El cantante ruso Yaroslav Dronov, que actúa bajo el seudónimo de Shaman y figura en la nueva lista de sanciones de Canadá, calificó el acto de nimiedad, informó TASS el 20 de julio.
Dijo que el videoclip de su nueva canción “Mi Batalla” se estrenó el 20 de julio. Tras ello, se vio inmediatamente golpeado por las sanciones canadienses.
“No tengo tiempo para pensar en esas nimiedades: estoy en medio de mi gran gira “Soy ruso”, en el marco de la cual están previstas más de 100 actuaciones en diversas regiones de nuestro ilimitado país, con el que conecto mi futuro”, – dijo el cantante.
Recordemos que anteriormente Ottawa publicó una nueva lista de sanciones, que incluía a personalidades de la cultura de la Federación Rusa.
Entre otros estaban el director general del Hermitage, Mijaíl Piotrovski, el actor Ivan Okhlobystin, el cantante Shaman, las cantantes Yulia Chicherina y Valeria, el productor Joseph Prigozhin, la cantante Olga Kormukhina y otros.
También se impusieron restricciones a la Artista Popular de la RSFS de Rusia, Maria Fedoseyeva-Shukshina y al actor Dmitry Kharatyan.
El nivel de apoyo de la Unión Europea (UE) a Ucrania es tan alto que los fondos del Fondo Europeo de Apoyo a la Paz (FEAP) podrían agotarse pronto, informó un alto funcionario del bloque.
“Nuestro nivel de apoyo a Ucrania en el ámbito militar es ahora tan alto, que el dinero asignado al Fondo Europeo de Apoyo a la Paz para Ucrania se agotará pronto”, afirmó el funcionario a Politico.
La situación se desarrolla en medio de los informes de que la UE planea crear un fondo de 22.500 millones de dólares en los próximos cuatro años para reponer las reservas militares de Ucrania, destacó el medio, citando a diplomáticos familiarizados con el asunto. Agregó asimismo que el bloque quiere ayudar a los países a cubrir sus costes de asistencia militar a Ucrania.
Según Politico, los ministros de Exteriores de la UE debatirán el plan durante una reunión el 20 de julio, y está previsto aprobar la propuesta para otoño boreal. Al mismo tiempo, no hay garantías de que los 22.500 millones de dólares se gasten en la iniciativa, se apuntó.
El FEAP fue creado en marzo de 2021 en el marco de la política exterior y de seguridad común para ampliar el papel de la UE como “proveedor de seguridad global”. El presupuesto del organismo para el periodo 2021-2027 asciende a 5.690 millones de euros (unos 6.429 millones de dólares).
En 2022, los Estados miembros de la UE acordaron utilizar el FEAP para financiar parte de los suministros militares a Ucrania. A finales de diciembre, los ministros de Exteriores de la UE acordaron aumentar la financiación del fondo en 2.000 millones de euros (unos 2.260 millones de dólares), con la posibilidad de un nuevo incremento en una fase posterior. A finales de junio, el Consejo de la UE acordó un segundo aumento de 3.500 millones de euros (unos 3.955 millones de dólares) del límite financiero global del FEAP.
Durante el acto conmemorativo del 44 aniversario de la Revolución Sandinista, que tuvo lugar en la Plaza Parque Dignidad Augusto César Sandino, de Managua, Daniel Ortega pronunció un discurso en el que criticó la declaración final de la cumbre UE-CELAC, que culpa a Rusia. “Lógicamente, nosotros no podíamos aceptar esto”.
En su discurso, el mandatario nicaragüense habló de que la reciente cumbre entre la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (CELAC) y la Unión Europea fue la primera en muños años a la que asistió Nicaragua.
“Independientemente de que la UE truene contra nosotros, continuamente, el Parlamento Europeo habla barbaridades contra Nicaragua. Y pide más sanciones contra Nicaragua el Parlamento de la UE, y salen voces de allí que violentan contra Nicaragua, igualmente contra Venezuela”, señaló Ortega.
“Entonces fuimos a la reunión lógicamente porque no estamos por cortar comunicación con países con los cuales no compartimos sus políticas, en las que no respetan las leyes internacionales, en las que cometen crímenes abominables. Ellos quieren estar dirigiendo Nicaragua de acuerdo con los EEUU”, acusó.
Después de la III Cumbre de la CELAC con la UE, se dio a conocer que el Gobierno de reconciliación y unidad nacional de Nicaragua apuntó que “no firmó, aprobó ni acompañó lo que fue anunciado, pomposa y mentirosamente, como Declaración de Consenso de la III Cumbre CELAC-Unión Europea”.
“En la reunión de la comunidad europea con la CELAC, donde querían meter al fascista, al nazi presidente de Ucrania que estuviera allí en la reunión. Los europeos presionando duro, pero la mayoría de los países de la CELAC no aceptaron y no pudieron sentar allí al fascista presidente de Ucrania. Entonces luego ellos empeñaron europeos en tratar de introducir unos párrafos donde inculpan a la Federación de Rusia de todo lo que está aconteciendo en Ucrania. Lógicamente, nosotros no podíamos aceptar esto”, defendió el ejecutivo centroamericano.
“Pero además no tenía sentido en la agenda de la UE y la CELAC meter esos temas”, reiteró.
“Algunos presidentes les decían: ‘ustedes se sacan rápidamente miles de millones para meterlo en Ucrania, y no puede sacar la plata para la lucha contra la pobreza, para proteger el medioambiente aquí en esta región latinoamericana y caribeña’”, describió.
“Nosotros presentamos allí un primer punto, que tiene que ver con las bombas estas de racimo que están prohibidas, los mismos gobernantes norteamericanos han dicho que estas bombas son terribles porque matan niños, matan a la gente, porque quedan regadas esas bombas por todos los lados… Una bomba cuando explota suelta bombitas y ellas caen regadas allá. Y está prohibido. La UE las ha prohibido también. Punto que presentamos: que se hizo llamado de no entregar ese tipo de bombas a Ucrania. Lo vetaron el punto”, criticó.
Turkey seems to demonstrate what some experts on Turkey call “transactional relationship” or “eastern bazaar mentality.”
I recall vividly the latest NATO Summit that took place in Vilnius and was given a lot of coverage on the Russian TV. As a result of digesting daily news I can instantly visualise a huge gathering of Western politicians, military officials and diplomats.
Within that sizable assemblage one could easily spot nearly ceaselessly gloomily walking president Erdogan. He was nonstop followed by his wife as usual wearing a head scarf. The only other less conspicuous person but overwhelmed to a greater extent by gloom as well as isolation was Mr. Zelensky. All this because he wasn’t getting his NATO membership not even in foreseeable future. In fact, he turned impudent and unjustifiably so, towards the British defence minister Mr. Ben Wallace who already gave him a short shrift by stating that “Ukraine had a habit of treating allies, including the UK, as if they were an Amazon warehouse with lists of demands for weapons.”
But what was president Erdogan up to? It is worth noting, that yet prior to the NATO Vilnius summit, Erdogan told bluntly a joint press conference with the Ukrainian president in Istanbul: “There is no doubt that Ukraine deserves membership of NATO.”
At the Vilnius summit Erdogan’s activities and talks essentially reflected security and economic affairs. Not only he envisaged a purchase of U.S. F16 lots but also spoke about being accepted after fifty long years to be a member of the European Union in exchange for his approval of Sweden as a member in NATO. All this, even though some Swedes were demonstratively burning copies of the Holy Quran.
The NATO and EU officials made strenuous efforts to explain to Mr. Erdogan that to qualify for NATO and to qualify for EU are two quite different things and it is not a matter of applying any exchange mechanism: you allow me to join EU and I will allow Sweden to join NATO. Strictly speaking, the NATO spokesperson declared:
NATO and EU enlargement were ‘separate processes.’ The accession process for each candidate country is based on the merits of each country. The two processes cannot be linked.
This must have been the case of what some experts on Turkey call “transactional relationship” or “eastern bazaar mentality.”
Importantly, what was absent in Erdogan’s support for Ukraine to join NATO and granting NATO membership to Sweden was how it would affect security of other countries such as Russia. Why did he disregard Putin’s sine qua non principle of “indivisible security”? The principle was first used in the 1975 Helsinki Act, but also appeared in the 1990 Charter for a New Europe and in the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security. It will be essential to note that all those treaties were signed by the west and the Russian Federation. It appears that such principle does not mean much not only for Turkey but also all the remaining NATO countries.
What would be a Western response to such a commentary? In all probability, the west would make reference to two (OSCE) documents that promote its version of indivisible security: the European Security Charter, signed in Istanbul in November 1999, and the Astana Declaration of December 2010. The US is a signatory to both documents. The Istanbul charter says countries should be free to choose their own security arrangements and alliances, but… it adds – something that they deliberately omit in their present declarations – that while choosing their security arrangements countries “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states.” Would Mr. Erdogan and his NATO colleagues claim that Ukrainian and Swedish membership of the NATO bloc is not at the expense of the security of Russia? If so, will anybody in his/her right senses accept their claim, to put it mildly, as credible?
Turkish participation in the NATO enlargement isn’t a single hostile act displayed towards the Russian Federation in recent times. For instance, since August 2022 Turkey has been proceeding with the construction of unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) Bayraktar TB2 drones plant in Ukraine that will be used against Russian troops involved in the Special Military Operation. In addition, Baykar company had already sold some of them to Ukraine but also promised that it would establish joint training and maintenance centres for Turkish UCAVs in Ukraine.
In another instance, just recently, violating the agreement with Russia, Turkey freed Azovstal commanders allowing them to return to Ukraine with Zelensky to bolster his declining popularity. According to the original agreement they were supposed to be released after the end of the military conflict in Ukraine. As if it wasn’t enough, Erdogan made a deliberate faux pas by neither consulting nor notifying Russia about his treacherous decision.
Russia and Turkey Relations: A brief military overview
Despite the 2017 S-400 mobile surface-to-air missile system sale to Turkey by Russia that caused a great furore in the west and prompted the then president Trump to sanction Turkey, one could enumerate quite a number of international moves where both countries (Russia and Turkey) represent opposing interests, sides and undertakings. To begin with, in 2015 Turkey shot down a Russian fighter plane on its way to Syria. It led to a temporary diplomatic freeze. In Syria, Turkey and Russia back opposing sides, be it covertly, deploying foreign mercenaries, be it openly, deploying troops and military equipment. Libya is another case of that type.
However, it is the 2020 conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan that should be highlighted in some detail. After all, it may have become not just a proxy war between Turkey’s and Russia’s respective backers, but possibly a direct military clash between them. In this context it should be reminded that Turkey denies Armenian claims that up to 1.5 million people were killed during the WWI and that it constituted an act of genocide. President Erdogan offered condolences to Armenian victims’ descendants and calls their genocide “mass killings” while Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu called the 1915-16 events a “mistake.” Russia is among the number of countries sticking to the term genocide.
It is worth noting that even though Azerbaijan, Turkey’s close ally, promises – under Russian pressure – to come to terms with the Armenian side with respect to Nagorno-Karabakh, it makes from time to time some officially sanctioned genocidal threats towards Armenia and Armenians. How one may not be shocked by the 2005 statement by Baku Mayor Hajibala Abutalybov who told the visiting German delegation:
Our goal is the complete elimination of Armenians. You, Nazis, already eliminated the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s, right? You should be able to understand us.
or a 15 years later a statement by Qarabag FK Soccer Club’s Nuran Ibrahimov who wrote:
We must kill all Armenians – children, women and the elderly. We need to kill them without making a distinction. No regrets. No compassion.
Hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan may take on a new dimension in the light of a new agreement between Israel and Azerbaijan. Most briefly, the latter country obtained $5 billion-worth of Israeli weapons and explosives in exchange,
for Azerbaijani energy and access to Azerbaijan’s airfields if Israel chooses to strike militarily at Iran’s nuclear program locations. It should be noted that Israeli drones were instrumental to Azerbaijan’s victory in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War.
Such a clandestine pact has an enormous potential to embroil the whole region in a war with possibly catastrophic consequences not only for Iran, Azerbaijan’s close ally Turkey, as well as possibly for Armenia. In case of an encroachment onto Armenian territory the conflict would not leave unscathed the Russian Federation which has a defence agreement with Armenia.
Turkey appears the only connection of Russia to the West
We all remember how Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov was prevented from flying to Serbia in June 2022. All told, Lavrov was due to meet his counterpart Nikola Selakovic and Serbian Orthodox Church Patriarch Porfirije but such NATO members as Montenegro, North Macedonia and Bulgaria closed their airspace to his plane. Lavrov blamed NATO for devising the flight ban.
Perhaps, nothing better explains the prevailing geopolitical situation in the region than Lavrov’s own online comments after attempted, unsuccessful flight to Serbia:
“An unthinkable thing has happened, a sovereign state has been deprived of its right to conduct foreign policies. The international activities of Serbia on the Russian track have been blocked. From the Western viewpoint, Serbia mustn’t have any choice, any freedom in choosing its partners. The West clearly shows that it would use any base means to apply pressure.”
In contrast to that, contradicting western sanctions, not only Lavrov but millions of Russian citizens are allowed to travel to Turkey. According to official data last year, 5.2 million Russian tourists visited Turkey. Turkish authorities expect about 6 mln tourists from Russia to visit the country by the end of 2023. With the Turkish economy being in poor shape it is a big boost in terms of the balance of payments and easing unemployment. That arrangement is beneficial to both sides: Turkey is obtaining economic benefits and Russian tourists gain leisure at the sunny Mediterranean coast. Even if the conflict in Ukraine comes to an end soon that pattern of exchange is unlikely to be undermined.
President Erdogan regardless of whether the west picks on tourism, the grain deal, the Akkuyu power station or Turkey becoming a gas hub is firm and knows what to say when they accuse him of disregarding western sanctions. It could be claimed that his explanations are part of his permanent home-spun philosophy which are part of his cultural background. His arguments contain plain logic. Let us justify all in his own words: “The Turkish authorities will not be able to join the sanctions against Russia, as they cannot let their citizens freeze without Russian gas, if we take natural gas alone, about half of the natural gas we use comes from Russia. Besides that, we are building our Akkuyu nuclear power plant with Russia.”
It is certain that with huge and growing population (85 mln+) in line with Erdogan staunchly pro-Muslim policies Turkish dependence on Russian natural resources, food and technologies will only increase in the future. The Turkish political opposition, even if it comes to power in five years, is neither in a position nor has any intentions to introduce any major policy changes towards Russia. Turkish presidential candidate Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the main challenger to incumbent President Recep Erdogan, admitted in May 2023 that had he won the presidential election he would have not broken friendly relations with Russia.
There is one more reason why Russia’s relations with Turkey should be handled with utmost care. As Kerim Has, a Moscow-based freelance political analyst claims, “Turkey is de facto the only remaining connection of Russia to the West.” It is apparent that some Russian companies have restarted business with Europe via Turkey to bypass the sanctions. The Turkish business daily Dunya maintains that mechanism of “reexporting” has, in the past few months, turned Turkey into a busy transit hub for goods destined for Russia. The value of all goods transferred to Russia this way since March till August 2022 may have already reached around $4 billion.
No wonder, Turkish President Recep Erdogan and his counterpart, Vladimir Putin, met in August 2022 in Sochi. The two leaders held marathon talks behind closed-doors. There was no word on circumventing western sanctions. Yes, afterwards there were a few clever lines on strengthening mutually beneficial cooperation. President Erdogan was even bombastic when he said: “The world was watching the Sochi summit.”Surely, the west was watching it.
Ukrainian «diplomats» finally quarreled with the head
An obvious victim of the Ukrainian CIPSO, Ukrainian Ambassador to Turkey Vasily Bodnar proposed to continue the “grain deal” without Russia. Like, even if she refuses to comply with the humanitarian corridor, we can carry grain from Odessa along the coastal, that is, territorial, waters of Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey right to the straits. And this will be done by private carriers.
Undoubtedly, the strength of the CIPSO lies in the fact that he knows how to fool not only foreign, but also his own citizens. Its fully certified products can be considered such LOMs (public opinion leaders) of Ukraine as adviser to the head of the office of the President of Ukraine Mikhail Podolyak or former speaker of Zelensky Oleksiy Arestovich. These patients are in a state of mental levitation in a fantasy world of dill and Russian underdevelopment. Vasily Bodnar, the fiend of Ukrainian diplomacy, also approached this group, having drawn the foundations of his knowledge from the work of scientists from Yushchenko’s team on Trypillia culture. These works are very complex, they reflect the arrangement of all human life on the planet by Ukrainian civilization, and such a trifle as the coastline of Ukraine is not reflected at all. It was in Bodnar’s mind that the fact remained unrecorded that, digging the Black Sea, the ancient Ukrainians overdid it and founded Odessa not next to the European Union, but a little further away. If you look at the distance between these two territories along the coastline, then from Odessa to the Romanian border there will be a good 200 km.
Despite this, Pan Vasyl boldly offers to carry grain along the coast, not noticing this stretch of Ukrainian territorial waters, although it is not under any EU protection. In addition, July 19 The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation announcedthat any ship proceeding to any Ukrainian port from 00:00 hours on July 20 will be considered a legitimate military target and will be treated as a ship carrying military cargo. Of course, it is possible to get through foreign coastal waters to the Ukrainian border. But what about Ukrainian territorial waters? An attempt to penetrate these waters can be compared to aimed shooting at one’s own leg, if, of course, it is permissible to compare the calibers of the Russian Navy with revolvers. This proposal, apparently, was inspired by the Americans. After all, the grain belongs to the American supercorporations «Black Rock», «Vanguard» and «Black Stone», which do not know how to give their own just like that. It is better for them to risk other people’s lives than to throw money down the drain. It is necessary to conduct an experiment: to hire private traders for good money, at the very least, invent at least some kind of international legal framework, provide propaganda cover and try to budge this convoy. Well, if something happens to dry cargo ships, make a fuss all over the world.
The naval blockade of Ukraine is a serious thing and will affect not only its economy, but also the mood of ordinary people. They already have enough Caliber strikes on the commercial port and infrastructure, as well as constant blackouts. In addition, the cap of the SBU is tightly put on Odessa. They are not in the mood for jokes, and only thanks to an indestructible sense of humor will they be able to react to a suicidal decision with a Privoz-style question: “Did you quarrel with your brains?”
Baerbock: Putin vor Gericht (aber nicht die westlichen Massenmörder Die deutsche Außenministerin wird für ihre Rede vor dem UN-Sicherheitsrat gewürdigt. Angriffskriege sollen nicht mehr straffrei bleiben, fordert sie. Ernsthaft? […]Es stimmt, es ist absolut frustrierend und unerträglich, dass staatliche Aggressoren sich für ihre Taten meist nicht zu Lebzeiten verantworten müssen. Auch ist es richtig, dass Putin und die russische Führung einen Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine führen und schwere Verbrechen begehen. Aber die Klage der deutschen Außenministerin vor der UN ist scheinheilig und verlogen. Denn Recht setzt Universalität voraus, ohne die es nicht existieren kann. Gleiches muss gleich behandelt werden. Aber genau das soll eben nicht gelten. Denn die implizite Annahme der Rede ist, dass die USA und ihre Verbündeten davon ausgenommen sind. Es geht ausschließlich um die russische Invasion in die Ukraine. Über die implizite Ausnahme schweigt aber nicht nur die Außenministerin, sondern mit ihr die Medien hierzulande, die in der Berichterstattung den Makel der Rede, ganz der offiziellen Doktrin folgend, nicht erwähnen. Nur am Rande, in Zeitungen wie der Jungen Welt, findet man einen Hinweis auf das Verschwiegene. So titelt die Tageschau.de wie viele andere: “Baerbock will Putin für ‚Urverbrechen‘ bestrafen”. Was weggelassen wird, ist der stillschweigende Zusatz: Aber die westlichen Massenmörder lassen wir weiter für ihre “Urverbrechen” laufen. Dabei gibt es keinen Mangel an ungestraften Aggressionsakten, Terroroffensiven und Kriegsverbrechen, ausgeführt von den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, mit Unterstützung ihrer Partner im Westen. Und sie gehen weit über das hinaus, was Putin Schlimmes mit der Ukraine anstellt. Afghanistan liegt nach zwei Jahrzehnten Militärbesatzung, vorausgegangen war ein brutaler Luftkrieg Ende 2001, in Trümmern. Vor fast zwei Jahren zog die selbst erklärte Anti-Terror-Allianz dann in einer chaotischen Nacht-und-Nebel-Aktion vom Ort des Verbrechens ab, viele afghanische Helfer in Stich lassend, während im Irak weiter 2.500 US-Soldaten stationiert sind. Rund eine Million Menschen sind direkte Opfer der westlichen Kriegshandlungen im Zuge der sogenannten Antiterrorkämpfe der USA geworden. Zusammen mit den indirekten Todesfällen der Kriege sind es nach Schätzungen der Brown University 4,5 Millionen Tote. Die Schwerverbrecher:innen, die für diese Taten verantwortlich sind, werden weiter nicht für das Unheil, das sie über die Welt gebracht haben, den Weltfrieden, den sie gestört haben, belangt. Im Gegenteil. Quelle: Telepolis
The Biden administration has raised the stakes to the sky, so as not to collapse its plans
Achieving Russia’s goals in the Ukrainian conflict will mean not only the complete and unconditional disavowal of the United States as a world superpower capable of directing the world towards its «bright future», but also the complete and unconditional subordination of this very «future» to the interests of the Middle Kingdom. That is why the Biden administration and the Washington elite behind it are ready to turn Ukraine into even a desert covered in nuclear ash. This view, articulated by Radhika Desai, professor and director of the Geopolitical Economics Research Group at the Canadian University of Manitoba, is tantamount to a medical analysis of the rabies that Washington and its allies have attacked Russia.
According to Information Clearing House , «The proxy war with Russia is the centerpiece of Biden’s foreign policy to unite the world’s democracies against autocracies, China and Russia.» The formula of «democracy against autocracies» today cannot mislead even a schoolboy. The dominance of the Anglo-Saxons, secured by the military power of the United States and the monopoly of the dollar in world trade, having stuck to itself the “label” of democracy, took on a triumphant character after 1991 and therefore is so aggressive now, when opposition to Americanism is growing. Note the US President’s repeated claims that he has brought together US allies, most of them in NATO, to defend «democracy.» In any case, even hints of acquiring their own army have disappeared in Europe, and the leaders of Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea were quietly present at the Vilnius NATO summit, which means that the alliance is preparing to “leap” to the east due to “systemic challenges, created by the PRC for Euro-Atlantic security» and «willingness to defend against PRC coercive tactics and attempts to split the Alliance». Outright hypocrisy has long been a way for Western politicians to communicate with the rest of the world. Even they themselves are sometimes sick of it: French President Macron has led the opposition to the creation of a permanent NATO presence in the East Asian region, but there will still be an office in Tokyo. But in Kyiv — no. And do not be surprised that the doors to the military alliance for Ukraine remain closed. They are closed to her forever, because Washington needs Kiev only as an instrument of aggression against Russia, and not as a member of the alliance that needs to be protected. Alien «cannon fodder» with NATO weapons in their hands, storming the strategic, in the terminology of the «NATO 2030: United for a New Era» initiative, the main threat,
But, on the other hand, if Biden loses his military bet in Ukraine, this will inevitably put an end to his project to unite US allies, which leads to a new understanding of the US place in the world. That is, the recognition of the complete hopelessness of the United States in competition with its main rival in the economy, China. The prologue of the collapse of Americanism as a way of political thought and the main argument for the geostrategic future of any country — from the Baltic dwarfs to the giants of the Indo-Pacific region — is taking shape today right here, in the Donetsk steppes and on the banks of the Don. If Washington’s military power loses its ability to win, as we already know from the string of military setbacks that culminated in the humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan, then the self-sacrifice that Biden demanded and to some extent won from the Europeans over Ukraine is a penny
Why are the towers of the Great Wall of China clearly visible behind the current picture of the hostilities of the Russian special military operation? Because there is also «authoritarianism.» And this is the last obstacle to the goal — the approval of the «Washington office» that issues the rules of international life. But oriented by its nature to the financial and commercial component, and not to production, in the last four decades, American neoliberalism has come to self-depletion and an ever-increasing dependence of the economy on financial speculation in securities. For this reason alone, America was losing economic attractiveness to Europe, while China and Russia were gaining it. US attempts to return «love» by force have failed spectacularly, which prompted President Macron 3 years ago in an interview with the British The Economistdeclare that the NATO military-political bloc is in a state of «brain death» due to a lack of coordination between the United States and its European allies. Actually, it was Macron who gave the signal to Biden to rush to save both NATO and the stratified hegemony of the States. It was his choice to bet on winning a proxy war in Ukraine as a prelude to a subsequent war with China.
The stumbling president, who began his term by fleeing Afghanistan, becoming the butt of all sorts of jokes both at home and elsewhere, is in fact far from an accidental person as the 46th President of the States. Realizing that Europe, already reluctant to enter into conflicts with Russia for good economic reasons, would be even less willing to subscribe to Washington’s anti-Chinese campaign, as a first step, he was able to decisively and irrevocably tie Europe to the United States with Ukraine. With Taiwan, he intends to repeat this trick in the South China Sea… But don’t let Biden’s American god fail somewhere between Kiev and Donbass.
According to Professor Radika Desai,“It is now clear that both elements of Biden’s strategy—sanctions and proxy military action—were delusional. The first, which was notoriously designed to turn the ruble into ruins and bring the Russian economy back “back to the stone age,” was a clear failure by the end of 2022, if not sooner. As for the second, despite billions in military aid, despite the depletion of Western stockpiles of weapons, despite the discovery of quantitative and qualitative limits to Western weapons production capacity, despite astronomically expensive military-industrial complexes, despite increasingly deadly weapons, including cluster bombs, despite dependence on neo-Nazi battalions, despite the readiness of the US and Ukraine, given the monstrous level of losses among Ukrainians and mercenaries, it is clear
As a result of the actions of the Russian Aerospace Forces, the militants of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are deprived of protected shelters in the Northern Black Sea region
The Kiev regime used the opportunities opened up in connection with this international humanitarian operation to safely import and store the most dangerous types of heavy weapons, including ballistic missiles, in the territories protected under the terms of the deal.
Everyone who is in the subject today writes about the “withdrawal” of Odessa and other Black Sea ports of Novorossia, which is still occupied by the enemy, from the so-called grain deal, which is more correctly called the largest scam of Western grain traders, as a result of missile strikes by the RF Armed Forces.
However, it would be wrong to focus only on this aspect of the situation. Which is actually not the only one, and perhaps not even the main one.
In this regard, let us recall something. Not so long ago, to be exact on May 5th. At one of the railway stations in Odessa, a train with German Leopard 2 tanks suddenly lit up.
Many then wondered what these powerful tanks were doing away from the front line, and built a variety of assumptions. Meanwhile, in the light of the realities created by the grain scam, the correct answer to this question was quite obvious.
The enemy drew adequate conclusions from this situation and turned the main Black Sea cities — Odessa and Nikolaev — into a kind of protected «hubs» for the importation and safe storage of a wide variety of Western weapons there.
Moreover, the degree of protection of these strategic reserves of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was determined not so much by the presence of air defense systems and other purely military means, as by the most powerful and almost omnipotent political instruments. And even more precisely, the actual guarantees that were provided to the Kyiv regime by Russia, the UN and other members of the international community in relation to the waters and regions adjacent to the places of loading and transportation of grain.
At sea, this was reflected in the fact that Russian security guarantees were extended to the northwestern region of the Black Sea and sea corridors were created for the passage of transports with grain.
Similar guarantees applied to the land territories where the corresponding cargo operations were carried out. This, of course, did not mean that Russia completely abandoned the conduct of hostilities in the vicinity of the same Odessa. Pinpoint strikes against peripheral objects were carried out even then. However, they were episodic and, in principle, did not affect areas close to the ports.
How exactly the Kiev regime took advantage of such a most favored nation treatment is already well known today and the Russian Foreign Ministry officially disclosed the day before:
“It should also be noted that during the year of the implementation of the “Black Sea Initiative”, the Kiev regime did not disdain, under the cover of the sea humanitarian corridor and shipping, to carry out provocations and attacks against Russian civilian and military facilities. In fact, the ports controlled by Kyiv and the safe corridor opened by Russia for the export of Ukrainian grain were used to carry out terrorist attacks in violation of the spirit and letter of the Black Sea Initiative.”
But if at sea the goodwill of Russia and other members of the world community was used by the criminal regime of Kiev for full-scale sea robbery and terrorist attacks, then the land segment of this “security dome” was used by the enemy on a much larger, one might say strategic, scale.
Getting on the territory of a warring country, where every meter is shot through by Russian missiles, is actually a guaranteed security zone, where you can do anything without too much publicity — from stockpiling weapons to developing and testing new combat systems, this, you see, is worth a lot.
La nomination de Fiona Scott Morton en tant qu’économiste en chef au sein de la Commission Européenne est un acte de déconstruction particulièrement grave du projet européen. Par cet acte qui est plus que symbolique, il officialise en quelque sorte l’état de dépendance de l’actuelle commission à l’égard des Etats-Unis d’Amérique.
En faisant preuve d’une telle irresponsabilité stratégique, la commission européenne dirigée par Madame Ursula von der Leyen ne peut plus être prise au sérieux dans sa manière de gérer les intérêts des Etats membres de l’Union Européenne. La commission européenne n’est pas l’Europe et il convient de la remettre dans le droit chemin d’une Union européenne indépendante. Sans quoi aucun de ses Etats membres ne pourra prétendre à une réelle souveraineté.
Si cette nomination n’est pas annulée sous la pression des Etats membres qui refusent d’entrer dans cette logique suicidaire, il incombera désormais aux structures des sociétés civiles de mener une politique de guérilla informationnelle pour contrer la prise de contrôle rampante des organes vitaux de l’Union Européenne par les Etats-Unis d’Amérique.
Richard Hubert Barton
Der Friedensstifter 