su presencia en Polonia y los países bálticos; además de que la marina estadounidense entraría al Mar Negro para generar una reacción rusa.

Obviamente todo lo anterior pondría al mundo al borde de una guerra nuclear entre Rusia y Estados Unidos, pero dadas las acciones y declaraciones irresponsables que Washington ha venido desarrollando y manifestando, está claro que el gabinete de neoconservadores y liberales intervencionistas que manejan a su antojo al senil Biden en Washington, están dispuestos a llevar el conflicto con Rusia al nivel al que llegó en 1962 con la URSS, en Cuba, y que provocó que Nikita Kruschev se desistiera de enfrentar a Estados Unidos, lo que dio una victoria estratégica a Kennedy en aquellos años.

Sin embargo, no estamos en 1962, y está claro que Putin tiene una claridad estratégica e inteligencia muy superiores a Kruschev, por lo que no es seguro que en el último momento decida “echarse para atrás” ante las provocaciones estadounidenses; en cuyo caso habrá que ver si los estadounidenses están preparados para llegar hasta la confrontación armada con los rusos, por Ucrania.

Mientras tanto, la estrategia de Washington es ir encerrando militar y políticamente a Moscú en su espacio geográfico; generar una oposición interna, lidereada por un títere manejado por Occidente, tal como lo hizo con Guaidó en Venezuela (en este caso pretende seguir apoyando al encarcelado Navalny); e ir cortando todas las relaciones económicas, financieras, militares, etc. de Rusia con Occidente y con los vasallos de Occidente, para generar una crisis económica interna y descontento social.

El problema con esto es que esa estrategia ha resultado un fracaso durante 62 años contra Cuba; durante 22 años contra Venezuela; durante 42 años contra Irán, etc. que si bien han sufrido enormemente con los bloqueos y sanciones económicas; con intentos de asesinato de sus líderes, sabotajes, intentos de golpe de Estados, ataques constantes en los medios de comunicación, etc. han prevalecido, a pesar de todo.

Pues bien, en los casos de Rusia y también de China, son países más poderosos que los anteriores, con armas nucleares y con gobiernos fuertes, que tienen el apoyo de la mayoría de su población, por lo que la estrategia estadounidense, si bien ocasionará problemas y un serio desgaste para los gobiernos ruso y chino, se ve casi imposible que pueda provocar la caída de dichos gobiernos, y menos aún que estén dispuestos a doblarse ante las exigencias y órdenes de la decadente superpotencia.

Pero mientras tanto, la irresponsabilidad de las élites occidentales pone nuevamente al mundo al borde de una guerra mundial y con ello de la extinción de la humanidad.

 

THE UNITED NATIONAL ANTI-WAR COALITION

Pro-Western Syrian exiles have initiated a statement supported by a number of “progressive” individuals and organizations.  The statement is titled, “Erasing people through disinformation: Syria and the ‘anti-imperialism’ of fools”.  This statement, which supports the goal of the US and its allies of regime change in Syria, the authors attack those who have consistently supported an end to intervention in Syria by the US, NATO, Israel, and other repressive states in the Middle East.  Their statement was signed by a number of people in the US and around the world.  UNAC was one of the groups that this statement criticized.  The war on Syria has been an especially divisive issue for the peace movement, so, we and others have put out the statement below explaining our position.  If you agree with this statement, we ask that you sign as an individual or an organization by clicking the link below.

As the Biden Administration took office in the US, one of their first actions was to increase US troop levels in the northeastern region of Syria currently occupied by the United States and its proxies. Shortly thereafter, the United States bombed a Syrian town on the eastern border killing as many as 30 Syrians, purportedly to target hostile “Iraqi militiamen” or to “send a message” to Iran.  US proxies are selling Syrian grain in Turkey and a US-based corporation now operate a refinery in the Syrian territory occupied by US troops and proxies.

Last year, Congress passed the Caesar Sanctions as an amendment to the massive Defense Appropriations Bill. These sanctions cause the Syrian people to go without basic necessities such as food, energy, and medicine. They have destroyed the Syrian currency and are literally causing starvation.  At this time, it is impossible, even for the United Nations, to bring aid into Syria.

Moreover, these sanctions block reconstruction and the return of hundreds of thousands of refugees from impoverished camps in surrounding states. Syrians can’t return if there is no potable water, food, or housing for their families. Meanwhile, the only Syrians who can receive international aid are those in US-occupied territories and those in areas controlled by the US ally, Al Nusra/Al Qaeda.

There has been a recent swell of anti-Syria propaganda, supported by prominent activists on the “left.”  This has included attacks on the majority of the US antiwar movement, which has focused on opposing the US and outside aggression against Syria, and which supports the right of Syria to defend its national sovereignty against this outside aggression.   The clear fact is that the US government along with its allies in NATO, Israel, and other reactionary Middle Eastern states is the primary cause of the current devastation of the Syrian people. The US and its allies have facilitated the entry into Syria of tens of thousands of foreign fighters to support their regime change agenda.

As with the lies about Weapons of Mass destruction that led to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the US and its allies have put forth accusations about Syria using chemical weapons and terror against its own people, which have now been totally discredited and disproved.
 
Therefore:

1.            We condemn the illegal occupation of Syrian territory by US forces and their proxies, and their illegal and unprovoked military attacks on Syrian soil and Syrian people.

2.            We condemn the ongoing theft of Syrian oil and Syrian grain by US proxies, resources desperately needed by the Syrian people.

3.            We condemn the so-called Caesar Sanctions, illegal, immoral unilateral coercive measures.

4.            We condemn the US war on the Syrian Republic and the callous violation of Syrian Sovereignty. 

5.            We demand the withdrawal of ALL U.S. troops and U.S. funding of foreign mercenary forces and US funding of armed internal opposition forces from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and lifting of US Naval blockade of Yemen.

6.            We demand an end to illegal US Sanctions on Syria.

 

Initial signers:  United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC), Syria Solidarity Movement, Black Alliance for Peace, U.S. Peace Council, Hands off Syria Coalition, Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, Popular Resistance, Arab Americans for Syria, Youth Against Empire, International Action Center, Veterans for Peace, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Socialist Action, Hands off Syria – Australia, BAYAN USA 

Click here to sign the statement