Pearl Harbour 2.0?

CNN gets rare access on board a US military surveillance flight over the hotly-disputed islands in the South China Sea.

Começaram os preliminares da III Guerra Mundial

O chamado Mar do Sul da China é um dos pontos quentes da guerra entre os EUA e a China, que já entrou na sua fase preliminar: guerra comercial, guerra cambial, guerra eletrónica e uma tensão crescente no mar do sul da China pelo controlo da crucial região de passagem entre o Pacífico e o Índico. Trump precisa, no entanto, de garantir previamente um status quo não beligerante noutros pontos quentes das placas tectónicas da geopolítica global: Rússia, Irão e Turquia, por exemplo.

IMPORTANTE: Portugal tem que reequilibrar rapidamente a geometria das suas dependências externas em setores estratégicos, tais como o setor energético, o setor financeiro e os nossos principais portos. Goste-se ou não de Trump, goste-se ou não de Boris Johnson, vamos ter que regressar às velhas alianças, e também ao Atlântico Sul e Norte, às Américas e a África. Quem abastecerá a França e a Alemanha de gás natural, petróleo e cereais se as coisas ficaram muito feias no Irão, na Turquia, na Rússia, ou na coesão europeia?

‘Leave immediately’: US Navy plane warned over South China Se 

By Brad Lendon, Ivan Watson and Ben Westcott, CNN 

Above the South China Sea (CNN) — High above one of the most hotly contested regions in the world, CNN was given a rare look Friday at the Chinese government’s rapidly expanding militarization of the South China Sea. 

Aboard a US Navy P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance plane, CNN got a view from 16,500 feet of low-lying coral reefs turned into garrisons with five-story buildings, large radar installations, power plants and runways sturdy enough to carry large military aircraft.
During the flight the crew received six separate warnings from the Chinese military, telling them they were inside Chinese territory and urging them to leave. 

“Leave immediately and keep out to avoid any misunderstanding,” a voice said. 

Updated 0001 GMT (0801 HKT) August 11, 2018

Ver esta sequência de videos da CNN sobre o conflito em desenvolvimento no Mar do Sul da China

South China/ man-made Spratly islands

---

APOIE O ANTÓNIO MARIA
O acesso a este blog é gratuito, mas a sua doação, por pequena que seja, ajudar-me-à a mantê-lo e a melhorá-lo. Um euro por mês é muito? Obrigado.

Já começou a III Guerra Mundial?

The Azov Battalion uses the Nazi Wolfsangel symbol as its logo. Its founder Andriy Biletsky (center) has moved to ban “race mixing” in the Ukranian parliament. (Azov/Twitter)

Será muito diferente da Primeira, e da Segunda...

Neo-conservatives are crazy. They think they can win a nuclear war! 

 PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS. 

Israeli arms are being sent to a heavily armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine, The Electronic Intifada has learned. 

ASA WINSTANLEY.

Shifting monetary systems: developed to developing nations 

The World Wars of the twentieth century had spawned a US-led monetary structure that came to dominate markets and geopolitics. In 1944, self-interested financial leaders convened at Bretton Woods to craft a monetary system centered on US and European currencies and interests. While Europe rebuilt its war-torn cities, the United States capitalized on its superpower role, and developing countries were overshadowed. 

In contrast, the twenty-first century gave rise to a financial world war. Conjured money was the weapon of choice. Fabricated funds went toward subsidizing the private banking system and buying government debt, corporate debt, and stocks. By providing the grease that kept money flowing, central bankers superseded governments—that set the cost of money and provided the confidence in ongoing liquidity—the world was their battlefield. 

NOMI PRINS, Collu$ion, How Central Bankers Rigged The World, 2018.

ASEAN, China agree 'milestone' text as basis for South China Sea talks 

SINGAPORE (Reuters, August 2, 2018) - Southeast Asian nations and China have reached a “milestone” in talks with China over a code of conduct in the South China Sea with a working text that will serve as a basis for future negotiations, Singapore’s foreign minister said on Friday.

Há qualquer coisa no ar que cheira cada vez mais a desastre, e possivelmente a guerra. Mas, tal como o colapso ecológico provocado pelas alterações climáticas, não será um acontecimento súbito, único e definitivo. Virá sim por vagas, com intervalos cada vez menores, e intensidade crescente. Para todos os efeitos, podemos datar o início da III Guerra Mundial no que quer que tenha acontecido em 11 de setembro de 2001 em Nova Iorque. Trump pode muito bem ser o líder que precipitará a segunda vaga do conflito global que ditará a forma do planeta humano depois da era dos combustíveis fósseis de alta densidade—carvão, petróleo e gás natural— e depois do esgotamento de inúmeros recursos minerais, e da extinção de milhares de espécies animais e botânicas à face da Terra.

Donald Trump, ao disparar em todas as direções lançou uma grande confusão nas relações internacionais, sobretudo na Europa e no Pacífico. Em resposta a esta perigosa desorganização do status quo internacional, a União Europeia decidiu criar proteções legais face às sanções intempestivas do presidente americano contra tudo e contra todos (salvo a sionista Israel, claro). Por sua vez, a China acaba de avançar, com vários países asiáticos, e sem os Estados Unidos, para um Código de Conduta no Mar do Sul da China, num claro desafio à hegemonia imperial americana.

Recomendo, a propósito deste verão quente, os videos que se seguem e dois livros. No seu conjunto dão-nos uma panorâmica bastante detalhada da complexidade económico-financeira, social e geoestratégica resultante do sobre-endividamento de uma super-potência em declínio: os Estados Unidos da América.

Paul Craig Roberts — Deep State and MSM Will Fight to the Death Against Trump, interview by Greg Hunter, USAWatchdog.

Steve Bannon — Steve Bannon interview with Christopher Hope, The Telegraph.

Nomi Prins — All The Presidents Bankers, 2014; Collu$ion—How Central Bankers Rigged The World, 2018.

---

APOIE O ANTÓNIO MARIA
O acesso a este blog é gratuito, mas a sua doação, por pequena que seja, ajudar-me-à a mantê-lo e a melhorá-lo. Um euro por mês é muito? Obrigado.

A palavra e a ação de Putin

Caça europeu e bombardeiros russo, 29-30/10/2014

A Rússia não é o Iraque

F-16 interceptam e identificam bombardeiros russos
Jornal i, 29 Out 2014 - 21:24

A agência noticiosa francesa AFP noticiou hoje que a NATO anunciou que detetou “manobras aéreas incomuns” e de “grande escala” da Rússia no espaço aéreo sobre o Oceano Atlântico e os mares Báltico, do Norte e Negro, nos últimos dois dias.

Segundo a NATO, os aparelhos russos não tinham apresentado planos de voo, não estabeleceram qualquer contacto com as autoridades de aviação civil e não corresponderam às comunicações, o que “representa um risco potencial para os voos civis”.

Em comunicado, citado pela agência noticiosa AFP, a NATO adianta que “detetou e controlou quatro grupos de aviões militares russos a realizarem manobras militares significativas no espaço aéreo europeu”, entre terça-feira e hoje.

No dia 24 de outubro Vladimir Putin fez uma importante comunicação em Sochi, que a imprensa europeia de serviço ignorou quase por completo. No dia 28 de outubro uma missão espacial destinada à estação orbital internacional explode 11s depois de o foguetão descolar de uma torre de lançamento da NASA. No dia 29 a Rússia testou com sucesso o seu novo míssil estratégico intercontinental Bulava (alcance: 10 mil Km), cujo lançamento, a profundidade submarina não revelada, teve origem num submarino nuclear da classe Borey. No mesmo dia e no dia seguinte mais de uma dúzia de aeronaves de guerra russas passearam-se pelos céus atlânticos da Europa, mostrando que o poder de projeção russa existe, está bem de saúde e é capaz de colocar a Europa de gatas em menos de doze horas. Angela Merkel, e bem, desvalorizou a histeria dos comandos da NATO sobre o assunto, afirmando que se trataram de exercício militares conhecidos e legítimos por parte de um país soberano, em território seu, ou em céus internacionais.

Submarino nuclear russo K-535 Yuriy Dolgorukiy, da classe Borey

29/10/2014: lançamento do míssil intercontinental Bulava (vídeo)

Ou seja, o tempo em que os americanos punham e dispunham do planeta como coisa sua acabou. Agora, ou há costumes e leis internacionais a respeitar, e a ONU vela pelas regras estabelecidas, ou então a Rússia deixa de ter em conta a ONU e segue mais claramente a defesa dos seus interesses, não permitindo mais coboiadas diplomáticas e provocações nas imediações das suas fronteiras: Ucrânia, Bielorússia, Afeganistão, Cazaquistão, Mongólia, Mar Cáspio, Mar de Barents, Mar de Bering, Mar da Sibéria, região de contato com o Japão, etc, dispondo-se, por outro lado, a cruzar e percorrer os espaços internacionais com o mesmo à vontade que qualquer outro país, nomeadamente os Estados Unidos, o faz.

“Pardon Us For Our Country’s Existence in the Middle of Your Military Bases” – Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s Speech at the UN

Mapa irónico sobre a hipocrisia americana e europeia ocidental

O que se passou neste mês de outubro é um aviso sério à decadente potência imperial e aos anões europeus: a Rússia tem território e energia que cheguem, aposta na cooperação global, quer ligar Lisboa a Vladisvostoque (tal como Pequim quer uma linha férrea da China à Europa, passando por Moscovo) apostando na aproximação da União Europeia à União Económica Euroasiática, defendendo os BRICS e a SCO, mas não aceita imposições, nem mais desconsiderações arrogantes, seja de quem for. A semana que passou serviu para explicar isto mesmo a quem tem andado a dormir na forma.

NATO Tracks Large-Scale Russia Air Activity in Europe
NATO Says Russian Air Activity Poses Potential Risk to Civilian Flights
in The Wall Sreet Journal

Russian military aircraft conducted aerial maneuvers around Europe this week on a scale seldom seen since the end of the Cold War, prompting NATO jets to scramble in another sign of how raw East-West relations have grown.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization said that more than two dozen Russian aircraft in four groups were intercepted and tracked on Tuesday and Wednesday, an unusually high level of activity that the alliance said could have endangered passing civilian flights.

Military jets from eight nations were scrambled to meet the Russian aircraft, which a NATO spokesman said remained in international airspace and didn’t violate NATO territory.

Putin denuncia a manha americana quando em 2002 os Estados Unidos decidiram acabar com o ABMT, para acelerar unilateralmente um sistema de defesa-ataque nuclear mais avançado —SDI—, nomeadamente usando órbitas terrestres e bases militares em terra para o lançamento de mísseis de precisão. A Rússia quer o desarmamento nuclear, mas ou há um compromisso sério nesta matéria ou o medo da destruição mútua assegurada regressará como fiel de uma nova balança do terror, cujos principais responsáveis serão os Estados Unidos e a NATO.

Vale a pena ler o discurso de Sochi, uma peça de bom senso, ao contrário da histeria securitária, do autoritarismo e do militarismo crescentes dos americanos e de uma parte dos europeus.


Discurso de Vladimir Putin, XI sessão do Clube de Valdai, Sochi, 24 outubro 2014.

Text of Vladimir Putin’s speech and a question and answer session at the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s XI session in Sochi on 24 October 2014.

It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organizers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organizations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.

An organization and content will bolster the club’s influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the ‘Valdai spirit’ will remain – this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.

Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realize that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.
 
We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.


Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.

Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants’ views on some points and differ on others.

As we analyze today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons. First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.

The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organizations are also going through difficult times.

Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.

The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.

It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition. 
 
Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group’s ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of ‘national sovereignty’ became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?  



As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don’t forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels’ ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states’ affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organizations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR’s old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world’s biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: “We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defense, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course.” In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US’] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world’s diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one’s own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as “the homeland is in danger”, “the free world is under threat”, and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to mobilize. That is what a real mobilization policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalization based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalization. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States’ prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalization are visible now in many countries.  

The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries’ or their regional groups’ desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalizing our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe – such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions – and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today’s demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.


Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this ‘soft power’ resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.


At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns. So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.


Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world’s major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states’ geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

Ukraine, which I’m sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defense system.

Colleagues, friends, I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favor of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.

Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design ‘color revolutions’ to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.

Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.

Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.

Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear program, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can’t we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges? What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonizing basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.

Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.

I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a “greenfield,” especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.

In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It’s not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody’s complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonizing positions.

This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalization of such new poles, creating powerful regional organizations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centers would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy.  But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centers and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.

I would like to remind you of the last year’s events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine’s association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn’t even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine’s main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia’s accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.

Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine’s association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine’s association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilized manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilized dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.

Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That’s it. Everyone’s at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn’t have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilized way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new ‘color revolutions’ consider themselves ‘brilliant artists’ and simply cannot stop.

I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union’s formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organization rules.

I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?

And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.

We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.

The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbors, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasize this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.


We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today’s turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.

Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Transcrito no dia 2 de novemebro do blogue CLUBORLOV

Putin fez hoje um sério aviso à navegação mundial

Tordesilhas 2.0

Rússia e China preparam-se para guerra paulatinamente arquitetada pelos EUA em nome da hegemonia perdida

Financial Times, 24-10-2014
Putin unleashes fury at US ‘follies’

Russian president Vladimir Putin on Friday accused the US of undermining the post-Cold War world order, warning that without efforts to establish a new system of global governance the world could collapse into anarchy and chaos.

In one of his most anti-US speeches in 15 years as Russia’s most powerful politician, Mr Putin insisted allegations that its annexation of Crimea showed that it was trying to rebuild the Soviet empire were “groundless”. Russia had no intention of encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbours, he insisted.

The Daily Beast, 28-04-2014
New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Hide From Russian Radar
America’s gazillion-dollar Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to go virtually unseen when flying over enemy turf. But that’s not how things are working out.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—the jet that the Pentagon is counting on to be the stealthy future of its tactical aircraft—is having all sorts of shortcomings. But the most serious may be that the JSF is not, in fact, stealthy in the eyes of a growing number of Russian and Chinese radars. Nor is it particularly good at jamming enemy radar. Which means the Defense Department is committing hundreds of billions of dollars to a fighter that will need the help of specialized jamming aircraft that protect non-stealthy—“radar-shiny,” as some insiders call them—aircraft today.

A Rússia está de volta, recomenda-se e afirma que o Big Brother americano é um fator de risco para a paz mundial... e que o dólar americano já era. O sistema de segurança global está minado assegura Putin (TASS). Será que os alemães ouviram a mensagem, ou querem levar mais uma tareia, desta vez por andarem de cócoras e ao serviço dos falcões e piratas financeiros de Washington e Londres?

Bem fez Passos Coelho em exigir hoje em Bruxelas maior autonomia energética na Europa e o fim do bloqueio energético dos 'socialistas' franceses à ferrovia e capacidade de exportação energética da Ibéria.

A propósito, que diz o pascácio 'socialista' sobre isto? Vai convocar mais uma comissão de sábios indígenas para entreter o seu vazio de ideias e esconder o desempenho de uma agenda que não controla, mal conhece e lhe é servida a conta gotas por quem o colocou na posição em que está?

Portugal vai ser palco de uma disputa entre os Estados Unidos e a China, por causa do Atlântico e por causa da sua posição estratégica, nomeadamente em matéria de energia e transportes, face à Europa transibérica. Curiosamente os ditos 'socialstas' já estão no bolso de Washington.

Madrid também não augura nada de fiável em matéria de lucidez estratégica.

Quer queiramos quer não a atual aliança governativa é a que mais convém à nova neutralidade de que Portugal precisa para poder ter um papel diplomático na nova bipolariação geoestratégica que já está a caminho. Vai haver inevitavelmente um Tordesilhas 2.0. Resta saber se sem, ou com uma proliferação bélica estremamente perigosa provocada pela estratégia americana no mundo.

E os patriotas do PCP que pensam sobre isto?

POST SCRIPTUM

EUA ou China-Rússia?

Equidistância e neutralidade ativa (apesar de sermos membro fundador da NATO e de fazermos naturalmente parte desta aliança atlântica) é a posição que melhor serve os nossos interesses. Portugal deve posicionar-se como uma pequena mas importante Suíça diplomática, invocando as suas longas e pacíficas relações com o mundo. Devemos defender a paz entre as religiões do Livro.

Por outro lado, garantir os direitos territoriais na Plataforma Continental de Portugal, também conhecida por Mar Português, é a prioridade estratégica mais relevante que temos pela frente. Nisto a Rússia, a Dinamarca, o Canadá e os EUA são naturalmente nossos aliados. Nenhuma cedência a Madrid nesta matéria! Apesar do anedotário em volta do negócio dos submarinos, a verdade é que a sua compra foi uma decisão estratégica absolutamente certeira. A vigilância-defesa do Mar Português (radares, submarinos, corvetas, lanchas rápidas, forças especiais de intervenção e aviação dedicada) é uma prioridade absoluta, que tem que ser garantida sem hesitações nem carnavais partidários pelo meio, nem que tenhamos que reduzir a Assembleia da República a oitenta deputados, o número de municípios para menos de metade, retirar o estado das áreas educativas superiores não prioritárias (e são muitas), e colocar os deputados, mais 2/3 da população a usarem regularmente os transportes coletivos urbanos, suburbanos e interurbanos.

Devemos apostar na Diplomacia, mas sendo tão firmes quanto Salazar foi.

Temos que manter e fortalecer a aliança com a Inglaterra, estabelecida em 1386 pelo Tratado de Windsor. O centro do mundo continua a ser a Europa, ou melhor, a Eurásia, o resto são ex-colónias destinadas a implodir, mais século, menos século. Não aprenderam nada. Nunca morreram. Nunca ressuscitaram!

BP: para onde vai o petróleo

O mapa do petróleo desenhado pela BP diz tudo...

A guerra pelo último petróleo já começou, e ao contrário do atum, não se pode criar em cativeiro

Se o ritmo de produção e consumo se mantiver, teremos...

• petróleo para mais 40 anos
• gás para mais 160 anos
• carvão para mais 400 anos 

As energias renováveis são responsáveis por menos de 23% da energia produzida/consumida pelo Homem.

Moral da história

Em 21 de agosto de 1415, i.e. há sensivelmente 600 anos, a conquista de Ceuta iniciou a única e verdadeira globalização que o mundo até hoje conheceu. Infelizmente, 2015 poderá ser a data simbólica de uma era longa da humanidade que termina. Ao contrário da crença entre alguns asiáticos, a China e a Índia, e os BRICS em geral, não poderão liderar uma nova era de crescimento económico, social e cultural como aquela que a humanidade conheceu desde 1415.

A prova de que isto é mesmo assim pode ver-se claramente no mapa acima, comparando-o com as principais zonas de conflito criadas pelos Estados Unidos no mundo. Em nossa opinião, mais cedo, ou mais tarde, será necessário um novo Tratado de Tordesilhas (2.0), ou teremos um colapso desordenado da economia e do sistema financeiro mundiais e uma mais do que provável diminuição criminosa da população mundial.

Quanto a crescimento, é mesmo conveniente começarmos a desenhar uma economia de crescimento zero, justa e sustentável.

Contador de estatísticas

Aliança estratégica Rússia-China precede Tratado de Tordesilhas 2.0

Ao contrário do que o nevoeiro sobre a Ucrânia poderá fazer crer, esta crise geoestratégica provocada pelos Estados Unidos, apenas acelerou a aliança energética e financeira entre a Rússia e a China, que acabam de oficializar um contrato para a construção da maior rede de gasodutos do planeta, assim como, e mais importante ainda, a garantia de fornecimento de 38 mil milhões de metros cúbicos (bcm) de gás natural à China, durante os próximos 30 anos, transacionados em yuans e rublos, certamente.

Russia will ship 38 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas annually over a period of 30 years. The 3,968 km pipeline linking gas fields in eastern Siberia to China will be the world's largest fuel network in the world.  ZeroHedge, 1/9/2014.

Donella Meadows tinha, afinal, razão

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we're nearing collapse
Four decades after the book was published, Limit to Growth’s forecasts have been vindicated by new Australian research. Expect the early stages of global collapse to start appearing soon

Graham Turner and Cathy Alexander  
theguardian.com, Tuesday 2 September 2014 02.15 BST   

Atualização: 2/9/2014 16:21 WET

A Rússia não é o Panamá

RT-2UTTH Topol M: linha de mísseis balísticos intercontinentais da Russia. Foi o primeiro míssil a ser desenvolvido depois do desmembramento da União Soviética. Wikipédia.

Rússia testa mísseis balísticos na véspera do aniversário da vitória na II Guerra
PÚBLICO, 08/05/2014 - 19:32

A Rússia fez, esta quinta-feira, testes de mísseis balísticos, durante exercícios supervisionados pelo Presidente, Vladimir Putin, informou o Ministério da Defesa de Moscovo.

Foi disparado um míssil balístico intercontinental de tipo Topol, a partir da base de Plesetsk, no Norte da Rússia, e “vários” outros de mais curto alcance, por submarinos das frotas do Norte e do Pacífico, segundo informações divulgadas pelas agências noticiosas russas.

Os exercícios incluíram o lançamento de mísseis ar-terra por bombardeiros estratégicos Tupolev Tu-95. Segundo a televisão  russa internacional RT foram também feitas demonstrações de utilização de mísseis, artilharia, aviação e defesa antiaérea.

Atualizado: 9/5/2014 10:54

A morte prematura do euro?

Imagem retirada do sítio The Ignorant Fishermen

2012 poderá ser o ano do Armagedão, e até o ano do fim do mundo, mas não o ano da morte do euro!

O euro permanece “muito forte” e uma queda maior ajudaria as exportações, defendeu o governador do Banco de França, Christian Noyer — in Jornal de Negócios online, 6 jan 2012.

Através da desvalorização deslizante do dólar, Washington procura diminuir o preço da sua descomunal dívida externa, refreando ao mesmo tempo o consumismo interno, uma vez que a parte das importações na economia dos EUA é cada vez mais pesada, a começar no petróleo importado, até quase tudo o que é mercadoria manufaturada: carros, computadores, telemóveis, mobiliário, roupa e calçado, brinquedos, etc.

Esta desvalorização da moeda americana (que é uma moeda de reserva mundial), a par de um política de destruição sem precedentes das taxas de juro interbancárias e do crédito a retalho, principais agentes da própria desvalorização do dólar, visa sobretudo equilibrar a balança comercial americana com a China, Japão e com os seus principais fornecedores de petróleo: Canadá, Arábia Saudita e México.

A desvalorização da moeda americana induziu, por sua vez, uma valorização excessiva do euro, segunda moeda de reserva mundial. E a consequência desta apreciação foi a perda acentuada de competitividade das economias europeias, sobretudo daquelas com menor produtividade tecnológica e menor sofisticação de produtos. Esta apreciação tornou as importações muito competitivas e atraentes, pelo seu baixo preço. O Forex especulativo com as subavaliadas moedas japonesa e americana (yen carry-trade e dollar carry-trade), por sua vez, forçou uma queda progressiva do preço do dinheiro na própria Europa, tornando o acesso ao crédito cada vez mais irresistível, e o trabalho produtivo local cada vez mais caro e desinteressante por comparação com as novas economias financeiras assentes no endividamento barato, na especulação bolsista e sobretudo cambial, e na importação de bens e serviços faturados em moedas sub-avaliadas: iene, yuan e sobretudo a moeda em que são cotadas as principais matérias primas energéticas, minerais e alimentares: o US Dollar.

O endividamento europeu não é apenas, nem sobretudo, público.

O endividamento privado é muito superior, e ambos confluíram para a presente e gravíssima crise de liquidez e de insolvência que aflige pessoas, empresas e governos. Os excessos terão que ser forçosamente corrigidos, assim como, e principalmente, o modelo de crescimento económico baseado na especulação financeira que tudo incha e depois liquida.

Neste contexto, uma desvalorização competitiva do euro, até aos 1,20 dólares, será provavelmente aconselhável, a par de uma revisão sábia do modelo social europeu, e de uma revolução no modo de produção tecnológico em curso, que terá que sofrer uma viragem de 180 graus — do consumismo desmiolado e da produção fictícia, para a sustentabilidade económica efectiva e uma nova cultura de criatividade e partilha social.

O ponto de partida para esta revolução não poderá deixar de corresponder a uma profunda alteração das atuais democracias representativas e seus sistemas de poder. A América caminha perigosamente para uma nova espécie de estado concentracionário, de exceção permanente e de ditadura, cada vez pior disfarçado pelo sofisticado sistema de propaganda desenvolvido desde 1914 (nomeadamente a partir das ideias do duplo sobrinho de Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays). Não é este o caminho de que precisamos! A Europa tem, também por causa desta degradação cultural americana, uma grande responsabilidade na refundação democrática das sociedades globais e tecnológicas do futuro.

Uma solução militar para a actual crise global seria um desastre completo. No entanto, e infelizmente, é mais provável o fecho do Estreito de Ormuz do que a implosão do euro em 2012.

Por fim, esta previsão não significa que alguns países da zona euro, mais debilitados e prisioneiros de lógicas demo-populistas, consigam evitar um afastamento temporário da Eurolândia. Tal quarentena, porém, onde poderão cair a Grécia e Portugal, não implicará uma expulsão do Sistema Monetário Europeu, e muito menos da União Europeia. Faço figas, no entanto, para que a atual coligação que governa Portugal, e a Oposição, incluindo os sindicatos, percebam a tempo e horas os custos de uma aventura contra a inexorável correção dos nossos próprios desvarios. Isto é: a saída de Portugal do euro!


act.: 7-12-2012 19:09

A segunda morte de Bin Laden

Uma história muito mal contada... e perigosa

A infografia do lado direito foi mostrada pela imprensa americana como prova da morte de Osama Bin Laden. Basta olhar para a foto da esquerda para perceber a grosseira falsificação e a impostura.

A segunda morte de Bin Laden é uma encenação manhosa que deve suscitar as maiores preocupações entre as pessoas de paz. Pode estar em curso uma operação especial em larga escala visando, num primeiro momento, subir as cada vez mais desfavoráveis sondagens sobre a performance de Barack Obama, mas num segundo momento, que pode ocorrer ainda este ano, algo bem mais sinistro: criar o pretexto para desencadear uma guerra nuclear contra o Paquistão, ou mesmo antecipar uma guerra contra a China, que a ocorrer seria a terceira guerra mundial que muitos antevêem como inevitável. No imediato, há mesmo quem suspeite que a guerra financeira do dólar contra o euro possa dar em breve um salto qualitativo a partir deste episódio.

Quando vi a história quase caricata do anúncio daquela que será a segunda morte de Osama Bin Laden (ver as declarações da certamente bem informada, e tragicamente assassinada, Benazir Bhutto) coloquei os seguintes cenários possíveis:

1. Bin Laden terá sido de facto morto no dia 1 de maio (hora americana). Mas se foi, porque não exibiram o corpo, o troféu, de forma convincente, como é da mais elementar prudência na arte da guerra? Porque decidiram atirar o corpo do homem ao mar, com o argumento pífio de que não quiseram infringir a norma religiosa muçulmana sobre enterros? Não o enterraram, pois não? Atiraram-no ao mar! Basta comparar a fotografia oficialmente divulgada pelo governo americano do suposto cadáver de Osama bin Laden, para se perceber que não passa duma grosseira infografia.
2. Bin Laden foi morto pela segunda vez, ou seja, não foi morto. E neste caso, estamos perante uma operação de ilusionismo bélico, e de uma manobra cujo alcance falta conhecer em toda a sua extensão. No imediato, serve para melhorar a imagem deteriorada do presidente de um império falido, ferido no seu orgulho, e portanto perigoso. Serve para retirar tropas do teatro de guerra no Afeganistão, e possivelmente preparar uma guerra contra o Paquistão. Servirá, quem sabe, para justificar uma provocação terrorista sem precedentes. Há quem fale mesmo num ataque nuclear à Alemanha (ler o Telegraph de 26 de abril último), com base numa suposta bomba nuclear que Osama bin Laden teria em seu poder, e que seria desespoletada caso fosse morto pela CIA...

As teorias da conspiração proliferam, mas nem todas são teorias da conspiração (escutar esta entrevista sobre a segunda morte de bin Laden).

Há, constatada a mais do que provável falsidade da segunda morte de bin Laden, legítimas e fundadas razões para tentar perceber o que pretendem os Estados Unidos com mais esta operação dos seus serviços secretos, em clara violação do direito internacional.

A troca de cadeiras na CIA e no Pentágono (Panetta no Pentágono, Petraeus na CIA), anunciada em 27 de abril, tem que estar relacionada com esta operação. Robert Gates não gostou do que viu, ou do que lhe pediram, e resolveu sair. Temos pois os homens certos nos lugares certos... mas para fazer o quê?

Alemanha a Leste

Luteranos demarcam-se da intervenção militar euro-americana na Líbia, ao lado da Rússia e da China

E no campo económico, veremos amanhã. Repito o que já escrevi: ou os PIGS saiem do euro, ou sai a Alemanha! O meio termo parece cada vez mais longínquo.




À medida que os EUA e o Reino Unido colapsam num mar de dívidas, e a competição pelo petróleo, e pelo último atum, se agrava, a questão do Novo Tratado de Tordesilhas ganha rapidamente actualidade. A Alemanha começou um notório tropismo em direcção à Rússia e à China. Mas Israel também!


Ver declaração de Hillary Clinton sobre a competição com a China.

A dolce vita dos europeus do Sul tem os dias contados. Mas a mudança de hábitos seculares não será nem fácil, nem rápida. Daí o nervosismo crescente da Alemanha. A economia mudou-se para o Oriente. Mas atenção: boa parte do petróleo e do gás natural, apesar das novas descobertas de gás natural na Papua-Nova Guiné, continua na bacia mediterrânica, no Médio Oriente, em volta do Mar Cáspio, no Golfo da Guiné, delta do Congo, Angola e continente americano. Há, por conseguinte um T deitado formado pelo Atlântico e pelo Mediterrâneo que a senhora Merkel e os luteranos não deverão hostilizar demasiado, sob pena de voltarem a partir os dentes numa mais do que provável e última guerra mundial pelos recursos petrolíferos.

Os fantasmas regressam.

A caminho da guerra total?

Será que a contagem decrescente já começou?

Os incidentes militares no Mediterrâneo, no Índico e no Mar da China multiplicam-se a um ritmo muito preocupante desde o assalto criminoso desencadeado a 5 de Junho passado pelo estado de Israel contra um navio civil que transportava ajuda humanitária à ilegalmente bloqueada Faixa de Gaza.

As frotas de navios de guerra americanos (e da NATO) movimentam-se em direcção aos potenciais teatros do conflito: Mediterrâneo perto da fronteira entre o Líbano e Israel, estreito de Ormuz e Irão, estreito de Malaca, Vietname e Mar do Sul da China, península da Coreia e... Japão. As declarações ostensivas da diplomacia de Obama/Hilary Clinton fazem temer o pior, pois ninguém vê o Irão, e muito menos a China, recuar na defesa dos seus direitos de soberania e salvaguarda de interesses estratégicos.

Estes interesses são aliás os mesmos que deram origem às duas primeiras guerras mundiais: garantir o acesso ao petróleo, minerais e alimentos do mundo. Ou seja, controlar manu militare o Médio Oriente, a Arábia, o Irão, o Iraque, o Mar Cáspio, a despensa brasileira e todos os caminhos de acesso a estas bases materiais da civilização saída de três revoluções industriais. Se a Europa do eixo Paris-Berlim, que criou a União Europeia, ameaça a hegemonia do dólar, há que pedir aos ingleses que ajudem a travar tais ambições, criando um pandemónio financeiro, nomeadamente a Sul. Se a Rússia pretende policiar o Mar Cáspio há que espalhar umas armadilhas nas suas fronteiras e pelo seu território dentro. Se a China cresce demasiado e quer redistribuir internamente um pouco do que criou, prejudicando o chulo americano, pois então há que mostrar-lhe os dentes. Mas poderá um império decadente levar até ao fim a sua agenda de loucura belicista? A história dos impérios mostra que não. Nalgum momento as elites americanas acabarão por compreender que será melhor recompor as suas estratégias de jogo, se não quiserem deitar tudo a perder. Todos, ou quase todos, acreditámos que essa mudança viria de Barack Obama. Mas a desilusão cresce neste momento entre os americanos, entre os aliados, e entre os adversários. O perigo é assim real e espreita toda a humanidade!

Líder cubano antecipa guerra nuclear se os EUA e Israel atacarem o Irão

O histórico líder cubano, que nunca foi substituído na chefia do Partido Comunista, avançou em passos lentos até à tribuna e leu a sua mensagem sobre o perigo de uma guerra nuclear . "Uma vez que o Irão não deverá ceder um centímetro nas negociações com os Estados Unidos e Israel, cabe ao presidente Obama, descendente de africanos e brancos, muçulmanos e cristãos, decidir sozinho se deve, ou não, lançar um ataque contra o Irão. Nesse caso, deverá estar preparado para a resposta violenta dos iranianos."

Fidel disse estar ali para "dar a sua contribuição no sentido de dissuadir quem queira encetar uma guerra". E justificou: "A guerra não é um meio de defender um império. E Obama não é um Richard Nixon (37º presidente dos EUA, entre 1969 e 1974), que era um cínico, nem um Ronald Reagan (40º presidente dos EUA, entre 1981 e 1989), que era um ignorante total". Este apelo directo a Obama foi apenas a sequência lógica de um texto que Fidel já havia publicado na semana passada no site Cubadebate.cu. "Está na suas mãos oferecer à humanidade a única hipótese real de paz." — in Jornal de Notícias/HTS.

Os estrategas americanos dividiram-se até agora entre a necessidade de limitar a expansão da China por vias pacíficas ou desencadear uma guerra preventiva antes que seja tarde — isto é, antes de 2015!

Do ponto de vista económico-financeiro a América de Bush e Obama não poderia estar em pior situação: deve dinheiro a todo o mundo, paga com ficções electrónicas que a todo o momento poderão esfumar-se no vazio conceptual dum qualquer algoritmo monetário tornado obsoleto, deixou de produzir, está viciada no consumo de coisas inúteis, pensa cada vez menos e sofre de uma espécie de bulimia civilizacional: come demais e depois vomita as suas mais nobres e disseminadas convicções.

Fala de paz mas conspira, provoca e mata gente inocente pelos quatros cantos do mundo, como qualquer terrorista vulgar. Quer sujeitar o planeta aos tratados internacionais, mas é a primeira potência (a par de Israel, claro) a ignorá-los. Quer punir o Irão pelo seu eventual desejo legítimo de produzir armas nucleares, sujeitando-o a um cerco ilegal e à ameaça de uma guerra nuclear (punitiva!), mas alimenta diariamente na região uma potência nuclear clandestina chamada Israel (1). Teme pela segurança mundial, mas foi o único país até à data que usou armas atómicas contra populações civis e nunca, que eu saiba, pediu desculpa ao Japão por semelhante holocausto. Pior ainda: ameaça reincidir!

Perante este cenário aterrador, só há uma saída: trabalhar com o povo americano contra a insanidade dos seus dirigentes.

Targeting Iran: Is the US Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?

The US and its allies are preparing to launch a nuclear war directed against Iran with devastating consequences. This military adventure in the real sense of the word threatens the future of humanity.

While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result  from a  Third World War, using "new technologies" and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. 

The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of World Peace. "Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

But nuclear holocausts are not front page news!  In the words of Mordechai Vanunu,

The Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples. (See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, December 2005).

Realities are turned upside down. In a twisted logic, a "humanitarian war" using tactical nuclear weapons, which according to "expert scientific opinion" are "harmless to the surrounding civilian population" is upheld as a means to protecting Israel and the Western World from a nuclear attack.

America's mini-nukes with an explosive capacity of up to six times a Hiroshima bomb are upheld by authoritative scientific opinion as a humanitarian bomb, whereas Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons are branded as an indisputable threat to global security. — in Global Research/Michel Chossudovsky, August 9, 2010.


Global Military Agenda: U.S. Expands Asian NATO To Contain And Confront China

The U.S. ended the four-day Invincible Spirit joint military exercise with South Korea on July 28, which consisted of 20 warships and submarines, 200 aircraft and 8,000 troops "in the sea, shore and the skies" of South Korea and in the Sea of Japan near the coasts of North Korea and Russia.

On the same day the Taiwan News ran a feature entitled "China reports: the US means to set up another NATO in Asia," which cited Chinese news media, scholars and analysts warning that "The US is establishing another 'NATO' in Asia to contain China as evidenced in the ongoing high-profile naval exercise with South Korea and a perceived intrusion in South China Sea affairs. [T]hese moves including explicit intervention in Asian affairs underline the US's schemes to challenge China over its growing presence in this area...." — in Global Research/ Rick Rozoff, August 7, 2010.

 A Pax Americana transformou-se numa guerra sem fim nem moral contra tudo e contra todos. Os Estados Unidos atacaram duas vezes o Iraque para lhes roubar literalmente o petróleo (e manter a Europa, excepto os ingleses, à margem!), destruindo alegremente um país com milhares de anos. A aliança pirata entre os Estados Unidos e a Inglaterra, depois de terem passado todo o século 20 a montar golpes de Estado no Irão, igualmente para lhes roubar petróleo e gás natural, pretende agora ensaiar uma guerra nuclear limitada contra o mesmo Irão, a pretexto de que os seus dirigentes actuais sonham com a possibilidade de montar de uma vez por todas um sistema de defesa estratégico que dissuada quem não tem qualquer intenção de deixá-los em paz. No Leste europeu inventaram uma série de revoluções coloridas com o único fito de dominarem os estados tampão da velha Rússia e os estados que rodeiam a rica região petrolífera do Cáspio, curto-circuitando assim os acessos da Europa, da Rússia e da China às fontes energéticas de que todos dependemos. Nos últimos meses, sem qualquer vergonha, lançaram o maior ataque de sempre ao sistema financeiro europeu, procurando virar europeus contra europeus, e sobretudo desvalorizar o euro. A manobra, que contou com a colaboração das agências de notação e especuladores orquestrados seguramente pela CIA (de que alguns políticos europeus altamente colocados serão, muito provavelmente, agentes infiltrados) não surtiu o efeito esperado. Soberanias falidas são efectivamente as que dependem da Casa Branca e do Palácio de Buckingham. E agora, como vai ser? Quem irá salvar os sistemas financeiros americano e britânico, hã?! O BCE não será certamente. Os árabes, duvido muito. Os chineses, depois das recentes provocações americanas no Mar da China, nem mortos! Quem pagará então as dívidas de Obama e da rainha de Inglaterra? O grande perigo para a paz mundial começa exactamente aqui.


NOTAS

1. A produção nuclear foi denunciada por um técnico israelita em 1986, Mordechai Vanunu (ou John Crossman), tendo-lhe a indiscrição custado uma pena de prisão de 18 anos e uma perseguição política sem fim à vista pelo estado de Israel.
   
   A opinião de Elaine Meinel sobre este assunto não deixa de ser eloquente:
   
   

   As I keep saying, there is zero reason for Iran to unilaterally disarm in light of Israel being fully armed and totally outside of all international treaties and regulations about nuclear arms.  The Jews love to scare Americans into thinking, Iran wants to bomb Israel.  Iran wants nukes just like any other sane nation: in a nuclear bomb world, this is the ONLY way to prevent an invasion or being bombed suddenly by nuclear powers!  Period.  The UN is totally useless for nations seeking protection from nuclear powers.  The Security Council IS a gang of nuclear thugs!  They control the UN and can veto any UN votes and do veto many UN votes.
   
   The cost/benefit is HUGE.  If Iran disarms and surrenders, their country will be torn to pieces by the US and Israel.  If they resist and win power to have both missiles and nukes, they get to join the ranks of protected powers, not weak victims.  Vanunu’s testimony is a godsend to the Iranians: they use this information every time the US tries to negotiate with them. They say, each time, ‘Yes, we will disarm but first, Israel must also disarm.’  Now, they have extended this to ‘The other nuclear powers must disarm.’
   
   They are totally correct here!  And frankly, most people on earth agree with them.  The US and other nuclear powers are totally happy with being armed to the teeth with many nukes because this means no one can invade or defy these powers.  This enables invasions, etc.  Of course, the downside is, non-nuclear bomb people can use other means to drive us mad, destroy our economic base and in general, make life hell for us. — in Culture Of Life News.