A truly historical month for the future of our planet

March 23, 2018

https://thesaker.is/a-truly-historical-month-for-the-future-of-our-planet/

[This article was written for the Unz Review]

March 2018 will go down in history as a truly historical month

March 1st, Vladimir Putin makes his historical address to the Russian Federal Assembly.
March 4th, Sergei Skripal, a former UK spy, is allegedly poisoned in the UK.
March 8th, British officials accuse Russia of using nerve gas to attempt to murder Sergei Skripal.
March 12th, Theresa May officially blames Russia for the poisoning and gives Russia a 24-hour ultimatum to justify herself; the Russians ignore that ultimatum. The same day, the US representative at the UNSC threatens to attack Syria even without a UNSC authorization.
March 13th, Chief of Russia’s General Staff Valery Gerasimov warned that “in case there is a threat to the lives of our military, the Russian Armed Force will take retaliatory measures both over the missiles and carriers that will use them”. The same day Chief of the Russian Armed Forces’ General Staff, Deputy Defense Minister, General of the Army Valery Gerasimov had a phone conversation with Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the United States’ Joint Chiefs of Staff.
March 15th, the UK blocked Russia’s draft UN Security Council statement on Skripal poisoning case asking for an“urgent and civilized investigation” into the Skripal case. The US, UK, France, and Germany issue a statement backing the UK and blaming Russia. The UK Defence Minister tells Russia to “shut up and go away”.
March 16th, Major General Igor Konashenkov calls the British Defense Minister an “uncouth shrew” and “intellectual impotent”.
March 17th, Russian Generals warned that the US is preparing a chemical false flag attack in Syria
March 18th, Putin overwhelmingly wins the Presidential election. The same day, General Votel, Commander of CENTCOM declares in a testimony to the Armed Services Committee that differences with Russia should be settled “through political and diplomatic channels”. When asked whether it would be correct to say that “with Russia and Iran’s help, Assad has won the Civil War in Syria?” General Votel replied “I do not think that is too — that is too strong of a statement. I think they have provided him the wherewithal to — to be ascendant at this point”.
March 19th, the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council issues a statement fully backing the UK.
March 21st The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summons all ambassadors to a briefing on the Skripal case. The language used by the Russian representative at this briefing possibly is the bluntest used by any Russian (or even Soviet) official towards the West since WWII. The French, Swedish and US representative at the meeting all stood up to declare their “solidarity” with the UK.
March 22nd, The Chief of the Russian Armed Forces’ General Staff, Deputy Defense Minister, General of the Army Valery Gerasimov had another phone conversation with Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the United States’ Joint Chiefs of Staff.  The same day, General Gerasimov also held another conversation by phonewith the Commander of US European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Army General Curtis Scaparrotti.

So what is really going on here? Surely nobody seriously believes that the Brits really think that the Russians had any motive to try to kill Skripal or, for that matter, if they had a motive, that they would do it in such a stupid manner? And what’s the deal with Syria anyway? Is the USA going to execute their false flag and bomb?

I think that at this point we should not get bogged down in the details of all this. There is a forest behind these trees. What matters most now, is that the most powerful factions of the AngloZionist Empire’s ruling elites are making a concerted effort to create a unified anti-Russian coalition. In this regard it is quite telling that the US, France, and Germany issued a statement on March 15^th without even bothering to consult with their so-called “allies” in NATO or the EU. You can immediately tell “who is boss” in those crisis situations when the rest of the Euro-riffraff simply doesn’t matter (poor East Europeans with their delusions about being appreciated or even respected by the West!). Furthermore, it is quite clear that in this case, the “Anglo” component of the AngloZionist Empire is far more involved than the Zionist one, at least insofar as the front of the stage is concerned (behind the scenes the Neocons are seething at Trump for calling Putin to congratulate him and offer negotiations). I think that a number of crucial developments forced the US and the UK into trying to strong-arm the rest of the western nations to “circle the wagons” around the Empire:

1.    The US humiliatingly failed in its attempts to frighten and force the DPRK into submission

2.    The AngloZionists have lost the civil war in Syria

3.    The UK and the rest of the NATO are becoming militarily irrelevant

4.    The Ukraine has crashed and is burning and a Ukronazi attack on the Donbass is most likely

5.    The political forces in Europe who opposed anti-Russian policies are on the ascent

6.    The Russians are winning many EU countries over by economic means including North Stream whereas sanctions are hurting the EU much more than Russia

7.    The anti-Putin campaign has miserably failed and Russia is fully united in her stance against the Empire

What this all means is very simple: the Empire needs to either fold or double down and folding is just not something the imperial elites are willing to consider yet. They are therefore using the tools which they perceive as most effective:

1.    False flags: this is really a time-honored western tradition used by pretty much all the western powers. Since the general public is brainwashed and mostly can’t even begin to imagine that “freedom loving liberal democracies” could use methods usually ascribed to evil, bloodthirsty dictatorial regimes, false flags are an ideal way to get the public opinion in the correct state of mind to approve of aggressive, hostile and even violent policies against a perceived threat or obstacle to hegemony.

2.    Soft power: have you noticed how the Oscars or the Cannes festival always pick exactly the kind of “artists” which the Empire happens to politically promote? Well, this is true not only for the Oscars or the Cannes festival but for almost all of the cultural, social and political life in the West. This is especially true of so-called “human rights” and “peace” organizations which are simply political pit-bulls which can be sicked on any country in need of subversion and/or intervention. Russia has never developed that kind of political toolkit.

3.    Verbal escalation: this tactic is extremely crude yet very effective. You begin by vociferously proclaiming some falsehood. The fact that you proclaimed it in such vociferous and hyperbolic matter achieves two immediate results: it sends all your friends and allies a clear message “you are either with us or against us”, that leaves no room for nuance or analysis, and it gives otherwise rather spineless politicians no way to back down, thus strengthening their “resolve”.

4.    Herding: there is safety in numbers. So when dealing with a potentially dangerous foe, like Russia, all the little guys flock together so as to appear bigger or, at least, harder to single out. Also, when everybody is responsible, nobody is. Thus herding is also politically expedient. Finally, it changed the inter-relational dynamic from one of friends or allies to one typically found among accomplices in a crime.

5.    Direct threats: the Empire got away with making threats left and right for many decades, and this is a habit which is hard to break. The likes of Nikki Haley or Hillary Clinton probably sincerely believe that the USA is quasi-omnipotent or, conversely, they might be terrified by the creeping suspicion that it might not. Threats are also an easy, if ineffective, substitute for diplomacy and negotiations, especially when your position is objectively wrong and the other side is simply a lot smarter than you.

The big problem is that none of these methods work against Russia or, let me correct that, don’t work anymore (they sure appeared to work in the past). The Russian public opinion is fully aware of all these methods (courtesy of a Russian media NOT controlled by AngloZionists) and Margarita Simonian beautifully summarized the feelings that all this elicits in the Russian population:

“all your injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to stop respecting you. You and your so-called “values.” We don’t want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those among us that you support, and for all those people who support you (…). For that, you only have yourself to blame (…) Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don’t forgive arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn the history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their empires. Only because of their arrogance. White man’s burden, my ass!” (this last sentence in English in the original text – trans.)

The stark truth is that far from wanting to invade, appease or otherwise please the West, Russia has absolutely no need, or even interest, in it. None. For centuries Russian elites have been western-focused to some degree or other and none of them could even begin to imagine a West-less Russia. This is still true today, the Russian “elites” still want to live like (very rich) Brits or Germans and they still hate the common Russian people and Vladimir Putin. But those Russian elites have now been crushed by the magnitude of Putin’s victory in the presidential elections. Normally, this should result in an even bigger exile of Russian “businessmen” to the UK, France or Israel, but the problem now is that the British are making noises about punishing them for, well, being Russians (even Russophobic, pro-western, “Russians”). As a result, these “poor” pro-western liberals can only whine on the social media and in the few pro-western media outlets left in Russia (no, not due to repression, but due to their political irrelevancy being backed, as they are, by something between 2% and 5% of the population).

But setting aside the wealthy “elites” for a moment, Russia as a country and as a nation has simply no use for the West and what it represents. Those who fantasize about Russia being interested in “Europe”, “White identity” or “Western Christianity” are only kidding themselves. They hope that the current cultural and spiritual revival in Russia will somehow spill over to them and allow them to extricate themselves from the gutter in which they are currently prostrated. It won’t. Just read again what Simonian said about the western “values” in the quote above. For most Russians “Europe” reeks of Napoleon, “White identity” of Hitler and “Western Christianity” of the creation of the Ukraine and the “Eastern Crusades“. No, Russia has no interest in revenge against any of that, she just has no respect or interest for what these concepts stand for. (Poland – is possibly the last country where all these things are taken seriously and fondly remembered). Still, the Russians are still willing to negotiate to establish a viable coexistence between the Western and Russian civilizational realms. Putin clearly said so in his speech

There is no need to create more threats to the world. Instead, let us sit down at the negotiating table and devise together a new and relevant system of international security and sustainable development for human civilization. We have been saying this all along. All these proposals are still valid. Russia is ready for this.

But if the AngloZionists are dead set on world domination by means of war, then Russia is ready for that too. Not a war of aggression, of course, not even against the tiny Baltic statelets, Putin made that clear too when he said “we are not threatening anyone, not going to attack anyone or take away anything from anyone with the threat of weapons. We do not need anything. Just the opposite” (emphasis added). But if attacked, Russia is now ready to defend herself:

“And to those who in the past 15 years have tried to accelerate an arms race and seek unilateral advantage against Russia, have introduced restrictions and sanctions that are illegal from the standpoint of international law aiming to restrain our nation’s development, including in the military area, I will say this: everything you have tried to prevent through such a policy has already happened. No one has managed to restrain Russia (…) Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences. There should be no doubt about this whatsoever.”

Why is the nuclear issue so central? Because the Russians are fully aware of the fact that the AngloZionists cannot win a conventional war with Russia. Thus it is crucial for the Russians to convince the AngloZionists that they are neither militarily superior nor invulnerable (see here for a full analysis of these two myths). But once some kind of modus vivendi is achieved with the West, Russia will focus her efforts in different directions: much needed internal reforms and development, the work with China on the establishment of a single Eurasian zone of economic security, peace and prosperity, the restoration of peace in the Middle-East, the development of the Russian Far East and North – you name it. Russia has plenty of work which needs to be done, none of which involves the West in any capacity.

And that is, of course, what is so totally unacceptable to the West.

Hence this month’s historical developments which have placed Russia and the West in a direct collision course. As I said above, the Empire can now either fold or double down. If it decides to fold, war will be averted and meaningful negotiations finally entered into. If it doubles down, something the Neocons always do, then this means war with Russia. This is a stark and very difficult choice (no, not for normal people, but for the psychopaths ruling the West). And there isn’t much Russia could, or should, do at this point. As is the case every time a serious crisis takes place, the apparently united elites running the West will now break-up into separate factions and each one of these factions will pursue and promote its own, narrow, interests. There will be an intense, mostly behind the scenes, struggle between those who will want to double down or even trigger a war against Russia and those who will be horrified by that notion (not necessarily for profound moral reasons, just out of basic self-interest and a healthy instinct for self-preservation).

As to who will prevail, your guess is as good a mine. But the fact that today Trump replaced McMaster with a warmongering psychopath like John Bolton is a clear sign that the Neocons are in charge in the USA and that the Axis of Kindness is about to get a heck of a lot “kinder”.

The Saker

China prepares for trade war

By Wang Cong and Chen Qingqing Source:Global Times Published: 2018/3/21 

Nation still hoping for negotiations with US

China has launched a multifaceted effort to prepare for what looks like an imminent trade war with the US, as the latter is reportedly set to announce a slew of measures targeting China by Friday.

Top Chinese officials have in recent days been engaging with other countries and global organizations in a bid to form a multilateral response to the imposition of US tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and the forthcoming measures against China, while also continuing talks with US officials in the hope of averting a confrontation. 

Meanwhile, China is also threatening to retaliate if forced to do so.

"The Chinese side never wants to fight a trade war with anybody, but if we are forced to, we will not hide from it," Hua Chunying, spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told a press briefing on Wednesday, adding that China would "definitely take firm and necessary countermeasures to defend its legal rights."

The US government is poised to announce a slew of trade measures against China, including tariffs on up to $60 billion worth of Chinese technology and telecom products by Friday, according to US media reports. 

The US' earlier decision to slap tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum will also take effect on Friday.


Global efforts 

At an informal meeting of ministers from 50 WTO member countries in New Delhi, India this week, Chinese Vice Commerce Minister Wang Shouwen criticized the US trade measures and called on other countries to jointly defend the global multilateral trade system, according to a statement released Wednesday by China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM).

"Trade restriction measures will not only hurt the global trade order but also cause serious damage to the multilateral trade system," Wang said, urging all countries to "support the global multilateral trade system and defend the authority and effectiveness of WTO rules," according to the statement.

Zhou Xiaochuan, the outgoing governor of the People's Bank of China, the central bank, this week led a delegation to the meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where he stressed China's "continued support for multilateralism," according to a statement China's central bank released on Wednesday.

In a document released after the meeting, the financial chiefs of the world's 20 largest economies rejected protectionism and called for further dialogue on trade.

The efforts followed an earlier phone call on Saturday between Chinese President Xi Jinping and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in which the two leaders agreed to jointly preserve the multilateral trade system.

Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the US-based Council on Foreign Relations, said that many countries apart from China would respond because they too have been targeted by the US.

"It's not just China. The EU is facing the same decision on steel. I think the EU, China and other countries will have to respond; they will have to do something," Alden told the Global Times in an interview on Wednesday in Beijing. But he cautioned against tit-for-tat retaliation.



Continued talks

Chinese officials have also been engaging with US officials in recent days, even though the trade measures appear to be unavoidable.

During the WTO meeting, Wang met with US officials on the sidelines, according to the MOFCOM statement, although the statement did not say what was discussed at the meeting.

In Buenos Aires, Zhou met with US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and the two discussed the China-US economic relationship, according to the US Department of the Treasury. 

In a press conference on Tuesday, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang also suggested the two countries should resolve trade issues through negotiations.

"In trade, disputes are always resolved through consultation, negotiation and dialogue. I hope both sides will act rationally rather than emotionally to avoid a trade war," Li said.

A trade expert at a MOFCOM think tank in Beijing said that China is still focused on resolving disputes with the US through dialogue but is fully prepared to respond if necessary.

"There is still a lot of room for discussion," said the expert, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press, "but China is also prepared and able to defend its rights." 

The expert declined to elaborate on what the response might be, but other Chinese experts have suggested that China might target US agricultural products, aircraft and aircraft parts.

Did Putin Order the Salisbury Hit?

by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted on March 20, 2018

https://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2018/03/19/did-putin-order-the-salisbury-hit/

Britain has yet to identify the assassin who tried to murder the double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury, England.

But Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson knows who ordered the hit.

"We think it overwhelmingly likely that it was (Russian President Vladimir Putin’s) decision to direct the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the U.K."

"Unforgivable," says Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov of the charge, which also defies "common sense." On Sunday, Putin echoed Peskov: "It is just sheer nonsense, complete rubbish, to think that anyone in Russia could do anything like that in the run-up to the presidential election and the World Cup. … It’s simply unthinkable."

Putin repeated Russia’s offer to assist in the investigation.

But Johnson is not backing down; he is doubling down.

"We gave the Russians every opportunity to come up with an alternative hypothesis … and they haven’t," said Johnson. "We actually have evidence … that Russia has not only been investigating the delivery of nerve agents for the purposes of assassination but has also been creating and stockpiling Novichok," the poison used in Salisbury.

Why Russia is the prime suspect is understandable. Novichok was created by Russia’s military decades ago, and Skripal, a former Russian intel officer, betrayed Russian spies to MI6.

But what is missing here is the Kremlin’s motive for the crime.

Skripal was convicted of betraying Russian spies in 2006. He spent four years in prison and was exchanged in 2010 for Russian spies in the U.S. If Putin wanted Skripal dead as an example to all potential traitors, why didn’t he execute him while he was in Kremlin custody?

Why wait until eight years after Skripal had been sent to England? And how would this murder on British soil advance any Russian interest?

Putin is no fool. A veteran intelligence agent, he knows that no rival intel agency such as the CIA or MI6 would trade spies with Russia if the Kremlin were to go about killing them after they have been traded.

"Cui bono?" runs the always relevant Ciceronian question. "Who benefits" from this criminal atrocity?

Certainly, in this case, not Russia, not the Kremlin, not Putin.

All have taken a ceaseless beating in world opinion and Western media since the Skripals were found comatose, near death, on that bench outside a mall in Salisbury.

Predictably, Britain’s reaction has been rage, revulsion and retaliation. Twenty-three Russian diplomats, intelligence agents in their London embassy, have been expelled. The Brits have been treating Putin as a pariah and depicting Russia as outside the circle of civilized nations.

Russia is "ripping up the international rulebook," roared Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson. Asked how Moscow might respond to the expulsions, Williamson retorted: Russia should "go away and shut up."

Putin sympathizers, including Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, have been silenced or savaged as appeasers for resisting the rush to judgment.

The Americans naturally came down on the side of their oldest ally, with President Donald Trump imposing new sanctions.

We are daily admonished that Putin tried to tip the 2016 election to Trump. But if so, why would Putin order a public assassination that would almost compel Trump to postpone his efforts at a rapprochement?

Who, then, are the beneficiaries of this atrocity?

Is it not the coalition – principally in our own capital city – that bears an endemic hostility to Russia and envisions America’s future role as a continuance of its Cold War role of containing and corralling Russia until we can achieve regime change in Moscow?

What should Trump’s posture be? Stand by our British ally but insist privately on a full investigation and convincing proof before taking any irreversible action.

Was this act really ordered by Putin and the Kremlin, who have not only denied it but condemned it?

Or was it the work of rogue agents who desired the consequences that they knew the murder of Skripal would produce – a deeper and more permanent split between Russia and the West?

Only a moron could not have known what the political ramifications of such an atrocity as this would be on U.S.-British-Russian relations.

And before we act on Boris Johnson’s verdict – that Putin ordered it – let us recall:

The Spanish, we learned, did not actually blow up the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor in 1898, which ignited the Spanish-American War.

The story of North Vietnamese gunboats attacking U.S. destroyers, which led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and 58,000 dead Americans in Vietnam, proved not to be entirely accurate.

We went to war in Iraq in 2003 to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction we later discovered Saddam Hussein did not really have.

Some 4,500 U.S. dead and tens of thousands of wounded paid for that rush to judgment. And some of those clamoring for war then are visible in the vanguard of those clamoring for confronting Russia.

Before we set off on Cold War II with Russia – leading perhaps to the shooting war we avoided in Cold War I – let’s try to get this one right.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

RUSIA ENFRENTA SU DESTINO

Hoy Vladimir Putin será reelecto presidente de Rusia por 6 años más, y ello ha elevado la histeria anti rusa en Occidente, que en las últimas dos décadas han visto como este país, al que tenían sojuzgado después de la desaparición de la Unión Soviética (en diciembre de 1991); y explotado y devastado económicamente, a través del gobierno títere de Boris Yeltsin; se levantó a través del liderazgo de Putin, quien detuvo la expoliación que los oligarcas proccidentales[1] y las trasnacionales realizaban sin freno en su país; reconstituyó el poder militar ruso; defendió sin miedo la soberanía y se opuso al cerco militar que Occidente ha tratado de establecer alrededor de su territorio (expansión de la OTAN hacia el Este; rompimiento por Estados Unidos del tratado para limitar los misiles balísticos en el 2002; establecimiento de sistemas anti misiles alrededor de Rusia, etc.).

Así también, Putin apoyó a su aliado Bashar el Assad en Siria ante la agresión orquestada por Occidente, Israel y los países sunnitas de la región, para balcanizar a ese país: respondió a la operación de “cambio de régimen” en Ucrania y el intento por “des rusificar” las provincias del Este de ese país por parte del régimen pro occidental de Kiev, al apoyarlas logística y militarmente; así como ocupando la península de Crimea, mayoritariamente rusa, ante la amenaza ucraniana de desalojar la base naval de Sebastopol.

En resumidas cuentas, el gobierno de Putin, aún con el interregno del gobierno de Medvedev (2008-2012), durante el cual fue el Primer Ministro; evitó primero la destrucción económica y social de Rusia por parte de los neoconservadores de Washington y los oligarcas pro occidentales; se opuso al unilateralismo y a la “unipolaridad” de Estados Unidos, reivindicando los intereses rusos, ya ni siquiera en otros continentes, sino solamente alrededor del territorio ruso, para evitar quedar cercada con regímenes hostiles, pro occidentales; conformó una alianza económica y política con China para balancear las ambiciones hegemónicas de Estados Unidos y sus aliados; evitó la destrucción de un aliado importantísimo en el Medio Oriente, el régimen sirio, en donde además Rusia mantiene bases militares (Tartus y Latakia); y ha comenzado un lento y complicado proceso de mejoramiento económico y social al interior de Rusia, a pesar de las innumerables sanciones económicas de Occidente, por su atrevimiento al negarse a apoyar la hegemonía estadounidense en el mundo, con infinidad de pretextos e invenciones (el último de los cuales es el supuesto ataque a un ex espía ruso, refugiado en Inglaterra).

Ahora Putin enfrenta un desafío mayúsculo en los próximos meses, cuando varios retos se conjunten, que pueden poner a Rusia en una situación sumamente riesgosa.

Primero, después de las elecciones presidenciales, vendrán todos los ataques concertados de la prensa occidental, considerando que las elecciones no fueron libres y acusando a Putin de haberse convertido en un dictador vitalicio. No se descarta que las ONG pro occidentales y los grupos políticos opositores a Putin, financiados por Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea, inicien movilizaciones violentas, con objeto de ser “reprimidos”; y con ello, mostrar en los medios de comunicación occidentales el supuesto repudio de la población rusa a Putin.

Así también, las sanciones contra Rusia por lo del ex espía envenenado en Inglaterra, apenas comienzan; y la narrativa en medios de comunicación, e incluso las acusaciones directas a Putin, como irresponsablemente lo hizo el Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de la Gran Bretaña, Boris Johnson, irán en aumento, con objeto de que antes del inicio del Mundial de Futbol de Rusia, en el mes de junio, la masa crítica de ataques y denostaciones a Putin logren disminuir significativamente el número de visitantes que vaya a tierras rusas; y así se compense la buena prensa que iba a recibir por la organización del mundial y la hospitalidad que los rusos están dispuestos a brindar a los turistas.

Al mismo tiempo, recordemos que ya en dos ocasiones en eventos deportivos trascendentales, como los Juegos Olímpicos de Beijing en 2008, a los que asistía Putin como invitado a la inauguración; y los Olímpicos de Invierno en Sochi, Rusia, en donde era el anfitrión, Washington ha orquestado sendas agresiones contra el régimen de Putin. En 2008, lanzando a Georgia a ocupar Osetia del Sur, mayoritariamente rusa, y por lo tanto apoyada por Moscú (así como Abjasia), reclamándola como propia; lo que llevó a la firme respuesta rusa, derrotando rápidamente al ejército georgiano.

En el caso de Sochi, se dio el golpe de estado en Ucrania contra el presidente pro ruso Yanuckovich, con el apoyo estadounidense y de Europa Occidental y la agresión del gobierno ucraniano a las provincias mayoritariamente rusas del Este (Donetsk y Lugansk); así como el riesgo de desalojo de la base naval rusa en Sebastopol, en la península de Crimea, lo que llevó a Moscú a dar apoyo a las mencionadas provincias y a ocupar militarmente Crimea (con población mayoritariamente rusa).

Por ello es muy factible que en un nuevo evento deportivo en Rusia, como el Mundial del Futbol, que obligará a todo el aparato ruso de seguridad a estar atento, se lleve a cabo otra agresión contra Moscú. Puede ser que el gobierno de Kiev lance una nueva ofensiva contra las provincias del Este, aprovechando que el gobierno de Trump le acaba de vender armamento ofensivo (qué por cierto, el de Obama se había negado a hacerlo). Y al mismo tiempo, que los yihadistas controlados por Occidente, Israel y las monarquías sunnitas de Medio Oriente decidan realizar uno o varios atentados terroristas contra la población civil rusa y contra los turistas que asistirán al mundial (por algo Estados Unidos quedó sorpresivamente eliminado del Mundial en la última fecha; y ahora la Gran Bretaña, con el pretexto del ataque al ex espía ruso, ha cancelado la participación de cualquier autoridad británica en el Mundial).

A lo anterior se suman los recientes cambios en el gobierno de Estados Unidos para sumar a más “halcones” anti rusos y anti iraníes, como Mike Pompeo en el Departamento de Estado, Gina Haspel en la CIA y se habla de la llegada del neoconservador John Bolton como Consejero de Seguridad Nacional. Con todo ello, lo que se prevé es que en mayo[2] Estados Unidos salga del acuerdo nuclear con Irán, marcando así el inicio de nuevas sanciones y provocaciones al régimen de Teherán; el muy probable inicio de ataques al ejército sirio, por las inventadas acusaciones de uso de armas químicas en el Este de Gouhta; y la escalada de agresiones israelíes a Hezbollah y probablemente al ejército libanés en el sur de este país. Todo ello planteará un nuevo reto a Rusia para seguir ayudando a Assad, después de que ya había logrado avances en las negociaciones con algunos grupos rebeldes sirios, y se habían establecido ceses al fuego en diversas partes del país.

Se va a obligar a Moscú a reiniciar hostilidades en todo el territorio sirio nuevamente, pero ahora con la posibilidad de encuentros directos con fuerzas armadas occidentales e israelíes, que ante el fracaso de sus mercenarios y terroristas (que aún no han desaparecido del todo) en su intento por derrocar a Assad, ahora lanzarán a sus propios ejércitos para realizar la tarea, con la posibilidad del inicio de hostilidades directas contra fuerzas rusas.

Si a esto se le suma  el aumento de las presiones y sanciones por parte de los miembros de la OTAN (especialmente en la zona del Mar Báltico), contra Rusia; se puede uno dar cuenta de que las élites occidentales están decididas a arrinconar y debilitar todo lo que puedan al gobierno de Vladimir Putin, tratando de generar una situación similar a la que han provocado en Venezuela contra el régimen de Maduro. Esto es, ir aislando en todos los campos a Rusia (ahí está el caso paradigmático del supuesto doping de todos los atletas rusos en competiciones olímpicas); aumentar las sanciones económicas, para ir minando aún más el nivel de vida del ruso promedio; obligar a Rusia a mantener ocupadas a sus fuerzas armadas y de seguridad en numerosos frentes (Ucrania, Siria, el Báltico, internamente; incluso en la península coreana), para desgastarlos y hacerlos caer en nuevas provocaciones, para además acusarlas de “crímenes de guerra”; y todo ello con objeto de que internamente crezca la insatisfacción contra Putin, y los aliados pro occidentales puedan tener la oportunidad de generar un “cambio de régimen”, como el que realizaron en Ucrania, en donde sin tener la mayoría del apoyo ciudadano, pudieron generar una crisis a través de movilizaciones pagadas y concertadas por las ONG pro occidentales; el uso de francotiradores y mercenarios encargados de asesinar por igual a opositores, ciudadanos y fuerzas de seguridad; y finalmente, lograr la “neutralidad” de las fuerzas armadas, que permita que una facción pro occidental tome el poder en un ”putsch”. Si bien ese esquema les resultó muy bien en Ucrania, en Venezuela no han podido culminarlo, aunque sí han logrado, con el boicot concertado entre las potencias occidentales y la oligarquía venezolana, poner contra la pared al gobierno de Maduro.

Se ve mucho más complicado que puedan lograrlo en una potencia como Rusia, pero eso no importa a Washington y sus aliados; el objetivo es desestabilizar, desangrar, acorralar y desgastar al gobierno de Putin, para al menos evitar que se consolide como una potencia ascendente, y en el mejor de los casos dejarla como una potencia, sí opositora, pero en permanente crisis.

De ahí que para Putin es indispensable afianzar la alianza con China y no permitir que Occidente invente divisiones y disputas entre Beijing y Moscú, porque de eso depende romper el aislamiento en que Washington y sus aliados pretenden dejar a Putin.

Grandes desafíos en todos los órdenes, lo que implica que Putin y sus aliados internos deberán hilar muy fino, mantener el apoyo del pueblo y las fuerzas armadas rusas y continuar fortaleciendo las alianzas con China y con las ex repúblicas soviéticas del centro de Asía, pues constituyen su “hinterland”, que le puede dar los recursos y el espacio suficiente para aguantar la agresión permanente de Occidente.

---

[1] http://www.lasegunda.com/Noticias/Internacional/2013/03/834454/como-amasaron-su-fortuna-con-la-ayuda-de-los-amigos-correctos

[2] Mes en el que Trump debe decidir si sigue firmando la suspensión de las sanciones a Irán, o las reestablece.

Tiny Qatar Digs In Amid Gulf Blockade and Washington Intrigue

Against backdrop of Tillerson firing and revelations of Kushner meddling, ambassador opens up on the neighborhood bullies.

By KELLEY BEAUCAR VLAHOS • March 16, 2018

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/tiny-qatar-digs-in-amid-gulf-blockade-and-washington-intrigue/

Everyone is suddenly talking about Qatar. Normally dwarfed by its neighbors Iran and Saudi Arabia, both in physical size and the energy they both consume in official Washington, the oil-rich Arab nation has in the last six months become a symbol of political martyrdom and, more recently, of Beltway intrigue.

Qatar, which sits on a tiny peninsula on the Persian Gulf, was abruptly cut off economically and diplomatically by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt in June. This meant the closing of all land, sea, and air routes for trade and travel, the expulsion of Qatari citizens from blockading countries, and an amped-up propaganda campaign against the ruling royal Qatari government, one of the United States’ staunchest allies in the region.

Led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the blockaders aimed for a righteous tone, declaring Qatar a state sponsor of terrorism. Fresh from a trip to Saudi Arabia where he joined other Gulf States in sword dances and gathered around a glowing orb of unity, President Trump at first embraced the blockade as part of his own tough posture against “radical Islamic terrorism,” calling Qatar a backer of this ideology “at a very high level.”

Any geopolitical analyst worth his salt knew the blockade and PR offensive was all a Saudi-UAE smokescreen to cover those countries’ own festering disputes with Qatar, over Doha’s funding of Al Jazeera news and its refusal to vilify Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. Deeper into the mix is Qatar’s humanitarian investments in Hamas-controlled Gaza, and its refusal to cut off the organization as a political force in the region. This has drawn the ire of the influential anti-Iran neoconservative faction in Washington, who have struck a strange alliance with the authoritarian regimes of the blockading countries.

Trump eventually dialed back his support of what TAC’s Daniel Larison has calledthe “punitive measures” of the blockaders in their “vendetta” against Qatar. But it’s since emerged that Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner might have helped get a White House blessing for the blockade in the first place—without first consulting his cabinet. TAC’s Mark Perry reported in late June that the now-fired secretary of state Rex Tillerson was completely “blindsided” by Trump’s initial remarks against Qatar. Sources suggested that Kushner had been influenced by close friend UAE ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba, and in turn Kushner had influenced Trump.

Now it’s come out that Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in the course of probing Russian meddling in the Trump campaign and transition, has fastened on to an aide to the UAE crown prince who may have made several trips to the White House and used Kushner to influence the president over the blockade. Meanwhile, in a blockbuster report by The Intercept, it was revealed that Kushner’s father Charles Kushner had attempted and failed to secure an investment from the Qatari royal family for his New York-based real estate company headquarters. “That 2017 effort followed previous entreaties made in the region by Jared Kushner himself,” according to The Intercept.

The blockade was announced a month after his father was reportedly rebuffed.

Now, in a statement to TAC, the Qatari ambassador to the U.S., Sheikh Meshal Bin Hamad al-Thani, says Qatar “has not been approached nor has it considered approaching the special counsel’s office or any entity within the United States government.”  The embassy is clearly most interested in keeping the administration at the negotiating table and, if possible, in their corner. And it was clear, at least until Tillerson’s surprise firing this week, that the Trump administration was actively working to end the blockade, with the State Department deploying Retired General Anthony Zinni and Deputy Assistant Secretary Timothy Lenderking to the Gulf region, where, according to a statement to TAC, they’re “engaging with all parties involved to discuss potential paths toward resolving the Gulf dispute and discussing preparations for the upcoming U.S.-GCC Summit” next spring. The administration also hosted a strategic dialogue with Qatar in January, and is reportedly laying the groundwork for a potential Camp David meeting with all parties this summer.

Right now, with the Saudis and UAE and Kushner looking exposed, Qatar, rather than begging for mercy, is digging in for the siege. In a wide-ranging interview at the Qatari embassy in Washington earlier this month, Ambassador al-Thani insisted that the blockading countries resented Qatar’s trajectory of democratic change over the last 20 years, with Al Jazeera the symbol of its pan-Arab outreach and free speech principles that the ruling royal families in the Gulf fear the most.

“Qatar wanted to enforce the idea that change is possible without violence. The blockading countries don’t want democratic change, they are working against it,” al-Thani told TAC.

“Many people don’t realize that Al Jazeera is part of what we are doing in our own country. In 1996 we decided to lift censorship rules, and abolished the ministry of information and planted the seeds of freedom of the press,” he said.

Al-Thani charges that the blockade was a farce from the beginning, when the Saudis used as a “red line” a news story that has now been dismissed as “fake news” and the result of a cyber attack. In that story, Qatari emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani supposedly called Iran an “Islamic power” and praised Hamas in a speech. It went viral immediately and remained in circulation on Arab television networks after the Qataris warned it was false.

“It happened in the the middle of the night. But the TV channels (Saudi/UAE) were conveniently all ready—at 12:30 a.m.—to debate this, with guests,” al-Thani said.

The UAE immediate shut down all broadcasts of Qatari media inside its borders, including Al Jazeera. Within days the blockade had begun. By July, U.S. intelligence officials confirmed that the cyberattack had been initiated at the senior level of the UAE government.

“They’re basing their aggression on a falsehood. Therefore, in my view, anything else that comes from them now is false,” al-Thani said. He also acknowledged the massive PR and lobbying campaign, which has involved high-powered American operatives who have been able to maneuver inside the power centers as close as the White House.

“The challenge here is unfortunate—you have your own neighbors putting out obstacles for you and trying to undermine the relationship between the U.S. and Qatar,” he said. “It feels like they are stabbing us in the back.”

Al-Thani said the insincerity of Qatar’s Gulf neighbors can be seen in their 13 demands, issued in June as a condition for lifting the blockade. They included shutting down Al Jazeera, cutting off all contact with the Muslim Brotherhood, scaling back Qatar’s relationships with Iran, throwing Turkish troops off Qatari soil, and opening up to “compliance” inspections.

“They were issued because they knew they would not be met. They infringe on our sovereignty,” said al-Thani. “They want to halt all of the progress we’ve made in the last 47 years.”

That progress, he says, includes a host of educational partners, including Northwestern University, Carnegie Mellon, and Georgetown University. Al-Thani says educational and social reforms undertaken in his country over the last two decades have made Qatar more competitive and attractive on an international scale, drawing business and development, and does not shy from what he calls “progress” at home. While Qatar remains an Islamic Sharia-based country, it has grown more socially tolerant than its neighbors, passing new labor and divorce laws, instituting municipal and federal (council) elections that are open to women, and implementing free press and speech reforms.  

“We are far from perfect,” he noted. “We have have to work more, but we will not let anyone stop our transformation process.”

Qatar is hosting the 2022 World Cup and has drawn fire for its treatment of migrant workers who have traveled from third-world countries to build the massive soccer stadium. Rumors have been flying that FIFA might take its prestigious hosting honor away. Migrant laborers make up some 94 percent of Qatar’s workforce and have been subjected to exploitive Kalafah rules popular across the Gulf region, which tie workers to one employer and in many cases lead to horrible abuses and accusations of modern-day slavery. Recent reports say hundreds of workers die each year due to extreme heat on construction sites, including the stadiums.

Al-Thani pointed out that Kalafah was abolished in 2017 in Qatar in part as a result of the growing criticisms. The government also announced it would be issuing a minimum wage law. While some say it remains to be seen whether the abuses end, al-Thani insists Qatar is adapting, while its enemies are using the FIFA controversy to turn the world against them. “I tell the UAE and the Saudis to calm down, rest, it’s a closed matter,” he said of the World Cup. “We’re hosting.”

As for Iran, Qatar shares ownership of the South Pars/North Dome, the largest natural gas field in the world. It also supports the Iran deal that keeps the Iranian nuclear program under the inspection of the U.S. and its coalition partners. And while it joins its Gulf neighbors in regarding Iran’s activities in the region with wariness, it disagrees over how to keep them in check—particularly over the Saudi-led war on Yemen.

“We agree with the United States and the Arab countries that the behavior of Iran in the region has been destabilizing. We do not appreciate what they have been doing in Syria, Bahrain, Iraq, and Yemen,” Al-Thani noted. “At the same time, you empower Iran with every move you make—like in Yemen and Qatar, stopping food and medicine from coming in. All these impulsive policies that are just giving Iran an excuse to be active in our region.”

For the time being, Qatar is doing just fine economically, despite the embargo. As the second richest country in the world, it merely opened up new ports and air routes to get goods flowing again. If anything, the embargoes are hurting the blockading countries more. But the political rift is crippling, and the embassy points to harmful travel bans as straining families and students. It claims that there have been 26,000 cases of human rights violations filed with Qatar as a result of the blockade.

Calls and emails to Egyptian, Saudi, and UAE officials went unanswered for this story.

As for its relationship with the U.S., Qatar is hopeful that $35 billion in recent investments, its longstanding military ties (Qatar is home to the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, the Al-Udeid Air Base, housing some 11,000 American personnel), and its other partnerships will act as an anchor during this particularly difficult time in Washington. With Tillerson out and an anti-Iran war hawk nominated to replace him, Qatar may be facing some choppy seas.

“We consider the U.S. our partner and ally. Truly,” said al-Thani. “We are proud of our relationship. We won’t let our neighbors try to undermine that relationship.”

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is the executive editor of The American Conservative. Follow her on Twitter @Vlahos_at_TAC.