Israel and 911, an Orchestrated War in the Middle East?

Part I

By Timothy Alexander Guzman

“If the West doesn’t wake-up to the suicidal nature of militant Islam, the next thing you will see is that militant Islam is bringing down the World Trade Center.” —Benjamin Netanyahu quoted from his book, “Fighting Terrorism’ published in 1995

After the September 11^th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia were immediately blamed.

When you ask people who believe that 911 was an inside job, they will tell you that it was the Saudi government who funded and armed Al-Qaeda and that they planned the operation with elements of the CIA to start new wars in the Middle East.

Yes, that is true to an extent, and yes, the Saudis did play a role on 911, but that is just part of the story because there were others who had a much greater role that is rarely mentioned. In other words, Saudi Arabia is just window dressing.

So, who was behind the World Trade Center attacks?

We can say that the Bush-Cheney Regime and their Project for a New American Century (PNAC) agenda played a significant role.

For starters, PNAC was a neoconservative think tank with many of its members holding dual citizenships with the state of Israel.

They had introduced an aggressive foreign policy aimed at the Middle East. Some of those members included US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor, Douglas Feith, National Security Council Advisor Elliott Abrams, White House Speech writer David Frum and several others. In terms of war propaganda, the mainstream media and Israel’s influential lobbies including the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) all convinced the American public and most members of the US congress that a war with Iraq was the right thing to do.

Remember when they pushed the narrative that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and that his soldiers had taken babies out of incubators in Kuwait City and left them out to die because they had shipped the incubators back to Baghdad?

It was all a lie that led the Americans and Europeans to support a war that ultimately destroyed Iraq.

Was it about “spreading Democracy” to help the Iraqi people defeat a brutal dictator?

Not really because the US government had always supported dictatorships who were worse than Saddam Hussein.

So, was it about oil?

Or was it about Saddam Hussein making the decision to use Euros instead of US Dollars for oil transactions?

Yes, to both of those questions, but there was one other reason to why they invaded Iraq and that was for the state of Israel and its long-term agenda to become the hegemonic power in the Middle East.

As we all know, the Biden regime with most US congress members from both sides of the aisle and the mainstream media who all support Israel, are once again, on the same path leading the American people and its European vassals into another war, but this time with Iran. As more talk in the US and European mainstream media about the dangers of Iran as a terrorist state and the threat it imposes on Israel and the United States so it’s worth looking back at who was really behind the September 11 attacks that started the war in Iraq in the first place. Now these same actors are using the same lies against Iran and that will lead to a third world war with dire consequences.

In the aftermath of the September 11^th attacks, former US Army General, Wesley Clark revealed a plan by the Bush Neocons on Democracy Now to “take out” Iran and six other Middle Eastern nations according to a Pentagon memo that was circulated within the highest-level of power within the Defense Department, according to Clark,

“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

The truth is that the attacks in New York City’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11^th, 2001, was the start of a wider Middle East war that did benefit the US government’s imperial ambitions and its weapons manufacturers to a certain extent, but it mostly benefited the Israeli government and its main agenda to dominate and control the Middle East, perhaps to expand its territory to become a Greater Israel.

Israeli Propaganda: Was Iran Behind the September 11^th?

Over the years since 911, Osama Bin Laden and his Saudi Arabian handlers have been accused of having a significant role, but according to an Israeli funded news organization, the Jewish News Syndicate (JNS), it was Iran who had a major role in the 911 attacks.

13 ^th, 2022, the ‘Mideast News Hour’ with Caroline Glick, a show produced by the Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) suggested that one country has been overlooked regarding the September 11^th attacks and that was Iran. Yes, according to Glick, Iran is the invisible hand behind the worst terrorist attacks in US history.

Caroline Glick, is an American-born Israeli conservative columnist, journalist, and author who writes for the Jerusalem Post, Breitbart news and others news media platforms hosted a segment on JNS called ‘21 years later, US still doesn’t recognize Iran’s role in 9/11’ invited a guest by the name of David Wurmser, an expert on Middle East affairs who served as one of the senior members of the Bush administration’s National Security Council (NSC) claimed on Glick’s show that

“This administration thinks that the actual ability to restrain Iran isn’t as important as the political gain from having done what Trump couldn’t do or didn’t do.”

In an anti-Iran fashion, Glick claimed that

“In the immediate aftermath, George Bush said that the enemy was terrorism. The real enemy, though, is radical Islam, not one group or another,” Glick continued “For the past 22 years, Americans have never acknowledged it” and that “America’s willful blindness to Iran’s role in global terrorism, including in the September 11 attacks, is part of the collective amnesia about the events of September 11.”

There are several facts that downplays Glick’s assertion that Iran was behind the 911 attacks.

But the real facts about who was involved will be undeniable.

As we piece together the evidence and trace who, what and where they came from, we will know the root cause of the September 11^th attacks.

Setting the Stage: When the Israelis Predicated 911 in ‘1979’

It seems that the Israelis were preparing the world for a 911 style attack since the early 1970’s.

According to journalist and author of several books on Israeli involvement in the September 11^th, Christopher Bollyn, who I will be referring to as we go through some of the missing pieces of the puzzle has been trying to tell the world who was behind the September 11^th attacks, yet he has been ignored by the mainstream media and by some alternative media networks and been labeled an anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theorist by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) when it comes to exposing who was behind 911.

In his website, Bollyn.com, he mentions his book, ‘The War on Terror: The Plot to Rule the Middle East’ where he says that the “9/11 and the War on Terror are linked plots that were designed to trick us into accepting the open-ended wars we have been engaged in since September 2001” and that “both plots were hatched by Israeli military intelligence to bring the U.S. military into the Middle East to wage war against the enemies of the Zionist state.”

There are several important points Bollyn brings to light on the propaganda inspired by Israeli interests in its anti-Muslim crusade and that is to propel the US and its Western allies into open ended wars in the Middle East. Bollyn published an article titled ‘Netanyahu’s Terrorist Party and 9/11’ and said that the

“Israeli military intelligence operates within the political framework of the state of Israel” he continued “This means that the 9/11 plot had to be approved at the highest political level in Israel since the late 1970s when the first Israeli movie depicting a plane-into-building attack was made by Arnon Milchan, a senior Israeli intelligence agent. Milchan’s first film, The Medusa Touch, was made in 1978 and featured a Boeing 747 being flown into the Pan Am building in New York City.”

Another Look at 9/11: Ask Not ‘What Happened?’ but ‘Who Did It?’

Isser Harel, the founder and first chief of the Israeli intelligence unit, Shin Bet who later became the head of Mossad, according to Bollyn’s research,

“One year later, in 1979, the founding chief of Israeli intelligence predicted that Arabs would attack the tallest building in New York. Isser Harel made this prediction to Michael Evans, an American Zionist activist.”

The Jerusalem Post published Mike Evan’s article on September 18^th, 2019 ‘America the target’ where he recalled his conversation with Harel that took place in Tel Aviv back in 1980:

Harel looked at this American visitor and replied, “I fear it will come to you in America. America has the power, but not the will, to fight terrorism. The terrorists have the will, but not the power, to fight America. But all that could change with time. Arab oil money buys more than tents.” As to the where, Harel continued, “New York City is the symbol of freedom and capitalism. It’s likely they will strike the Empire State Building, your tallest building [at that time] and a symbol of your power

Now the most intriguing part of Bollyn’s article is where he explains the most infamous terrorist coming out of Israel, Menachem Begin, the former chief of the terrorist organization, Irgun, which online dictionaries including Wikipedia describes them as a “Zionist paramilitary organization”:

In July 1979, Menachem Begin, the former chief of the terrorist Irgun who became prime minister in 1977, organized a conference on “international terrorism” in Jerusalem that was described as a “propaganda offensive” meant to initiate a global war on terror. The three-day conference was hosted by an organization called the Yonatan [Netanyahu] Institute, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu and his father, Benzion. George H.W. Bush was one of the speakers on the final day.

These three events: Milchan’s movie, Harel’s prediction, and the conference on international terrorism, indicate that Israeli planning for 9/11 and the War on Terror began when the notorious terrorist Menachem Begin came to power in 1977. Begin had been involved in terror atrocities in Palestine in the 1940s as the leader of the Irgun. He had organized the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 and the massacre of the entire village of Deir Yassin in 1948

New terrorist bombing campaigns took center stage in the Middle East when Yitzhak Shamir, the former head of terrorist Stern Gang (LEHI), became Israel’s prime minister on October 10^th,1983, so in “less than two weeks later a truck bomb devastated the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241. A simultaneous attack on French troops resulted in 58 French military personnel being killed.” Since 1979, the Israeli military had been using car and truck bombs in and around Lebanon, however, Israel, the US, and its European vassals blame Iran for the terrorist attacks that killed both US and French troops. The US and Israelis have supported and armed various terrorists’ organizations since the 1980’s eventually led to the September 11^th:

During Shamir’s first term as prime minister from October 10, 1983, until September 13, 1984, Israeli military intelligence began arming and training “Arab jihadis” in Pakistan including Osama bin Laden. The Hezb-e-Islami fighters led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar were provided with arms paid for by the CIA and Saudi Arabia and delivered by Israelis from the weapons taken from the battlefields of Lebanon.

What was odd about this arrangement is that the U.S. was funding the training and arming of the least effective and most anti-Western of the militia waging jihad against the Red Army in Afghanistan. The so-called Afghan Arabs, trained by Israel in the arts of terrorism, became Al Qaida in 1994

One of the most influential members of Hollywood is Arnon Milchan, but did you know that he was an Israeli spy? The Guardian, ‘Arnon Milchan reveals past as Israeli spy’ said that Milchan was proud working on behalf of Israel’s interests, “the Hollywood producer behind box office hits including Fight Club, Pretty Woman and LA Confidential has spoken about his life as an Israeli secret agent and arms dealer, saying he was proud of working for his country.”

Since the The Guardian failed to mention the first film produced by Milchan in 1978 which is described as a ‘supernatural horror thriller film’ called ‘The Medusa Touch’ which is based on a book written by Peter Van Greenaway about a telekinetic novelist played by actor Richard Burton who caused terrible disasters by just thinking about them. But there is one part of the film that Bollyn mentions, a Boeing 747 crashing into the PanAm building in New York City. Of course it does not mean it was a blueprint for the September 11th attacks or the start of a psychological operation on the public, to some people that would constitute a conspiracy theory, who knows, but you have to admit, that is interesting.

Milchan does have a reputation in Hollywood for being a former arms dealer,

“In Hollywood, they don’t like working with an arms dealer, ideologically … with someone who lives off selling machine guns and killing. Instead of someone talking to me about a script, I had to spend half an hour explaining that I’m not an arms dealer. If people knew how many times I risked my life, back and forth, again and again, for my country” and that country is the state of Israel, “I should have been aware of that, of what I’ll go through, and said, ‘F**k you. You know what? I did it for my country, and I’m proud of it.”

Milchan was a member of one of Israel’s top-secret intelligence agencies, Lakam and was part of an operation in obtaining information on the necessary technologies and materials for Israel’s nuclear weapons program,

“In Hollywood, he said, he detached himself from “physical activities” in order to devote himself to filmmaking. However, he claimed to have used connections to promote the apartheid regime in South Africa in exchange for it helping Israel acquire uranium.”

Simon Peres was Israel’s president at the time and was one of the main architects of Israel’s nuclear weapons program said that he recruited Milchan as an agent. In 2010, Peres was interviewed for Milchan’s biography in

«Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon – Arnon Milchan‘ by Meir Doron and Joseph Gelman

and said that

“Arnon is a special man. It was I who recruited him … when I was at the ministry of defence Arnon was involved in numerous defence-related procurement activities and intelligence operations” he claimed that “his strength is in making connections at the highest levels … his activities gave us a huge advantage, strategically, diplomatically and technologically.”

Did Menachem Begin, Arnon Milchan have advanced knowledge that a terrorist attack was going to take place ?

They predicted a plane hitting New York City’s Empire State building by terrorists back in 1979 to the passenger airliners being hijacked and striking the World Trade Center on September 11^th, 2001. For the Israelis, the ‘I told you so moment’ worked in their favor, it gave them the credibility as a reliable partner for the US government’s war on terror.

It is important to understand Hollywood’s role in grooming Western audiences to believe that Muslims/Arabs are born terrorists and are out to chop your head off because they hate your freedoms.

In fact, Hollywood has been setting the stage, propagandizing the American and European public in preparation for the “War on Terror” that preceded the September 11^, attacks which really means a war to conquer the Muslim world.

In an article by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (wrmea.org) ‘Dr. Jack Shaheen Discusses Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People’ spoke about the Israeli-connection to Hollywood and its influence to produce films demonizing Arabs.

Reel Bad Arabs is documented proof that there has been a propaganda campaign to convince Western audiences that Arabs are bad, that they are born terrorists, and in many films, some happen to be Palestinian terrorists,

“Not surprisingly, Israel is a vital part of the equation. Shaheen’s book examines 28 movies with an Israeli connection, released between 1983 and 1998, that vilify Arabs and often feature Palestinians as terrorists. More than half were filmed in Israel and, if the Israeli government didn’t finance the production, it assisted in various ways.”

What is interesting about Shaheen’s research is that he found many of these films to have a common enemy in their scripts, the “Arabs” who always depicted as terrorists who manage to attack the US on its homeland or abroad:

The plot of “Death Before Dishonor” (1987) is a perfect example of these “made-in-Israel” films. A fanatical terrorist group attacks an American Embassy compound in the Middle East.

For decades Israeli filmmakers and producers have collaborated with their supporters in Hollywood to produce films with a common theme: Arabs invade the U.S.—New York, Los Angeles, or even a high school in Indiana. Terrorists storm in, take hostages, and kill civilians. Arabs enslave and abuse Africans. While Hollywood concocted “True Lies,” “Wanted Dead or Alive” (1986) and “The Siege,” Israel made “Iron Eagle” (1986), “Chain of Command” (1992), “Death Before Dishonor,” (1987) and “Delta Force” (1986)

All part of the long-term plan to convince Western audiences with films that depict Arabs as terrorists who are hellbent on bringing death and destruction to non-Muslim countries all around the world. So far, it has worked in favor of Israel especially after the September 11^th attacks.

A Global ‘Art Student Scam’ That Was a Cover for ‘Israeli Art Student Spy Ring’

It was known that there was an art student scam taking place globally in which mass-produced paintings and prints was presented as original works of art, but in fact they were cheap paintings produced in China and sold by young people posing as inspirational art students or dealers from various countries including Canada, China, Chile, Nigeria, the US and Israel to raise money for college tuition and art supplies since around 2000.

So, did the Israelis blend in their spying operations to sort of get lost in the mix? Besides, if you mix all the various art students from different nationalities whether they are Chinese, Nigerian, or Israeli, then they are just poor art students trying to raise money for their education, therefore, you will not assume that any of them would be actual spies for a foreign country. We must admit, it is a clever way to get under the radar and avoid getting caught.

There was a report on a group of Israelis spying on US government agencies in several states which was published by Salon.com:

‘The Israeli “art student” mystery’ based on a group of Israeli art students in the US who were most likely, more than just “art students,”

“In January, 2001, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Office of Security Programs (IS), began to receive reports of Israeli art students attempting to penetrate several DEA Field Offices in the continental United States.”

Not only where the Israelis visiting DEA field offices, they were going to the homes of employees of the DEA,

“Additionally, there have been reports of Israeli art students visiting the homes of numerous DEA employees. ”

If that is not incredibly suspicious, I don’t know what is, but it did not stop at the DEA, “These incidents have involved several other law enforcement and Department of Defense agencies, with contacts made at other agencies’ facilities and the residences of their employees.”

These incidents occurred in several places “from California to Florida. The majority of the incidents have occurred in the southern half of the continental U.S. with the most activity reported in the state of Florida.” Suspicion at the office of Security Programs (IS) led them to believe that the art students followed a familiar pattern as to what Israeli organized crime syndicates had done in the past, gather intelligence:

The activities of these Israeli art students raised the suspicion of IS and other field offices when attempts were made to circumvent the access control systems at DEA offices, and when these individuals began to solicit their paintings at the homes of DEA employees.

The nature of the individuals’ conduct, combined with intelligence information and historical information regarding past incidents involving Israeli Organized Crime, leads IS to believe the incidents may well be an organized intelligence gathering activity

In fact, a few of the Israelis lived in Hollywood, Florida, home to Mohammed Atta and other alleged members of the 19 hijackers:  

In some cases, the Israelis visited locations not known to the public — areas without street addresses, for example, or DEA offices not identified as such — leading authorities to suspect that information had been gathered from prior surveillance or perhaps electronically, from credit cards and other sources. One Israeli was discovered holding banking receipts for substantial sums of money, close to $180,000 in withdrawals and deposits over a two-month period. A number of the Israelis resided for a period of time in Hollywood, Fla. — the small city where Mohammed Atta and three terrorist comrades lived for a time before Sept. 11

Now here is where it gets very suspicious because the Israeli students were not enrolled in any of the art schools or colleges, in fact, they all lied:

Officials began dealing more aggressively with the “art students.” According to one account, some 140 Israeli nationals were detained or arrested between March 2001 and Sept. 11, 2001. Many of them were deported. According to the INS, the deportations resulted from violations of student visas that forbade the Israelis from working in the United States. (In fact, Salon has established that none of the Israelis were enrolled in the art school most of them claimed to be attending; the other college they claimed to be enrolled in does not exist.) After the Sept. 11 attacks, many more young Israelis — 60, according to one AP dispatch and other reports — were detained and deported

Here is where Salon’s report gets interesting:

On Oct. 1 of last year, Texas newswoman Anna Werner, of KHOU-TV in Houston, told viewers about a “curious pattern of behavior” by people with “Middle Eastern looks” claiming to be Israeli art students. “Government guards have found those so-called students,” reported Werner, “trying to get into [secure federal facilities in Houston] in ways they’re not supposed to — through back doors and parking garages.” Federal agents, she said, were extremely “concerned.” The “students” had showed up at the DEA’s Houston headquarters, at the Leland Federal Building in Houston, and even the federal prosecutor’s office; they had also appeared to be monitoring the buildings.

Guards at the Earle Cabell Federal Building in Dallas found one “student” wandering the halls with a floor plan of the site. Sources told Werner that similar incidents had occurred at sites in New York, Florida, and six other states, “and even more worrisome, at 36 sensitive Department of Defense sites”

This story deserved more attention by the mainstream media, barely any of them reported on the mysterious Israeli art students spying on federal agencies who in fact, all served in the IDF including military intelligence and explosives ordinance units, the two most important military specializations needed to conduct a special operation including wiring a building for demolition purposes.

According to the DEA’s report, the Israeli art students consisted of a team leader with 8 to 10 members, all of them in their mid-20s with the females being described as attractive, “Most admit to having served in the Israeli Military. This is not surprising given the mandatory military service require in Israel, however, a majority of those questioned has stated they served in military intelligence, electronic signal intercept, or explosive ordinance units.” Several arelinked to high-ranking officials in the IDF. “One was the son of a two-star general, one served as the bodyguard to the head of the Israeli Army, one served in a Patriot missile unit.” However, none of the students were actually “art students” enrolled in any institution including those based in Israel. The art that they were selling, was produced in China:  

Their stories are remarkable only in their consistency. At first, they will state that they are art students, either from the University of Jerusalem, or the Bezalel Academy of Arts in Jerusalem. Other times they will purport to be promoting a new art studio in the area. When pressed for details as to the location of the art studio or why they are selling the paintings, they become evasive. Some claim to be the artist who painted the artwork, others claim they promoting the work of others or of Israel. Information has been received which indicates the art is actually produced in China. When told that they cannot solicit on federal facilities, they will claim that the paintings are not for sale, but that they are soliciting interest in the paintings, either for an art studio or for a future art sale

The Washington Post downplayed the DEA’s report by claiming that the agent who produced this report was “angry that his theories have not gained currency” the article, ‘Reports of Israeli Spy Ring Dismissed’ conveniently claimed that the DEA’s report was a conspiracy theory:

A wide array of U.S. officials yesterday dismissed reports that the U.S. government had broken up an Israeli espionage ring that consisted of young Israelis attempting to penetrate U.S. agencies by selling artwork in federal buildings. “This seems to be an urban myth that has been circulating for months,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Susan Dryden. “The department has no information at this time to substantiate these widespread reports about Israeli art students involved in espionage.”

Several officials said the allegations — first reported by a French online publication and later by other news organizations — of a massive U.S. probe of Israeli spies appear to have been circulated by a single employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration who is angry that his theories have not gained currency

Let’s look at some of the incidents mentioned in the DEA report involving IDF soldiers who specialized in demolitions, the report names three Israeli nationals who arrived in Frankfurt, Germany on March 27^th, 2001, and they were Julia Vainshtein, Dilka Borenstein and Ofir Navon. “NAVON claimed to be a former Israeli Army demolition/explosive ordnance disposal specialist” and that “they intended to tour the Dallas area for a few days, and then go to Houston, New York, and Los Angeles.” They were picked up by Michael Calmanovic whose address led to a mailbox. Zeev Miller was another Israeli explosive ordinance/combat engineer who was going to visit Canada, Mexico, and New York. The report said that Miller had over $1200 in cash and a credit card.  

The next person in the report was another IDF soldier by the name of Peer Segalovitz, a Lieutenant who was in Lebanon involved in making explosive devices to eliminate Hezbollah. “Segalovitz reluctantly stated that he was an officer of the Israeli military special forces 605 battalion in Golan Heights.” Now what was interesting was his description on what he was involved in during his time in the IDF where he was in an infantry unit, “but as a platoon leader he and his men specialized in demolition.” Segalovitz spoke about the “various types of explosives that he was familiar with and stated that his main purpose was to clear mine fields for Israeli tanks and soldiers.” But there is more to Segalovitz’s story, as he “acknowledged he could blow up buildings, bridges, cars, and anything else that he needed too” and that he “admitted that he had been in two (2) military actions in Lebanon involving explosives.”

Another suspect, Akyuz Shmuel Sagiv was a bodyguard for a General in the Israeli army also admitted that he was a demolition expert as well.

“Sagiv stated he was in the Israeli military in 1995-1996 and was the personal bodyguard of the highest ranking General in the Israeli Army. He also stated he was a demolition expert.” 

These individuals were not art students, they were IDF soldiers and spies trying to gather information on how the US government operated, but I guess that angry DEA agent is just a tin-foiled hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

Read Part II of this article.

Forthcoming

* 

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from SCN

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Timothy Alexander Guzman, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-911-orchestrated-war-middle-east/5851061

Was Nuland Fired for Her Role in the Ukraine Debacle?

By Mike Whitney

Victoria Nuland’s retirement is an admission that Washington’s premier foreign policy project has failed. No government official is more identified with the Ukraine fiasco than Nuland. She was on the ground micro-managing activities during the 2014 coup, and has overseen the State Department’s sordid involvement since the war began. Her career-path is inextricably linked to the ill-fated NATO-backed disaster which has resulted in the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian regulars and the obliteration of much of the country. Thus, the question we need to ask ourselves is whether Nuland’s persistent machinations to drag NATO into an unwinnable war with Russia is the reason she ‘got the axe’, er, announced her retirement? Here’s an excerpt from the official State Department Press Statement:

But it’s Toria’s (Nuland) leadership on Ukraine that diplomats and students of foreign policy will study for years to come. Her efforts have been indispensable to confronting Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and marshaling a global coalition to ensure his strategic failure, and helping Ukraine work toward the day when it will be able to stand strongly on its own feet – democratically, economically, and militarily. On the Retirement of Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, US State Department

This is an extraordinary paragraph that places the blame for the Ukrainian debacle squarely on Nuland’s shoulders.

Yes, she was “indispensable” in leading the drive to confront Putin just as she played a critical role in “marshaling a global coalition” to prosecute a proxy war on Russia. And, what this statement tells us is that Nuland was one of the main architects of the ongoing conflict, which means she is largely responsible for the widening chasm between the NATO leaders, the mounting carnage on the battlefield, and America’s strategic defeat to its primary geopolitical rival, Russia. In short, no other government official is more responsible for the Ukrainian quagmire than Victoria Nuland.

Also, Nuland leaves behind a gargantuan catastrophe for which there is no apparent remedy and no easy way out.

We cannot expect the Biden administration to simply ‘cut and run’ in what is perceived to be a direct confrontation with Moscow. Biden will undoubtedly press-ahead as a face-saving gesture regardless of the costs, further straining relations with the allies while handing-over large chunks of east Ukraine to the Russian army. This is clearly a no-win situation for Washington which is why (we think) Nuland –who created this mess– got her ‘Pink Slip’. Here’s more from the State Department’s statement:

(Nuland’s) tenure caps three and a half decades of remarkable public service under six Presidents and ten Secretaries of State. Starting with her very first posting as a consular officer in Guangzhou, China, Toria’s had most of the jobs in this Department. Political officer and economic officer. Spokesperson and chief of staff. Deputy Assistant Secretary and Assistant Secretary. Special Envoy and Ambassador.

These experiences have armed Toria with an encyclopedic knowledge of a wide range of issues and regions, and an unmatched capacity to wield the full toolkit of American diplomacy to advance our interests and values. (US State Dept)

Women Don’t Let Women Drive War: Feminists Say Fire Nuland

In other words, Victoria Nuland is one of the most knowledgeable and experienced diplomats in the entire State Department, but –even so– they are throwing her under the bus during a time of extreme crisis because she failed in the biggest and most important assignment of her 35-year career. Isn’t that what they’re saying?

It is. You can be 100% certain that a combative street-fighter like Nuland would never throw in the towel unless she was explicitly ordered to leave.

And, perhaps, she might have held-on to her job if there was any sign of progress in the war, but there isn’t any sign of progress. It’s as hopeless and dire a situation as we have ever seen.

Even as we speak– the Ukrainian front lines are collapsing while the body count continues to rise. Ukraine is out-gunned, out-manned, and out-led. It’s a total mismatch and has been ever since Putin called up the reserves over a year ago. Young men are presently being slaughtered in droves and left to rot in mud-filled trenches that stink of gunpowder and death. All of this suggests that the end is near. And if the end is near, then someone will have to be blamed. Enter Nuland with a bullseye affixed to her back.

Nuland deserves whatever she gets. As a diehard Warhawk she has always played fast-and-loose with the facts building the case for war on half-truths and outright fabrications, all with the intention of plunging the country into another pointless bloodletting that would inevitably end in another humiliating defeat. She got her wish, and now she’s getting her comeuppance. Here’s a short clip from an article by author Karen Kwiatkowski who is equally curious about Nuland’s fake retirement:

Is her exit related to Ukraine’s ongoing collapse as a nation state or the imminent fall of Zelensky in another coup, or worse? Perhaps someone is planning another coup in Kiev soon, to try and stop the bleeding, and this time old Vic was not invited. Maybe the CIA is finally deciding to cut their losses in Ukraine, and she was collateral damage. Her replacement is former ambassador John Bass who oversaw the most excellent and well planned withdrawal from Afghanistan a few summers ago. It could simply be rats jumping off sinking ships. Tori was a key player in the bloody and corrupt Ukraine-Biden nexus; one hopes her sudden departure is more significant than just one big nasty murderous rat diving into the deep– may she lead the way for the rest of the neocon mischief. Bye, Bye, Victoria! Karen Kwiatkowski, Lew Rockwell

Nuland and her former colleagues, John Brennan and Hillary Clinton, have had a poisonous effect on our politics, elevating Russophobia to a state religion while dragging the nation’s reputation through the mud at every turn. In a Time magazine interview, Nuland boldly announced:

We will support Ukraine for as long as it takes. Ukraine is fighting for the return of all of its land within its international borders. We are supporting them, including in preparing a next hard push to regain their territory…Crimea must be—at a minimum, at a minimum—demilitarized.” Time Magazine

Nonsense. Is there anyone who still believes this load of malarkey?

“As long as it takes” probably means another 10 to 12 months at the most. By then, Washington will have withdrawn its support and shifted its attention to Taiwan. Bet on it.

In any event, we think that Nuland’s retirement is anything but voluntary. We think that she’s being terminated by foreign policy elites who no longer believe in her blustery rhetoric and empty promises of beating Putin. By removing Nuland they are acknowledging that the proxy-war has failed and that a different strategy is needed. And while we don’t yet know what that policy-change will entail, we do know that Nuland won’t be involved in its implementation.

One final comment: In a February 22, 2024 interview at the prestigious Center for Strategic and International Studies, Nuland was asked the following question:

“…if Congress doesn’t act (to provide additional funding for Ukraine)… is there a Plan B? Is the administration thinking about how it could get aid to Ukraine? Is there a way to get aid to Ukraine without Congress actually allocating the funding to do so?

Nuland: Max, we’re on Plan A. We’re on Plan A. And, frankly, you know, the U.S. Senate just passed this bill with 70 votes. So that tells you that the American people strongly support continuing to help Ukraine, in Ukraine’s interest but also in our own interest. So I think the question, as the House of Representatives goes out into its districts, what message are constituents giving to their members of Congress? And how are members of Congress understanding what the world looks like, and how they’re going to have to answer if they don’t support this funding? So I am an optimist on this front. I think we will get there. But I think the American people need to speak strongly to their members. Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland: The Two-Year Anniversary of Russia’s Full-Scale Invasion of Ukraine, CSIS Center for Strategic and International Studies

Did you hear what she said? There is no Plan B. Either the US prevails in its proxy-war with Russia or what? Chaos? A Russian takeover of all Ukraine? The dissolution of NATO? What?

This is not the type of response that powerful foreign policy elites (who attended the interview) want to hear. They know that Ukraine is not winning the war, just like they know that Ukraine’s chances of success are extremely poor unless they get more money, more troops and more firepower, all of which are now seriously in doubt. They also know that the State Department has not convened any back-channel negotiations with Russia, so there’s no possibility of a surprise settlement either. And, now Nuland is telling them that neither she nor her colleagues have formulated a back-up plan in the event the war doesn’t turn out as they had anticipated. No Plan B.

This is unbelievable. Nuland is either supremely arrogant or criminally negligent, one or the other. Whichever it is, we can understand why elite powerbrokers may have decided it was time to put the irascible Ms. Nuland out to pasture.

Regrettably, we don’t think that ‘changing the messenger’ necessarily means a fundamental rethinking of the policy. Even so, it is a step in the right direction. As America’s ‘air of invincibility’ continues to erode, and its moral authority collapses (Gaza), Washington will be forced to pull in its horns and ‘play nice’ with its neighbors. That day is fast approaching.

Finally, no matter how you look at it, dumping Nuland is a positive development. Savor the moment.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from TURThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © 

Mike Whitney, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/was-nuland-fired-her-role-ukraine-debacle/5851505

Olaf, Boris und ihre „besten Offiziere“

Krieg in der Ukraine — Foto: Corona Borealis Studio/Shutterstock

Olaf Scholz hat ein Problem: Er ist Bundeskanzler und will offenbar nur ungern Kriegskanzler werden. Deswegen beteuert er immer öfter, keine Taurus-Totmachgeräte aus Schrobenhausen/Bayern nach Kiew zu liefern.

Von Wolfgang HübnerEr hat gute, alle Menschen mit Restverstand überzeugende Gründe dafür. Doch der Olaf hat ein weiteres Problem: Er darf sie nicht nennen! Stattdessen beteuert er wider besseres Wissen, Deutschland oder was davon übrig ist, müsse die Kontrolle über die Verwendung dieser Waffe behalten. Als ob jemand hierzulande kontrollieren könnte, was mit all den deutschen Waffen und Geldern geschieht, die in den Korruptionssumpf Ukraine gesendet wurden und werden.Und weiß nun nicht sogar Teufel Putin, dass die „besten Offiziere“ seines Parteifreunds Boris Pistorius längst Wege planen, die Taurus-Totmachgeräte in die Ukraine zu schleusen, um damit fremde Brücken mit menschlichen Kollateralschäden zu zerstören? Aber Olaf muss so tun, als wüsste er das nicht. Denn wenn er sagen würde, was Russland ihm sehr glaubwürdig im Falle einer Kehrtwendung angedroht hat, dann werden alle Kriegstreiber in Politik und Medien im nibelungentreuen Selbstmordmodus schreien: Jetzt zeigen wir‘s dem Iwan erst recht!Olaf darf auch nicht sagen, dass die geschätzten wertewestlichen „Verbündeten“ aus Washington, Paris und London nichts lieber hätten, als deutsche Raketen gegen die Krimbrücke statt amerikanische, französische oder britische. Denn dann würden die Vergeltungsschläge nicht Ramstein, Lyon oder Manchester treffen, sondern Schrobenhausen, Düsseldorf und wo immer in Buntland Totmachgeräte hergestellt werden. Und noch ein paar wichtige Brücken in Köln oder Kehl dazu.Weil Olaf jedoch all das nicht sagen kann, wenn er Kanzler unter Baerbock, Hofreiter und Strack-Zimmermann bleiben will, muss er sogar dem Obergefreiten Boris gestatten, sich nicht von seinen vasallendeutschen NATO-Offizieren trennen zu wollen, die mit ihrem grausigem Denglisch-Gestammel am Telefon die ganze Welt mit der Bildungskatastrophe im früheren Land von Goethe und Schiller vertraut gemacht haben. Olaf Scholz hat echt ein Problem: Er ist Kanzler in einem Sumpf, aus dem ihn niemand herausziehen wird.

Olaf, Boris und ihre „besten Offiziere“

Das Außenministerium drohte den USA mit der Ausweisung von Diplomaten aus Moskau

Außenministerium: Dem US-Botschafter wurde mitgeteilt, dass Einmischung in russische Angelegenheiten strikt unterdrückt wird

Der ins Außenministerium einberufenen amerikanischen Botschafterin in Moskau, Lynn Tracy, wurde mitgeteilt, dass Versuche, sich in die inneren Angelegenheiten Russlands einzumischen, harsch unterdrückt würden, berichtete das russische Außenministerium.

In einer Erklärung auf  dem Telegram- Kanal des russischen Außenministeriums heißt es, dass Tracy darüber informiert wurde, dass drei amerikanische NGOs in Russland für unerwünscht erklärt wurden: American Councils for International Education, Cultural Perspectives und das Institute of International Education, die antirussische Programme umsetzen und sind beschäftigt sich mit der Rekrutierung von „Agenten des Einflusses“

Dem amerikanischen Diplomaten wurde eine Note ausgehändigt, in der er die Vereinigten Staaten aufforderte, jegliche Unterstützung bei den Aktivitäten dieser NPOs einzustellen. Andernfalls wird dies als Verstoß gegen russisches Recht gewertet.

Das Außenministerium warnte davor, dass Versuche, sich in die inneren Angelegenheiten Russlands einzumischen, zur Ausweisung amerikanischer Botschaftsmitarbeiter mit dem Status einer Persona non grata führen könnten.

Experten erklärten zuvor, wie der Westen  versucht, sich in  die Wahlen in Russland einzumischen.

https://vz.ru/news/2024/3/7/1256978.html

Frau Lynn Tracy , die derzeitige US-Botschafterin in Moskau, leitete erfolgreich die US-Botschaft in Eriwan, die mehr als 2000 (zweitausend) Mitarbeiter beschäftigt. (In Moskau waren es weniger als 700)…

Was denken Sie – WAS machen diese Leute seit Jahren? Sie haben Armenier großgezogen…

Wie wir sehen, haben sie sie so erzogen, wie sie es wollten. Jetzt erhöhen sie unsere „Opps“.

Auf dem Foto — L. Tracy bei Navalnys Beerdigung am Judas-Tag (1. März) (unten rechts) 

Es ist Zeit, sie aus Moskau zu vertreiben! Es wird einen Grund für „Persona non grata“ geben

Während Europa alle Kräfte sammelt, um Russland etwas zu zeigen, und die französischen Hähne Kompatibilität mit Moldawien wollen …

Während Europa alle Kräfte sammelt, um Russland etwas zu zeigen, beginnen sie im Nahen Osten, Russland offen zu treten. Der Iran beschlagnahmte einen US-Tanker sowie Öl im Wert von 50 Millionen US-Dollar, um Verluste aus den Sanktionen auf der Grundlage einer iranischen Gerichtsentscheidung zu decken.

„Aufgrund der Sanktionen westlicher Länder, insbesondere der Vereinigten Staaten, in deren Folge das schwedische Unternehmen den Verkauf der von den Patienten benötigten Medikamente verhinderte und den Patienten schwere körperliche und moralische Schäden zufügte, reichten die Patienten eine Beschwerde bei Gericht ein. Das Ministerium für Die Abteilung für Internationale Beziehungen (Abteilung 55) reichte in Teheran eine Klage gegen die Vereinigten Staaten ein.

Auf der Grundlage dieser Behauptung und der juristischen Expertise des Anwalts des Patienten ordnete das Gericht für Internationale Beziehungen (55. Zweig) in Teheran schließlich die Beschlagnahme der amerikanischen Ölladung auf der Advantage Sweet im Persischen Golf an und die Schiffsladung wurde beschlagnahmt.“ berichtet (https://t.me/rus_demiurge/69182) Kollegen.

Die Amerikaner sind natürlich entschieden dagegen. Aber im Allgemeinen kümmert sich niemand besonders um ihre hohe Meinung – sie wollen die Entscheidung vor einem iranischen Gericht anfechten – bitte. Sie wollen kämpfen – es gibt nichts Einfacheres – die Perser werden Ihre Schiffe versenken, wenn sie die Houthis einholen, und gleichzeitig werden sie eine der Gipfelstraßen mit der Aufschrift „nur für sich selbst“ blockieren, woraufhin Sie entweder mit Holz heizen oder Öl und Gas vom bösen Putin kaufen müssen.

Willst du es nicht mehr? Sie zahlen die Sanktionen nach Ihrem Wunsch. Ja, jetzt können Sie das tun.

https://t.me/rus_demiurge/69205

Why the State of Israel is a Tool of Western Colonial Domination in the Middle East

Eduardo Vasco

Zionism can be considered as fascism adapted to the conditions of the Middle East and the aspirations for domination of Anglo-American imperialism over that region, Eduardo Vasco writes.

The central thesis of this article is that the State of Israel is a pure imperialist invention to facilitate the domination of Western Asia by the great powers, a domination that can only be exercised through fascist methods. We seek to prove this thesis by analyzing the history of the Zionist movement from the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century, using as sources the works of some of the greatest scholars on the subject worldwide, many of them Jews.

The common origins of German Nazism, Italian fascism and Israeli Zionism

The 19th century was the most important in the history of humanity. It was there where the greatest political, economic and social transformations of modernity took place, which opened the way for an unlimited development of human capabilities following the industrial revolution.

It was when the different peoples of the world, particularly those of Europe, which was the center of these transformations, tried for the first time, on an international level, to free themselves from the chains that bound them to backwardness and oppression. Nationalist movements were born in several nations suffocated by colonial empires.

To justify their action, the ideologues of nationalism often resorted to the invention of myths in order to present the purpose of building a nation as a natural historical result of the development of a people’s struggle. The myths had as their fundamental characteristic a religious, racial and territorial basis.

The ideologists of Zionism, that is, of the colonization of Palestine by Jews, taking advantage of the need for protection of Jews after centuries of oppression in Europe, followed the example of the Germans and Italians, for example, who tried to unify their nations and build their own National State propagating the territorial rights of people of the same race and religious creed. In these three cases, their leaders evoked a mythical past, of heroic and superior peoples of whom they were their legitimate descendants and heirs.

Israeli historian Shlomo Sand writes, in his book “The Invention of the Jewish People”, that

In the image of other “patriotic” trends in 19th century Europe, which looked back to a fabulous golden age with the help of which they forged a heroic past for themselves (classical Greece, the Roman Republic, the Teutonic tribes or the Gauls) In order to prove that they had not been born ex nihilo, but had existed for a long time, the first adherents of the idea of a Jewish nation turned to the resplendent light that radiated from the mythological kingdom of David and whose strength was preserved for centuries in the heart of walls of religious faith.

In “Rome and Jerusalem”, from 1862, the socialist intellectual Moses Hess said that “the Jewish race is a pure race that reproduced all its characteristics, despite different climatic influences. The Jewish type has remained the same through the centuries.” And he added: “It is of no use to Jews and Jewish women to deny their origin by getting baptized and mixing with the masses of the Indo-Germanic and Mongol peoples. Jewish types are indelible.”

A racist, reactionary tendency was already noticeable within this movement of Jewish intellectuals. The same trend that generated the fascist far-right phenomena in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century.

The religious basis attracted the most primitive instincts of the community and seemed something a little outdated after the consolidation of Enlightenment ideals and the era of reason and science. Therefore, nationalist ideologues had to adapt religious myths to a pseudoscientific discourse.

Nazi historians, archaeologists and researchers struggled to find evidence of their supposed mythological past. His “science” was nothing more than a revision of history in order to manipulate it for the purposes of the Third Reich. “Science” served the official ideology and its falsification of history.

At around the same time, the Zionists were going down the same path. When archaeological discoveries contradicted religious writings, Zionist researchers preferred to adopt “the ‘truth’ of the theological text over the truth of the archaeological object”, according to Sand.

Ukrainian Ben-Zion Dinur, professor of Jewish History at the University of Jerusalem in the 1930s, is the author of the book “The History of Israel: Israel in its Country”, first published in 1918 and later expanded in 1938. According to Sand’s words, that author decided to “rewrite” the Bible, “adapting it to the ‘scientific’ spirit of his time”.

This does not mean that, at some point, he doubted the historicity of the Holy Scriptures. From the account of the life of Abraham the Hebrew to his return to Zion, he remained faithful to every detail and every event reported.

“The most important contribution of ‘biblical historiography’ to the elaboration of national consciousness certainly consisted in establishing the relationship with the ‘land of Israel’”, Sand states.

The Bible served mainly as an “ethnic” mark that indicated the common origin of women and men whose secular cultural data and components were completely different, but who were detested due to a religious faith to which they practically no longer adhered.

The idea was in gestation that modern Jews were the descendants of the inhabitants of ancient Israel two thousand years ago, who had been expelled and who should retake that land. They would not accept the statement that all peoples and civilizations once belonged to a certain land and were expelled from there by other peoples, and that they also took lands from other peoples, consequently. Nor does the idea that modern Jews, like the descendants of all peoples who have had extensive contact with others, are heirs of a series of races, are not a pure race, and that they had little in common with the inhabitants of ancient Israel . They preferred to adopt the same racist prejudices as the ideologues of Nazism and fascism, that their race was pure and superior to others.

Zionism, a movement started by the British big bourgeoisie

When Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, in the mid-19th century, Great Britain – the great colonial and capitalist power of the time – installed its consulate in Jerusalem. In 1840, Lord Palmerston proposed that the Crown found a European Jewish colony in Palestine in order to “preserve the more general interests of the British Empire”, in his own words. Until then, around 500 thousand people inhabited those lands. Two-thirds of these were Muslim Arabs, 60,000 were Christians and only 20,000 were Jews, according to Ilan Pappé (“History of Modern Palestine”).

A few decades later, the British purchased Egypt’s part of the newly built Suez Canal, which guaranteed them the presence of troops there to protect the navigation of their ships and a strategic presence at the gates of Palestine and its growing rival, the Ottoman Empire.

While Great Britain penetrated Palestine, important sectors of the European bourgeoisie organized this colonization movement ideologically and politically. Theodore Herzl, a Jew from a banking family in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, is considered the main founder of Zionism. In 1896, he wrote “The Jewish State”, in which he elaborated the main theses of Zionist colonialism, the fundamental thesis being the need to build a state of its own in Palestine.

In this book, he already indicated that the Zionists were powerful bankers, and exposed their racist views. “Supposing His Majesty the Sultan handed over Palestine to us, we could in return take care of regularizing finances in Turkey. We would form a civilization there in the face of barbarism,” he wrote. On the other hand, he also addressed the European powers, stating that the Jewish State would be, “for Europe, a piece of fortress against Asia”.

The following year, Herzl led the first Zionist Congress, held in Switzerland. Congress gave a huge boost to the movement and set the goal of founding the Jewish State within 50 years. In the words of researcher Marcelo Buzetto,

From then on, Zionists ran around the world to raise financial resources and political support for their proposal. Herzl and his followers will establish contacts with the governments of England, Germany, the Turkish-Ottoman Empire, and Jewish and non-Jewish bankers, industrialists and merchants, aiming to strengthen the idea of the need for a Jewish State. The European Jewish community is divided, and not everyone supports the Zionist idea, but this movement obtains the help of the Jewish bourgeoisie and important sectors of the non-Jewish European bourgeoisie. (“A questão palestina”)

Britain was preparing for imminent war against Germany and its Turkish allies. For this, in addition to commercial gains, it was essential to establish positions in Suez and within Palestine. According to Ralph Schoenman, in “The Hidden History of Zionism”,

For years the British used the Zionist leadership to obtain support from banks and large Jewish capitalists in the United States and Great Britain for their war against the German Empire.

Sérgio Yahni explains the British imperialist project through the Zionists in Palestine:

For Great Britain, Palestine was a base of operations for the Royal Navy and Zionist colonization, with resources it had to finance industrial development, was part of a strategy that guaranteed maritime transport, controlling access to the Suez Canal, and facilitated the transport of Iraqi oil through territories controlled by the British Empire. To achieve these objectives, His Majesty expected military security and social stability in the country through a system of immigration certificates that required a minimum economic capacity on the part of immigrants. Great Britain guaranteed the colonization of sectors of the middle class, thus alleviating class contradictions […] (“A questão palestina”, Prefácio)

With the aim of settling Jewish settlers on land acquired in Palestine, in 1905 the Jewish National Fund began purchasing Arab properties.

European Zionists, noticing the flowering of Arab independence sentiments against Turkish rule in Palestine in the early 20th century, organized to support the Ottoman Empire in repressing the Palestinian independence movement. While they supported the Turkish empire’s repression of the Arabs, they acted against the Turks in favor of the British. Still according to Schoenman, the Zionists began to give full support to the English in the face of the imminent implosion of the Ottoman Empire with the defeat in World War I.

In 1914, the president of the World Zionist Organization, Chain Weizmann, declared:

It is quite acceptable to say that if Palestine falls into the British sphere of influence and Britain encourages Jewish settlement there as a British dependency, in 20 or 30 years we could have a million Jews there, or perhaps more. They would develop the country, restore civilization and form a much more effective guard for the Suez Canal.

The Zionists and British were not the only ones interested in the end of the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular, organized themselves and actively fought for independence and even received a promise from Great Britain that they would have their own country if they helped defeat the Turks. The British, however, did not fulfill this promise. On the contrary, in the final months of the war they publicly declared their intention to create a Jewish state.

Such was the character of the infamous Balfour Declaration, by the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, addressed to the leader of the Zionists in Great Britain, the banker Lionel Walter Rothschild, member of the powerful Rothschild family, published on November 2, 1917. It said:

His Majesty’s Government views favorably the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will do everything in their power to facilitate the attainment of that object.

With the end of the war and the defeat of the Turks, the Ottoman Empire was artificially divided by the victors and Great Britain transformed Palestine into a protectorate, without giving it the promised independence. But it was not yet time to transform it into a State for the Jews, as their presence in the territory was still negligible.

From the turn of the 1920s to the 1930s, the Jewish company, financed by bankers and large Jewish businessmen, began to buy large amounts of land to install Jewish settlers in Palestine. By the early 1930s, twenty thousand Palestinian peasant families had been expelled from their land by European Zionists. In the middle of the decade, the company Africa Israel Investments was founded by important South African (white) investors and businessmen, which began acquiring land in Palestine.

The Mandate government gave Jewish capital a privileged status, granting it 90% of the concessions in Palestine. This allowed the Zionists to gain control of the region’s economic infrastructure (road projects, Dead Sea minerals, electricity, ports, etc.) By 1935, the Zionists controlled 872 of Palestine’s 1,212 industrial companies. (Ralph Schoenman, “The Hidden History of Zionism”).

Blood brothers unite to promote “the greatest tragedy in the history of humanity”

National mythology has always been used by the ruling classes to dominate and manipulate people’s legitimate feelings and needs for independence and freedom against external oppression.

The nascent imperialist bourgeoisie at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century perfectly maneuvered with these feelings among the European peoples in order to suppress the workers’ movement that was gaining strength and represented a growing threat to it dictatorship.

It was from the need to suppress the enormous proletarian movements that took over Europe, and which encouraged the national struggle in colonized nations, as well as to expand their sphere of domination of world markets, that the great bankers and industrialists promoted the birth of Nazi fascism – and its blood brother, Zionism.

The first embryos of the European fascist movement had the collaboration of Zionist leaders. This was the case of the tsarist repression in Russia against the Bolsheviks – who had strong support within the Jewish proletariat, so much so that four of the seven members of the revolutionary leadership of 1917 were Jews –, supported by Herzl and Weizmann.

Simon Petliura was a Ukrainian fascist who personally directed the pogroms that killed 28,000 Jews in 1897 in separate massacres. [Vladimir] Jabotinsky [one of the founders of Zionism] negotiated an alliance with Petliura, proposing a Jewish police force that would accompany Petliura’s forces in the counter-revolutionary struggle against the Red Army and the Bolshevik Revolution – a process that involved the murder of peasants, workers and intellectuals who defended the Revolution. (Schoenman, “The Hidden History of Zionism”)

When the fascist movement had fully developed, the Zionists increased their support for it.

Mussolini formed squads of the Betar Revisionist Zionist youth movement, wearing black shirts in the same manner as his own fascist bands. When Menachem Begin became head of Betar, he preferred to wear the brown shirts of Hitler’s gang, a uniform that Begin and the members of Betar wore in all meetings and concentrations – in which they saluted each other, opening and closing the meetings, with the fascist salute. (Idem)

But the darkest episode in the history of Zionism in the first half of the 20th century was yet to come. Particularly, from the end of the 1920s in Germany: active support for Nazism and even the Holocaust itself.

When the Nazis came to power, Schoenman writes, based on documents from the time, “the Zionist Federation of Germany sent a memorandum of support to the Nazi Party on June 21, 1933,” hailing the “revival of national life” and “principle of race” that guided the new German State. The Congress of the World Zionist Organization confirmed this position in 1933, when it rejected, by 240 votes to 43, “a resolution that called for action against Hitler”. And the main Zionist entity went further: it broke the Jewish boycott of the Nazi regime by signing a commercial agreement between the Anglo-Palestinian Bank of the World Zionist Organization with Germany, becoming “the main distributor of Nazi products throughout the Middle East and northern Europe”.

“The Zionists took Baron Von Mildenstein, from the SS Security Service, to Palestine on a six-month visit in support of Zionism”, which earned Joseph Goebbels much praise for Zionism and even the order to mint it “a medal with the swastika on one side and the Zionist Star of David on the other.”

The researcher points out that, in 1937, when the persecution of Jews by the Hitler regime had already begun, the Haganah (armed Zionist organization) sent an agent to Berlin “to offer espionage to the SS Security Service, in exchange for the release of Jewish fortunes to be used in Zionist colonization.” Zionist agent Feivel Polkes told Adolf Eichmann that “Jewish nationalist circles were greatly delighted by German radical policy, since with it the strength of the Jewish population in Palestine would grow to such an extent that, in the foreseeable future, the Jews would reach have numerical superiority over the Arabs.”

Schoenman defends the thesis that the Jewish-Zionist elite supported Nazism and the Holocaust because the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Europe would naturally lead to emigration to Palestine, the historical objective of the Zionists. According to the author, they organizedly sabotaged the emigration of persecuted Jews in Europe in the 1930s, because they were not heading to Palestine, but to America or other Western European countries. David Ben Gurion, who would later become Israel’s first head of government, said in 1938: “If I had known that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by taking them to Britain and only half of them by transporting for Eretz Israel [Greater Israel], I would opt for the second alternative.”

They just wanted to save the young, healthy Jews, to build Eretz Israel in Palestine. Those considered old and incapable were easily discarded to the death chambers, as occurred from 1944 onwards, when a secret pact signed by the Zionist elite with the Nazis led to the abandonment of 800,000 Jews in Hungary to save 600 “pre-eminent Jews”, according to Schoenman. “If they come to us with two plans – to rescue the masses of Jews from Europe or to rescue the land – I vote, without hesitation, for the rescue of the land”, expressed Yitzhak Gruenbaum, a Zionist leader.

Schoenman reports that, on January 11, 1941, Avraham Stern, another Zionist leader, proposed a pact between the Zionist National Military Organization (NMO) and Germany, which stipulated, for example, that:

1. There may be common interests between the establishment of a New Order in Europe, according to the German conception, and the authentic national aspirations of the Jewish people, personified by the NMO.
2. Would cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed nation of the National Hebrew people be possible, and
3. The establishment of a historic Jewish state, on a national and totalitarian basis, united by an alliance with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a continued and strengthened future position of German power in the Near East.

Stern concluded his document by offering NMO support to Germany in World War II. In Schoenman’s opinion, Zionists would rather see millions of Jews killed by Hitler than allow mass emigration to anywhere other than Palestine.

We all know what the fate of European Jews was at the hands of the Nazis. In the calculations of Raul Hilberg, the “main authority on the Nazi Holocaust” in the words of Norman G. Finkelstein, no less than 5.1 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. Many representatives of the international community and the main world institutions call this event “the greatest tragedy in the history of humanity”, as Josep Borrell, the European Union’s high representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said in 2022.

Perhaps it was because of this active support from the Zionist elite that the Holocaust was forgotten during the first two decades after World War II. In his book “The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering”, Finkelstein raises some hypotheses for the cover-up by the Jewish elite in the US of crimes against Jews. For example, West Germany (where numerous Nazis were incorporated into the new regime) was an ally of the Americans in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Also, the denunciation of Nazism – and the welcoming of many Nazis by the US and its allies – was an important agenda of the American left, which, following the centuries-old Jewish tradition, had a large Jewish following. And the main Zionist organizations in the US at the time, the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, collaborated in the witch hunts for communists during McCarthyism. “Remembering the Nazi Holocaust was labeled a communist cause” and, in order not to be confused with the left, the Jewish elite sabotaged any type of anti-Nazi campaign, according to Finkelstein.

In the author’s assessment, it was only after the 1967 war between Israel and the Arab countries that the Holocaust began to be remembered, both by the Jewish elite and by the United States government. And the strong propaganda campaign that we know today was started. He does not take into account the possibility that this was done because the US realized that there would be intense opposition to the establishment of the State of Israel in the Middle East and this could compromise its domination in the region and, thus, began to label any criticism of the Zionism as anti-Semitism and apology for the Holocaust. It is needless to note that this remembrance did not include the Zionist elite’s support for Nazism and the Holocaust itself.

Colonial and racist ideology and practice

Concomitantly with the gradual Jewish colonization of Palestine, driven by European bankers and the British Empire, Zionist leaders developed and expressed their colonial and racist ideology.

In his 1923 book “The Iron Wall”, Jabotinsky argued that there was a “complete impossibility of reaching a voluntary agreement with the Arabs of Palestine to transform Palestine from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority”. He recalled that colonization never “happened with the agreement of the native population” and admitted that “the natives fought because any type of colonization, anywhere, at any time, is unacceptable for any native people”.

He fully confessed the colonial character of the Zionist enterprise when comparing it to the arrival of the Spanish in America or the massacre of the American Indians. He said that the Arabs

look at Palestine with the same instinctive love and the same authentic fervor with which any Aztec looked at his Mexico or any Sioux contemplated his prairie (…). Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. Any colonization, even the most restricted, must be developed in defiance of the will of the native population.

Jabotinsky ended his argument by recognizing that Zionist colonialism should be supported by the British colonial Mandate:

Through the Balfour Declaration or through the Mandate, external force is indispensable to establish in the country the conditions of domination and defense by which the local population, regardless of their desires, is deprived of the possibility of preventing our colonization, in physicists or administrative terms. Force must play its role, with energy and without indulgence.

Zionists first widely put Jabotinsky’s ideas into practice in the second half of the 1930s. In 1936, the Palestinian people carried out a huge rebellion against the British yoke and imperial forces reacted violently. But they were unable to contain the revolt, which was armed, and resorted to the support of Zionist groups that had already immigrated to Palestine. “Zionist forces were integrated into the British intelligence services and became the police that enforced draconian British rule,” Ralph Schoenman says.

Great Britain armed the Zionists, who had thousands of members within the Haganah and Irgun, and from then on had a number of armed fascist militias to crush the Palestinians, trained by British officer Charles Orde Wingate, according to Schoenman. At the end of the Arab uprising, in 1939, there were more than 14 thousand fascist-Zionist militiamen organized and commanded by British officers.

This suppression of the Palestinian uprising of 1936-1939 was a vital event in the preparation of the Zionist armed forces that would facilitate, through ethnic cleansing, the invasion of 1948, authorized by the United Nations on November 29, 1947. This UN resolution occurred with just one month remaining before the end of the 50-year period stipulated by the Zionists, in 1897, for the creation of the State of Israel. If, at the end of the 19th century, Zionism gave signs that it was an imperialist project of European bankers – particularly the English ones –, in the middle of the 20th century it became clear that, in addition, it had become a project of world imperialism, now led by the US bourgeoisie, the great victor in World War II, along with the Soviet Union.

As the Second World War ended with an agreement to divide the world into different zones of domination by the great powers, the Soviet government agreed with the US and Great Britain that that region of the Middle East would be theirs. Perhaps to get rid of his own Jews, Stalin participated in the creation of the State of Israel as part of the new era of collaboration, not confrontation – so the Stalinist bureaucracy thought – with its Western partners.

The cruel and historic persecution of the Jews in Europe, which resulted in the Holocaust, was the great justification for the imperialist powers to impose the creation of a State for the Jews in Palestine. Even though the Jewish community was not consulted, much less the inhabitants of Palestine, the majority of whom were Arabs. The claim of the World Zionist Organization, a body founded and run by European bankers, was worth more than the opinion of the Jewish and Arab people.

The increasing colonization of Palestine by bourgeois European Zionist Jews during the British Mandate served as an argument to prove that Jews wanted to emigrate to Palestine and were already doing so. In the early 1930s, four thousand Jews arrived in Palestine each year. In the middle of the same decade, this average reached sixty thousand (Marcelo Buzetto, “A questão palestina”). Even so, until 1947 only 6% of the land in Palestine was Jewish-owned, according to Schoenman.

In 1939, there were 445 thousand Jews in a total population of 1.5 million inhabitants, according to Gattaz cited by Buzetto. In the year of the partition of Palestine by the UN, Jews represented one third of the country’s population (630 thousand), while the other two thirds were Arabs (1.3 million). Only 10% of Jews were originally from Palestine, according to Henry Cattan, while the overwhelming majority were European settlers.

Ralph Schoenman states that the fascist-Zionist organizations Irgun and Haganah, even before the creation of Israel, “seized three-quarters of the land and virtually expelled all the inhabitants,” displacing 780,000 Palestinians and massacring thousands of others in identical terrorist actions those carried out by the Nazis in the Soviet Union. David Ben Gurion, Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Shamir, all future Prime Ministers of the State of Israel, played an important role in these massacres.

When the State of Israel was founded, on May 14, 1948, 90% of the land in Palestine had already been stolen by Jewish settlers. “In the territory occupied by Israel after partition, there were around 950,000 Palestinian Arabs. They inhabited around 500 villages and all large cities”, Schoenman points out. “After less than six months, there were only 138 thousand people left”, he adds. “Around 400 towns and cities were razed to the ground in 1948 and 1949. In 1950, they did the same to several others.”

The Nakba (the great “catastrophe”) began for the Palestinians, which continues to this day, seven decades after its beginning. The institution responsible for this genocide, therefore, is the UN itself. The Zionist settlers felt completely at ease, even though they still constituted a minority within Palestine, to terrorize and expel the Arabs en masse from the moment that the United Nations, in an absolutely arbitrary and illegitimate way, granted more than half of the Palestinian territory to them.

Conclusion

Ever since they became aware of the strategic geographic position and enormous natural riches of that region of Western Asia, European empires have coveted it. As has been known for millennia, the best strategy for a colonizer is to divide and rule. This is what European, and later American, imperialism did to the Middle East. First, they divided it, and then they installed their representatives. It would not be possible to govern solely through puppet Arab regimes, as these – as we can clearly see today – are exposed to pressure from their population. It would be necessary to establish a colonial regime. But traditional colonialism was in crisis after the First and Second World Wars.

Therefore, the Zionist project, which had been in the works for half a century, was ideal for dominating that region of the planet, which connects Europe with Asia and Africa, through which the main maritime routes that control world trade and where there is an abundance of such vital resources as gas and oil. Zionism, that is, the doctrine of the creation, maintenance and expansion of the State of Israel, is the great pretext manufactured by the imperialist bourgeoisie to dominate the most important geographic region in the world.

Theodore Herzl already claimed, in 1904, “all of Lebanon and Jordan, two-thirds of Syria, half of Iraq, a strip of Turkey, half of Kuwait, one-third of Saudi Arabia, the Sinai and Egypt, including Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo”, highlights Schoenman.

In 1938, Ben Gurion declared that “the State will be only a stage in the realization of Zionism and its task is to prepare the ground for our expansion.” And he elaborated: “the borders of Zionist aspiration include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, present-day Jordan, the entire West Bank and Sinai.” This meant that the objective of imperialism with Israel was not limited to the creation of a state for the Jews – in fact, this was just idle talk. The objective was to use it as a spearhead in the effort to dominate and subjugate the entire Middle East.

In fact, since the artificial creation of Israel, with increasing support from the united imperial powers, the Zionist entity has come to occupy Sinai in Egypt, southern Lebanon and the West Bank, as well as the Golan Heights in Syria, which are still under Israeli power.

Schoenman describes that, in “Moshe Sharett’s Personal Diary”, former Prime Minister Moshe Sharett (1954-1955) revealed the objectives of the high Zionist political-military leadership: “to dismember the Arab world, defeat the Arab national movement and create puppet regimes under Israeli regional power.” On October 26, 1953, he wrote that “1) The Army considers the current border with Jordan absolutely unacceptable. 2) The Army is planning the war in order to occupy the rest of Eretz Israel.” Sharett also documented meetings that discussed the annexation of Syrian and Lebanese territory and the “green light” given by the CIA to attack Egypt.

This proves that Israel’s conquest of Arab territory was not a war reparation due to the aggression of the Arab nations against the Zionist entity, but rather a planned objective of domination, which is part of an even greater goal that encompasses the entire region.

Schoenman highlights two more documents that point in this direction, both dated 1982. An analysis by Oded Yinon published in the newspaper of the Information Department of the World Zionist Organization highlighted the strategic need to fragment the countries of the Middle East as much as possible through the exploitation of ethnic and religious differences. He proposed extending this plan to North Africa, covering Egypt, Libya and Sudan. In the same year, a senior official from the Israeli Ministry of Defense, Y’ben Poret, declared: “neither today nor in the past is there Zionism, there is neither colonization nor a Jewish state without the removal of all Arabs, without confiscation.”

The military dictatorship with a civil and pseudo-democratic facade that imposed an apartheid situation in Palestine occupied by Israel, in which Arabs are second-class citizens, suffer segregation and discrimination, are arbitrarily arrested, tortured and executed, lack civil and political rights and – as seen by the genocide that began on October 7, 2023 – have their homes bombed, there is no fundamental difference to the former apartheid regime in South Africa or the former Nazi regime in Germany. The State of Israel, however, has an aggravating factor: while Nazism was created by German imperialism and apartheid was created by white South Africans themselves, Israel was created and is maintained to this day by the entire global imperialist system as a whole. This makes his life longer than the lives of the Third Reich or Apartheid.

Despite being an agent agreed and shared by the world’s imperialist powers, there is clearly a predominance of American imperialism over the State of Israel. In practice, it is the 51st state of the United States of America, taking into account all the economic and military investment made by Washington since 1948 and, particularly, since 1967, in Israel. The Zionist entity is absolutely dependent on North American funding and, without it, could easily cease to exist if it were attacked jointly by Arab and Islamic states. The Israeli government itself officially recognizes that it is “a country of immigrants”, with its population having increased almost tenfold since its creation. About three-quarters of Israelis are Jewish, half of them of European, American or Soviet origin. It is absolutely common to see blond white people talking in English on the streets of Tel Aviv, for example. Now, the native population of that region is neither white, nor blonde, nor does it speak English.

Israel is, without a shadow of a doubt, a colonial entity artificially created and governed by imperialism – particularly American – using fascist methods to subjugate the people of that region of the planet. Another proof of this is the total impunity that Israel enjoys in the international political and diplomatic arena, including in the United Nations Security Council (responsible for its creation), being immune to any type of serious sanction even after more than seventy years of evidence which prove numerous human rights violations, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, political prisons and mass extrajudicial executions. Everything we saw being carried out in Gaza between the end of 2023 and the beginning of 2024 in an amplified form.

The dream of Western imperialism would be for the entire Middle East to become an Eretz Israel – more or less as the Zionist elite planned – which would thus be completely under its control with the Zionist entity as an intermediary.

Fascism is a natural consequence of the “higher phase of capitalism”, imperialism, as Vladimir Lenin defined it. It is a new political form of imperialist domination, which began to replace parliamentary democracy when it was unable to stabilize the regime and the domination of the bourgeoisie in different countries. It is the subjugation by brute force, and not by liberal-democratic mechanisms, of the workers and people of their own country and abroad, with the imperialist expansion of the country in question. This domination is justified based on national mythology, which produces and reproduces chauvinist and racist feelings. Zionism, in turn, can be considered as fascism adapted to the conditions of the Middle East and the aspirations for domination of Anglo-American imperialism over that region. After all, as seen by the descriptions contained in this article and by the reality of apartheid experienced by the Palestinian people over the last 76 years, the characteristics of Zionism are very similar to those of traditional fascism, adapted to the conditions of the time and geographic location. The State of Israel was manufactured by imperialism and incorporated Zionist mythology into its education system and other forms of reproduction of official ideology, as well as fascist militias into its armed and police forces. Zionism – the State of Israel – is fascist imperialism applied to Palestine.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

Tags:

FascismIsraelNationalismPalestineZionism

Why the State of Israel is a Tool of Western Colonial Domination in the Middle East

Why Are Gagauz People Against the EU?

Erkin Oncan

The Gagauz leadership representing a Turkic identity is aligned with Russia, with deep historical and cultural ties to the Russian world.

In recent years, the longstanding tension between the Moldovan government and the autonomous regions of Transnistria and Gagauzia has become increasingly apparent.

Political tensions in Moldova have escalated further due to heightened interest from U.S. think tanks in the region and the pursuit of closer ties with the European Union. These tensions have been exacerbated by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, now in its third year, and NATO’s largest military exercise since the Cold War.

Adding to the strain were rumors circulating in Western and Turkish media suggesting that Transnistria might seek to join Russia. Subsequently, the Transnistrian administration formally reached out to Russia for assistance during its congress.

Following suit, Gagauzia, a region known in Turkey but previously overlooked by Turkish policymakers, sought refuge in Russia amidst pressures from Chisinau. A delegation led by Gagauzia’s Autonomous Region President Evgenia Gutsul and Gagauzia People’s Assembly President Dmitriy Konstantinov visited Moscow and held talks with Valentina Matviyenko, President of the Federation Council, the upper house of the Russian parliament, as well as Vice President Konstantin Kosachev.

During the meeting, discussions primarily centered on enhancing commercial and economic ties between Russia and Gagauzia. Gutsul emphasized Gagauzia’s desire for strong relations with Russia and its need for ongoing support from the Russian Federation. She also advocated for facilitating access to the Russian market for Gagauz agricultural producers.

Nikolay Ivanchuk, Chairman of the Economy, Budget, and Finance and Regional Development Commission, underscored the urgent need for support, emphasizing that developing relations with Russia in the face of economic pressure from Chisinau is not only important but also critical for Gagauzia’s survival.

Moldovan President Maia Sandu recently announced her candidacy for the upcoming fall elections in 2024. She also pledged to hold a referendum to determine the country’s foreign policy direction, despite acknowledging that significant decisions have already been made on this matter.

Sandu’s statements followed closely after negotiations between Moldova and the European Union (EU). As Moldova continues its path towards the EU, the Moldovan parliament recently endorsed the Sandu administration’s national security strategy. These recent developments indicate Moldova’s alignment in the ongoing competition between Russia and the West.

The constitutional status of neutrality in Moldova was revoked, with Russia being labeled as the primary threat. Additionally, Moldova aims to fully withdraw from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), of which it is a member.

Former Moldovan President and current leader of the Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova, Igor Dodon, criticized Sandu’s latest statements. He claimed that Sandu offered nothing substantial to Moldovan citizens beyond a referendum aimed at saving her from political downfall, associating Sandu’s leadership with poverty and arrogance.

Irina Vlah, former leader of the Gagauz Turks and a new opposition figure, hailed the EU’s decision to commence negotiations on Moldova’s European integration as a lifeline from European leaders. She previously announced the formation of an opposition platform and urged the public to take action against the central government, citing diminishing democracy and trust in the state.

Another reaction to Sandu’s statements came from the Gagauz Turks. Deputy President Viktor Petrov criticized Sandu’s proposals regarding European integration and the referendum, accusing the president of using these measures for personal gain.

Petrov characterized the referendum proposal as a ploy by Sandu to exploit European integration for political advantage in the 2024 elections. He argued that European Union integration would not significantly benefit the country’s economic development or living standards.

Furthermore, Petrov condemned Sandu’s approach as dictatorial, suggesting that any criticism against her authoritarian regime would be equated with opposition to European integration. He expressed skepticism about the referendum’s legality, questioning whether its failure would alter Moldova’s trajectory towards European integration.

Petrov asserted that many of Moldova’s internal issues, such as improving working conditions, combating corruption, and modernizing infrastructure, could be addressed independently without joining the European Union. Thus, he questioned the necessity of a referendum for Moldovan citizens.

Moldova, which hosts two autonomous regions closely aligned with Russia, continues to grapple with unresolved tensions stemming from the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Chisinau also stands as a focal point for the Collective West’s strategic efforts to encircle Russia, following Ukraine.

When discussing the tension between Russia and the West in Moldova, Transnistria and Gagauzia are often at the forefront. The crisis in Transnistria, an autonomous region of Moldova, shares similarities with events in the Donbass region due to its historical ties to Russia.

Transnistria declared unilateral independence from Moldova in 1992, shortly after the USSR’s dissolution. Situated between Moldova and Ukraine, the region is recognized only by South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and the Republic of Karabakh. Its establishment postdates the conflict in the Donbas region.

The roots of the Transnistrian crisis trace back to the 1917 Soviet Revolution. While Moldova integrated into Romania before becoming part of the Soviet Union, Transnistria remained under Soviet control. Despite Moldova’s brief reunion with Romania during World War II, it was reincorporated into the USSR following the defeat of Nazism. Transnistria became an autonomous region within Moldova after its accession to the Soviet Union.

During the USSR’s dissolution, Moldova’s government refused to participate in the 1991 independence referendum aimed at preserving the union. Although 98.72 percent voted to remain within the union, Moldova’s government deemed the results illegitimate. This disagreement led to the war and ongoing crisis in the region.

A crucial aspect of the Transnistrian issue is the presence of extensive weapons warehouses in the region, remnants of the USSR era.

The Gagauzia Autonomous Region also attracts attention from the Collective West, and its establishment of autonomy shares parallels with Transnistria and Ukraine.

During the USSR’s dissolution, the Gagauz people faced a wave of pro-Western nationalism. Moldovan nationalists’ anti-Gagauz slogans, such as “Suitcase — Station — Russia,” heightened tensions. Similar to the Transnistrian issue, unresolved tensions persist between the Gagauz people and the Moldovan central government, exacerbated by Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

In recent years, the central government has taken measures against Gagauz autonomy, including confiscating ballot papers, voting to change the state language from Moldovan to Romanian, and withholding retirement funds for Gagauz Turks. Legally elected Gagauzia President Yevgeniya Gutsul has also been excluded from the government.

The Moldovan central government’s pursuit of European integration, coupled with its anti-autonomy measures targeting Gagauzia and Transnistria, along with political pressure on individuals and institutions perceived as pro-Russian, has exacerbated tensions in the region. This has led to the emergence of Moldova as a new focal point akin to Ukraine, with indications pointing towards escalating tensions.

Moldova’s aspirations for EU integration and NATO expansion carry implications that could negatively impact the status of Gagauz Turks, alongside Transnistria. Last month, Janis Mazeiks, the European Union Ambassador in Moldova, remarked, “It is not possible to engage with the President until it is clear whom she represents: the Gagauz people or a convicted criminal.” Mazeiks’ statement underscores his stance, particularly given the former leader of Gagauzia’s affiliation with the pro-Russian Shor Party, which is currently under sanctions.

Gagauz Turks, whose language and culture bear close resemblance to ours, hold Orthodox beliefs and possess a strong sense of Turkic identity. They do not envision their future lying in Europe and view the central government’s declared political objectives as merely prolonging its own political tenure. Unfortunately, the Gagauz people tend to only surface in Turkish public discourse from a social and cultural perspective.

Since World War II, imperialism has leveraged the ideology of Turkism/Turanism as a tool to destabilize the USSR. Edil Marlis Uulu, President of the Congress of Turkish Peoples, shares this observation, stating, “Turanism is a European project concocted in the 1960s and 1970s aimed at dismantling the USSR.” The Gagauz people, whose cultural and linguistic heritage is at risk alongside their political inclinations, struggle to gain traction within Turkey’s discourse on Turkism. This is due to the Gagauz leadership representing a Turkic identity aligned with Russia, with deep historical and cultural ties to the Russian world.

Why Are Gagauz People Against the EU?

Europe Is in Danger of Falling Asleep in Peace and Waking Up in War

Hugo Dionísio

We are governed by an aristocracy elected by supranational powers, which uses states as expanded territories of the central interests to which they answer.

Europeans, don’t be surprised if one day we wake up to the sound of news like “the war has begun”. This foreshadowing is anything but fanciful and should be taken very seriously. In my ignorance, I even think that in human history, after the Second World War and considering the experience of the Cold War, we are perhaps at the moment when the risk of military confrontation is highest. In the absence of a unifying world architecture, solid democracies and stable, credible communication channels… anything becomes possible.

As part of yet another adaptation of the century-old “sword and shield” strategic doctrine, enunciated in 1917 by General Pershing, when he explained to his troops that they were not in Europe to defend Europeans, but to defend Americans, since European countries are a shield and the U.S. is a sword, over the last 30 years, the White House has been building an aristocratic administrative elite, which responds first and foremost to the interests of the American “sword”.

In any closed group, its internal cohesion is based on feelings of belonging, which, in this case, lie in the values of exclusivity, individuality (it’s not for those who want it) and inaccessibility (it’s only for those who can) to ordinary mortals. The great aim and success of the American strategy lies in creating a feeling that each member of the group is part of a chosen structure, which only very special people can join. This feeling is worked out using a variety of communication, suggestion and persuasion strategies aimed at creating a group identity, even when the respective members come from different countries, realities and educational backgrounds.

Let’s take a look at some exemplary, but also paradigmatic cases. Emanuel Macron went through the Institute d’Etudes Politiques de Paris — IEP, which is the seal of trust, the premise, according to which the neoliberal system sees in Macron someone prepared to manage its interests. In addition to the selective character with which this exclusive private institution presents itself, the conventions it maintains with Columbia University in New York and with the always highly reputable London School of Economics, or the master’s course in English for young world promises, represent a powerful contribution of this institute to the neoliberal monopoly cause. It is there that the ideological foundations and propaganda teachings, that are later rooted in political discourse, are created.

For anyone who doubts this description, names like Alain Juppé, Lionel Jospin, Dominique de Villepin, Jacques Chirac, François Hollande and François Mitterrand, all went through the Sciences Po. school at the IED. We can even say that studying at the very select IED is halfway to world stardom and, more importantly, to the public affairs of one of the engines of the EU.

However, this exclusivity is not restricted to the highest representatives of the Western aristocracy. Even the most barbaric and obscure wannabes are obliged to present some kind of connection. Such is the case with Kaja Kallas, the Estonian prime minister, who applies for anything that will get her a job and belongs to any board that will accept her. Kallas went through the necessary Estonian Business School, because business schools here play a fundamental role in the ideological framework of the elected, but, among many other things, Kallas also belongs to the Global Young Leaders organization, a private organization related to universities such as Stanford, of the Ivy League, essentially aimed at STEM training.

Deeply linked to training programs for young people, selected through American structures within universities and schools all over the world, the “lucky” ones chosen from their programs are awarded a whole range of exceptional insignia such as “Innovative”, “Business” or “Leadership”. In programs that range from elementary schools to universities, the “students” learn to move around in the circles of power from a very young age, developing skills linked to the creation of NGOs, companies, parties, how to intervene in governments, the UN and other structures.

Think of it this way: in a public school that purposely doesn’t train students for political life, which is a huge mistake in a democracy, the same elites who deny it to the general population, prepare their offspring to succeed them directly — like a hidden hereditary monarchy — in the adults’ jobs. As they say, in a land of the blind, he who has an eye is king. And the oligarchic elites know this better than anyone.

Another case is that of Rishi Sunak, the Indian who feels more American than English. No wonder. In 2006, for example, Sunak re-qualified for an MBA at Stanford University (almost ubiquitous) as a Fullbright scholar. Fullbright is another one of those programs that develops courses for supposedly bright young people. There it is, the exploitation of individualism, self-centeredness, the feeling of exclusivity, as pillars for building a sense of belonging, through positive reinforcement as an exceptional being. Everyone feels exceptional. Hence, their arrogance, their detachment.

No wonder, then, that Ursula herself is so fervently anti-Russian and Atlanticist. Of course, between 1992 and 1996 she lived at Stanford (again Stanford) in California, where she studied economics. Poland’s own Donald Tusk was part of an Independent Students’ Association set up in 1980, financed by the same people as before, which aimed to subvert Poland’s then socialist regime from within the academy. Later, it was members of this truly “independent” “association” who, on the ground, supported the organization of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. In other words, what we see in Ukraine today is the result of a wide-ranging project to break up and submit Europe to the neoliberal, hegemonic and imperial interests of the USA.

This European “shield”, as we can see, is built by a group that functions almost like a secret society, endowed with deep internal cohesion, based on the narcissistic feeling of election, exclusivity and belonging to an elite group, trained to lead, trained to manage the supranational interests of the monopolist state par excellence, the USA.

Now, imagine yourself in a group of people who, in addition to the fact that many belong to the wealthiest classes or the political aristocracy, are also inculcated, through the countless institutional resources at their disposal, with the idea that they are part of a restricted group, placed above the common man, destined to decide on behalf of the monopoly interests that hire them. Imagine that, belonging to such an elite, the common mistake, which normally costs a career, honor and even life, for these people is nothing more than a setback on the way to the top. Put in a position like this, how would they behave? With a sense of responsibility? Or with a total sense of impunity? If you knew that your power, status and legitimacy emanated from supranational interests, to whom would it be natural to show your loyalty? To the people?

The way in which the U.S., and the monopoly interests that make up its system of power, have subverted any idea of strategic autonomy for the EU, throwing us all onto a front line that is not designed to protect our interests, but their own, has consisted of handing over high politics, not to the most experienced statesmen, the most emerging leaders of the masses, or the most capable and competent public officials, but instead to a socially isolated Spartan strain (only in terms of organization, not customs), made up of careerists, incapable of distinguishing between public and private, national or international interests. For them, the interests of public affairs are confused with their own, and their own with those of their sponsors. They are one and the same, in a vicious cycle in which who wins and who loses is determined from the outset.

And if the actions of this privileged, elitist, segregationist and exclusivist group in terms of the European economy have the results in plain sight, when it comes to foreign policy, their actions also show what project their loyalties are expressed for. Victoria Nuland came to Europe to demand a show of support and received it in the form of a Macron who, summoning all the European leaders to the Elysée Palace, tried to discuss the possibility of sending European troops to Ukraine. If it weren’t for Robert Fico, who apparently doesn’t see himself in this select group of yuppies, we wouldn’t know that the leaders in whom the people of Europe are supposed to trust are discussing, behind closed doors and behind the backs of the very democracy with which they fill their mouths, something like the fuse that could ignite a third world war. In other words, they are discussing among themselves the use of Europe as a shield for the American sword, with total contempt for those they claim to govern.

Coincidence or not, it was also after the visit of the incendiary Nuland that we all learned that three high-ranking German soldiers wanted to prepare an attack on the bridge across the Kerch Strait, using Taurus missiles supplied by their country. Of all the ways in which loyalty was shown, the most hilarious could only come from Zelensky, when he, like Christ raising the dead, managed to turn the hundreds of thousands of soldiers he himself sent to their deaths into just 31,000 dead. So where do more than 500,000 soldiers end up?

The unwary then say that the West lacks “statesmen”, which they repeat over and over again without realizing the paradox. For “statesmen” to exist, there would have to be states. If, in this new geographical construction that is the “collective West”, there is no longer the figure of the nation-state, but rather territories of strategic interest, then, within the framework of this mode of organization, what we can expect here are missionaries and plenipotentiary envoys who serve above all the monopolistic interests of American hegemony. A kind of consul for a supranational imperial power. Today, any reading we make of the current political reality has to take into account that Europe, Japan, South Korea or Australia are, now, not only the U.S.’s defense “shield”, but also its “living space”. A vital space which, added to its own, enables the U.S. to compete fiercely with the more populous, productive and motivated Russia, China and Iran axis. It’s no longer just a question of “keeping Europe in” or “Germany down”, as NATO was intended to do, it’s more a question of making NATO territory coincide with U.S. vital territory, which raises profound questions about the role of the European Union in such a framework.

So, if the reality we are analyzing is not made up of nation-states, but of a supranational common space, led by the USA, waiting for “statesmen” is not realistic in the slightest, because the “statesman” is concerned with the state, as a collective organization that constitutes the summit of a given socio-political existence. They care about the nation, the people, its economy, its traditions and its identity. Are these the values that drive an Emanuel Macron, an Ursula Von Der Leyen or a Donald Tusk? Neither their performance nor their curriculum vitae would indicate that.

Thus, under the cover of the impunity that only an exceptional, but above all supranational, status can bring, we are witnessing a discussion about the officialization of the presence of European forces in Ukraine, particularly those assigned to “states” that are concluding, behind the backs of their peoples and without sovereign discussion, bilateral security agreements that could force them into a war, just as the United Kingdom inaugurated the Second World War by signing a bilateral security treaty with Poland. If this isn’t an issue to be discussed in depth in a democracy by a people, then I don’t know what is more important! Mixed bathrooms? Same-sex marriage? Backtracking on abortion laws? Without detracting from these issues, of course!

We know that such a discussion, at this very moment, is the result of yet another contingent maneuver aimed at preventing what they promised from the start would never be possible: a Russian victory! Never retracting and proving that the impunity they feel is matched by the power that legitimizes them, the so-called dominant “media”, which should be informing, scrutinizing, questioning and criticizing, is keeping quiet and saying today what it vehemently denied yesterday. As if to prove that both emanate from the same source of power.

The fact is that tomorrow, we could wake up to NATO forces officially stationed along Ukraine’s northern border with Russia and Belarus, and to the south, in the Odessa region, trying to save the country’s one remaining link to the Black Sea. From that day on, Vladimir Putin, Minister Shoigu or Medvedev will no longer have to pretend that there are no NATO troops on Russia’s doorstep! They will be there for all to see. On that day, we’ll find out what the national flags of EU and NATO member states are still used for. They only serve to mask the presence of the alliance with its chosen enemy, or to mislead the people of Europe that it is not NATO that will be there, but its states. Affirming NATO’s presence on the one hand and hiding it on the other.

When this happens, we will confirm in practice everything I said earlier: we are governed by an aristocracy elected by supranational powers, which uses states as expanded territories of the central interests to which they answer, and the concepts of nation-state only to legitimize the actions they aim to carry out under their guise.

And that’s the only way we can go to sleep, one night, in peace, and wake up, the next day, in war!

Europe Is in Danger of Falling Asleep in Peace and Waking Up in War

Wie lange wird der US-Dollar die Weltwährung bleiben?

Riesige Eurodollar-Märkte erfordern zunehmende Dosen an monetärem und narkotischem „Dop“

Auf der internationalen Konferenz in Bretton Woods im Jahr 1944 erhielt der US-Dollar offiziell den Status einer Weltwährung. Diesen Status hat es seit 80 Jahren gehalten. Seit vielen Jahren gibt es Diskussionen darüber, wie lange der US-Dollar die Weltwährung bleiben wird. Die Bandbreite der Schätzungen ist groß. Manche sagen, dass der amerikanische Dollar (natürlich nicht als Landeswährung, sondern als Weltwährung) heute oder morgen sterben wird. Andere sagen, dass er noch zwanzig bis dreißig Jahre einen „Sicherheitsspielraum“ habe. Wieder andere glauben, dass es unmöglich ist, vorherzusagen. Alles wird vom Zufall bestimmt. Schließlich glauben einige, dass der US-Dollar überhaupt nicht in Gefahr sei. Dass er, so heißt es, „vorübergehende Schwierigkeiten“ habe, die es schon einmal gab und die erfolgreich überwunden wurden und überwunden werden. 

In der Geschichte der Menschheit gab es viele Währungen, die den Status von Weltwährungen hatten, als universelles Zahlungsmittel im internationalen Handel und als Mittel zur Hortung (Akkumulation) dienten. Historiker haben sogar die „Lebensdauer“ solcher Weltwährungen berechnet (d. h. wie lange die Währungen ihren globalen Status behalten). 

Hier ist eine der Veröffentlichungen zu diesem Thema: World Reserve Currencies: What Happened While Previous Periods of Transition? (Weltreservewährungen: Was geschah bei früheren Übergängen?) Es bietet einen komprimierten Überblick über die Weltwährungen von der Mitte des 15. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert mit Schätzungen zum „Lebenszyklus“ jeder Währung. Ich werde diese Daten angeben:

• Portugiesischer Rial (1450-1530) – etwa 80 Jahre 
• Spanischer Escudo (1530 – 1640) – etwa 80 Jahre
• Niederländischer Gulden (1640 – 1720) – etwa 80 Jahre
• Franzose Louis Dor (1720-1815) – etwa 95 Jahre alt
• Britisches Pfund Sterling (1815-1920) – etwa 105 Jahre. 
• US-Dollar – seit 1920. Der Status einer Weltwährung bleibt bis heute bestehen. Es stellt sich heraus, dass dies das 104. Jahr ist, in dem sich der amerikanische Dollar in diesem Status befindet. 

Natürlich handelt es sich bei den Schätzungen um Näherungswerte. Es ist nicht immer möglich, den Zeitpunkt, an dem eine Landeswährung zur Weltwährung wird, genau zu erfassen. Wie manchmal ist es unmöglich, den Zeitpunkt genau zu bestimmen, an dem eine Währung ihren globalen Status verliert. 

Darüber hinaus gab es Jahre, in denen auf der Weltbühne zwei Währungen um den Titel der Weltwährung konkurrierten. Die eine war eine „steigende“ Währung und die andere war eine „abgehende“ Währung. Beispielsweise blieb das britische Pfund Sterling in der Zeit zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Weltkrieg weiterhin eine Weltwährung, und der US-Dollar erlangte bereits den Status einer Weltwährung. In der Zwischenkriegszeit herrschte eine Art „Doppelmacht“ zwischen der britischen und der amerikanischen Währung. 

Und doch erweist sich das obige Bild als sehr klar und zum Nachdenken anregend. Aus den oben genannten Daten folgt, dass die durchschnittliche Lebensdauer einer Währungseinheit als Weltwährung sich einem Jahrhundert nähert. Der amerikanische Dollar befindet sich seit 1920 im 104. Jahr in diesem Status. Es gibt eine ganze Reihe von Materialien und Kommentaren in sozialen Netzwerken und im Internet im Allgemeinen, deren Autoren mit den von mir abgegebenen Einschätzungen vertraut sind. Einige von ihnen neigen dazu zu glauben, dass der US-Dollar als Weltwährung bereits dem Tode nahe ist. Glücklicherweise gibt es viele weitere Anzeichen, die darauf hinweisen. 

Einige Experten, die mit den „Lebenszyklen“ früherer Weltwährungen vertraut sind und den sogenannten historischen Ansatz verfolgen, glauben, dass das Alter des US-Dollars als Weltwährung überschätzt wird. Sie sagen, dass wir nicht ab 1920 rechnen sollten, sondern ab 1944, als der US-Dollar den offiziellen Status einer Weltwährung erhielt. Daher ist er immer noch „erst“ 80 Jahre alt. Der „alte Mann“ kann durchaus noch zehn oder zwei Jahre leben. 

Die meisten Experten, die die Zukunft des US-Dollars vorhersagen, orientieren sich jedoch in erster Linie nicht am „historischen Ansatz“, sondern an Wirtschaftsstatistiken und den anhand dieser Statistiken ermittelten Trends. Befürworter dieses „ökonomischen Ansatzes“ sprechen selbstbewusster über den Prozess des sterbenden US-Dollars. 

Hier handelt es sich beispielsweise um einen Indikator wie den Anteil des US-Dollars an den gesamten Devisenreserven der Länder der Welt, der vom Internationalen Währungsfonds berechnet wird. Dieser Indikator erreichte seinen Höhepunkt in der ersten Hälfte der 1970er Jahre. Im Jahr 1970 waren es also 84,55 %; 1975 — 84,61 %. Und dann begann der US-Dollar schnell seine Position zu verlieren. Und bereits 1990 sank sein Anteil an den weltweiten Devisenreserven auf ein Rekordtief von 47,14 %. In den 1980er Jahren wurde erstmals das Thema „Tod des Dollars“ geäußert (obwohl die Währung nach allen Maßstäben noch jung oder zumindest nicht alt war). 

Der Sieg Amerikas im Kalten Krieg und der Beginn der wirtschaftlichen und finanziellen Globalisierung haucht dem US-Dollar jedoch Leben ein. Ein Zyklus der Stärkung der Position des Dollars hat begonnen. Die Stärkung hielt bis 2001 an, als der Anteil des Dollars an den Weltreserven 71,51 % erreichte. Dann begann ein neuer Rückgang, wodurch der Anteil des Dollars im Jahr 2013 auf 61,24 % sank. 

Im Jahr 2014-2016 Es gab eine gewisse Verstärkung, und zwar im Zeitraum 2016-2022. ein neuer Zyklus schwächerer Dollarpositionen begann: von 65,36 % auf 58,36 %. Ein Rückgang des Anteils des US-Dollars an den internationalen Reserven um bis zu 7 Prozentpunkte innerhalb von sieben Jahren. In diesen Jahren intensivierten sich insbesondere die Gespräche zum Thema „Der Niedergang des Dollars“. 

Diese Gespräche beinhalteten nicht nur Vorhersagen über den „Tod“ des Dollars. Es gab Befürworter der Ansicht, dass der US-Dollar seine Abschwächung wieder überwinden könnte. Es gab schlimmere Zeiten. Zum Beispiel im Jahr 1990, als der Wert auf 47 Prozent sank und dann wieder zu steigen begann. Etwa 2016–2022 – nur ein weiterer Zyklus des Niedergangs, dem sicherlich ein Wachstumszyklus folgen wird. 

Und hier sind die IWF-Daten für 2023. Die neuesten Zahlen beziehen sich auf das Ende des 3. Quartals des angegebenen Jahres. Der Anteil des US-Dollars an den internationalen Reserven beträgt 59,17 %. Bei dieser Gelegenheit werde ich am selben Tag Daten zu anderen Reservewährungen bereitstellen (%): Euro – 19,58; Japanischer Yen – 5,45; Britisches Pfund Sterling — 4,85; Kanadischer Dollar – 2,50; Chinesischer Yuan – 2,37; Australischer Dollar – 2,02; Schweizer Franken – 0,18; andere Währungen – 3,89. 

Also nicht so groß, aber der Anstieg des Anteils des US-Dollars an den weltweiten Devisenreserven im Vergleich zu 2022 ist offensichtlich. Und der Dollar hat einen gigantischen Abstand zu anderen Währungen; niemand hat ihn auch nur annähernd erreicht. Dies gab denjenigen, denen das Schicksal der amerikanischen Währung am Herzen liegt, Anlass zu der Behauptung, dass ein neuer Zyklus der Stärkung des US-Dollars begonnen habe. Und deshalb hat der amerikanische Dollar noch mindestens ein paar garantierte Lebensjahre. 

Hier ist zum Beispiel der Artikel „Why’s the Dollar So Darn Strong“, der Ende letzten Jahres veröffentlicht wurde . Der Autor ist James J. Rickards, Herausgeber der Zeitschriften Strategic Intelligence, Project Prophesy, Crash Speculator und Gold Speculator . Er ist ein amerikanischer Anwalt, Ökonom und Investmentbanker mit 40 Jahren Erfahrung auf den Kapitalmärkten der Wall Street. 

Er versucht, das Paradox der Stärkung des Dollars vor dem Hintergrund negativer Prozesse in der amerikanischen Wirtschaft zu erklären. Rickards erinnert uns an die wichtigsten „Negativen“. Das Verhältnis der Staatsverschuldung zum BIP in den Vereinigten Staaten ist mit fast 130 % auf einem Allzeithoch (30 % gelten als angemessener Wert, und alles über 90 % stellt ein Hindernis für jegliches Wirtschaftswachstum dar). Die Vereinigten Staaten verzeichnen Jahr für Jahr Haushaltsdefizite in Höhe von mehreren Billionen Dollar. Der Kongress und das Weiße Haus scheinen im Griff der modernen Währungstheorie zu sein, die besagt, dass die USA ohne wirtschaftlichen Schaden unbegrenzte Defizite aufweisen und unbegrenzte Schulden anhäufen können, weil sie Geld in unbegrenzten Mengen drucken können, um Schulden und Ausgaben zu finanzieren. Rickards zitiert die neuesten Daten von Bloomberg: Die prognostizierten jährlichen Zinszahlungen für die US-Staatsschulden überstiegen Ende Oktober 1 Billion US-Dollar. Die Kosten für den Schuldendienst haben sich in den letzten 19 Monaten verdoppelt, da die Leitzinsen der US-Notenbank angehoben wurden.

„Wie kann die US-Währung in einer so düsteren Situation so stark sein?“ – fragt der Autor des Artikels. Seiner Meinung nach gibt es auf diese Frage zwei Antworten. 

Die erste Antwort lautet: „…der Dollar hat natürlich seine Probleme, aber anderen Währungen geht es noch schlechter …“ Ich werde Rickards’ Einschätzungen von Währungen wie dem Euro, dem britischen Pfund Sterling nicht noch einmal aufwärmen. der japanische Yen und der chinesische Yuan. Ich möchte nur anmerken, dass sie seiner Meinung nach mit noch größeren Problemen belastet sind als der US-Dollar. „Also ja, der Dollar hat seine Probleme, aber als Anleger wird man sich wahrscheinlich nicht für das Pfund Sterling, den Euro, den Yen oder den Yuan entscheiden“, schlussfolgert der Autor. 

Die zweite Antwort enthält ein Schlüsselwort wie „Eurodollar“. Rickards definiert es wie folgt: „Eurodollars sind auf Dollar lautende Einlagen, die in den Auslandsniederlassungen großer Banken gehalten werden und daher außerhalb der Zuständigkeit der Federal Reserve und der US-Bankenvorschriften liegen.“ Der Autor betont, dass die Fed nur sehr geringen Einfluss auf den globalen Dollarmarkt und den Wechselkurs des Dollars hat. Dass der Zustand des rein „amerikanischen“ Dollars weitgehend vom Zustand des Eurodollars abhängt und dessen Zustand weniger vom Zustand der amerikanischen Wirtschaft als vielmehr von den Volkswirtschaften der Länder abhängt, in denen der Eurodollar geboren wurde. Dabei handelt es sich nicht nur um europäische Länder, sondern auch um Kanada, Australien, Japan usw. Mit einem Wort: Es ist falsch, die Einschätzung der Position des US-Dollars ausschließlich mit der Lage der amerikanischen Wirtschaft zu verknüpfen. Die Verbindung zwischen den Eurodollar-Märkten und den Vereinigten Staaten bleibt jedoch in jedem Fall bestehen. Solche Märkte benötigen dringend amerikanische Staatsanleihen als Instrument zur Unterstützung verschiedener Operationen. 

Rickards stellt fest, dass die Eurodollar-Märkte (insbesondere Westeuropa) rückläufig sind. Banken, die in diesen Märkten tätig sind, verlangen bessere Sicherheiten. Sie akzeptieren keine Unternehmensschulden, Hypotheken oder sogar mittelfristige US-Staatsanleihen. Die einzig akzeptable Sicherheit sind kurzfristige US-Staatsanleihen, je kürzer desto besser. Dies bedeutet Anleihen mit einer Laufzeit von 1 Monat, 3 Monaten und 6 Monaten. Natürlich lauten sie auf Dollar. Um die Rechnungen als Sicherheit zu sichern, müssen Banken Dollar kaufen, um die Rechnungen zu kaufen. Dies führte zu einer enormen Nachfrage nach Dollars. Und das erklärt zum Teil die Stärke des Dollars.“ 

Rickards kommt zu dem Schluss: „Das grundlegende Problem der Dollarknappheit wird nicht so schnell verschwinden und den Dollar weiterhin stützen.“ Er gibt zu, dass seine Version der Stärkung des Dollars in die Kategorie „technische Probleme“ fällt, die dem Durchschnittsbürger nicht immer klar sind. 

Ich kann die angegebene populärere Version erklären. Um die riesigen Eurodollar-Märkte aufrechtzuerhalten, sind in der Tat massive Dosen von „Drogen“ in Form kurzfristiger Staatsanleihen (und dementsprechend ein Anstieg der Dollar-Emissionen) erforderlich. Aber wir wissen sehr gut, wie die Leidenschaft für „Drogen“ endet. Daher führt die vom amerikanischen Experten skizzierte Version der vorübergehenden Stärkung der Position des Dollars in den internationalen Reserven letztendlich zu dem Schluss, dass dies nicht lange so bleiben kann. Übrigens führt Rickards die Leser am Ende seines Artikels zu dieser Schlussfolgerung und lädt sie ein, Ersparnisse in US-Dollar durch Gold zu ersetzen: „Investoren sollten die heutigen Preise (für Gold – V.K.) als Geschenk und vielleicht als letztes Geschenk betrachten.“ Chance, Gold zu diesen Preisen zu kaufen, bevor der eigentliche Wettlauf um sichere Häfen beginnt. Gold unter 2.000 $ ist unglaublich günstig. Ich bitte Sie dringend, diese Gelegenheit zu nutzen.“

PS: Abschließend möchte ich noch einmal auf die „historische Version“ zurückkommen, die die Lebenszyklen der Weltwährungen erklärt. Viele Befürworter dieser Version weisen darauf hin, dass der Übergang von der Ära einer Weltwährung zur Ära einer anderen immer durch Kriege vollzogen wurde. Zwischen den Hauptkandidaten um die Rolle des Emittenten der Weltwährung beginnen Kriege, die so lange andauern, bis der vorherige Emittent in diesem Krieg besiegt wird (oder zumindest seine wirtschaftliche und militärische Erschöpfung eintritt). Heute sind Anzeichen dafür erkennbar, dass sich die Emittenten der wichtigsten Reservewährungen auf einen solchen Krieg vorbereiten. 

https://www.fondsk.ru/news/2024/03/07/skolko-eschyo-dollaru-ssha-byt-mirovoy-valyutoy.html

Scott Ritter: Leaked Crimea Attack Plans Begs the Question ‘Who’s in Charge in Germany’?

By Ilya Tsukanov

The editor-in-chief of Sputnik’s parent media group dropped bombshell audio last Friday of a conversation between senior Bundeswehr officers discussing plans to attack the Crimean Bridge using German-made Taurus missiles. The leak, whose authenticity was subsequently confirmed by German media, sparked a formal investigation.

The leaked conversation between senior Bundeswehr officers plotting aggression against Russia using German weapons raises serious questions about who’s truly in charge in Germany – the military or the civilian government, and signals a truly worrying slide toward military rule, former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and independent military analyst Scott Ritter has told Sputnik.

“There’s a crisis in civil military affairs in Germany today, and the whole world seems to be ignoring this,” Ritter said, pointing out that while attention has been paid to the details of the leaked February 19 discussion, in which officers effectively plotted “an act of war” against Russia – “no ifs, and or buts” about it, the more important question about just who is in charge of Germany today has been left unanswered.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1764994806827168035&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fsputnikglobe.com%2F20240305%2Fscott-ritter-leaked-crimea-attack-plans-begs-the-question-whos-in-charge-in-germany-1117141206.html&sessionId=8aa6288cd5d7ece768445bbeee51d1573ca51ee0&theme=light&widgetsVersion=2615f7e52b7e0%3A1702314776716&width=550px

“What’s interesting about this conversation is, a few days prior to it the German chancellor, the senior civilian executive authority in Germany today, had specifically said that Germany will not be providing the Taurus missile to Ukraine. Moreover, the parliament of Germany, not once but twice, overwhelmingly voted against providing the Taurus cruise missile to Ukraine. Who’s in charge in Germany? The civilian leadership or the military? Because, according to the conversation being held by these four senior German military officers, they were talking about a project that had been greenlighted by the defense minister of Germany,” Ritter stressed.

In other words, “while the chancellor and the parliament have said no to the provision of the Taurus missile to Ukraine, the defense minister is working with his Air Force officers to make it happen – to go into planning about how this weapon could be used to bring harm to Russia,” the observer said.

World

German Military Leak Becoming Massive Headache for West

March 6, 2024

On top of that, Ritter pointed out that the apparent operational planning detailed in the leaked conversation constitutes a grave violation of “everything” NATO “purports to stand for.”

“When NATO spoke of expanding, and I’m talking about prior to the unification of Germany, when the concept of NATO expansion arose, one of the key aspects was that any new member must adhere to the standards of democratic rule that NATO used to define itself. And one of the key aspects of this standard is civilian control over the military. Absolutely required. There is no room in NATO for a military dictatorship, for the military to be dictating outcomes, especially in times of peace, to the civilian leadership,” Ritter explained.

Furthermore, he noted, when Moscow agreed to the unification of the two Germanies in 1990, one of the conditions was that Germany would never again wage a war of aggression against Russia.

“There are members of Parliament now…in Saxony, Germany who are actively seeking to investigate these German officers, to hold them accountable for violating German law, for planning a war of aggression. Because a war of aggression was determined at the Nuremberg Tribunal, which held the Nazis accountable for their crimes, committed not just against the Soviet Union, but others – for planning and implementing the biggest war crime of them all, a war of aggression; which is exactly what those four German officers were plotting against Russia on behalf of their defense minister, in total contravention to the direction given to them by the chancellor of Germany and the German parliament.”

“There’s a crisis of civil-military relations today in Germany,” Ritter said, adding that the key question now is: “What’s the world going to do about it?”

World

German Military Leak Added Embarrassment to Berlin’s Silence on Nord Stream Sabotage

March 6, 2024

Leaked Discussion

Last Friday, Sputnik parent media group Rossiya Segodnya editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan published text and audio of a February 19 discussion between Bundeswehr representatives discussing the possibility of attacking the Crimean Bridge using Taurus cruise missiles provided to Ukraine. The conversation involved German Air Force Inspector Ingo Gerhartz, Air Force Command Operations and Exercises Department head Brig. Gen. Frank Graefe, and two employees of the Air Operations Center of Bundeswehr Space Command.

German media confirmed the authenticity of the recording, with the German Defense Ministry expressing concerns about possible additional leaks, and Chancellor Scholz announcing that the matter was “being investigated very thoroughly, very intensively and very quickly.”

The Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union – the biggest opposition bloc in the Bundestag, has requested an extraordinary meeting of the parliament’s defense committee over the scandalous audio, asking that Scholz specifically be in attendance.

World

Russia May ‘Track & Target’ SCALP Transfers to Ukraine After Audio Leak – Report

March 6, 2024

White House spokesman John Kirby blasted the media’s fascination with the leak story, telling reporters on Monday that “speaking about the content of the leak” implicating NATO in direct aggression against Moscow “plays right into Russian hands.”

Expressing hesitation about delivering military support to Ukraine during the first months of the crisis in early 2022, the Scholz government has since become the second largest supporter of Kiev in terms of weapons support, behind only the United States. Berlin has provided over €17.7 billion ($19.2 billion US) in direct arms aid and billions in additional support via EU institutions. Germany signed a 10-page security agreement with Ukraine in mid-February that requires Berlin to not just support Kiev “for as long as it takes” in the proxy war against Russia, but assist in the buildup of Ukraine’s armed forces in the conflict’s aftermath. Germany passed a 2024 budget with over $8 billion in military aid to Kiev in early February, notwithstanding a growing budgetary and economic crisis at home, the reduction of subsidies to farmers, a spike in energy prices, and the worst manufacturing downturn since the Second World War.

World

German Defense Minister on Leak: Discussing Scenarios Does Not Mean Giving Taurus Missiles to Kiev

3 March, 2024

Source: https://sputnikglobe.com/20240305/scott-ritter-leaked-crimea-attack-plans-begs-the-question-whos-in-charge-in-germany-1117141206.html

https://emmaolivetz.wordpress.com/2024/03/07/scott-ritter-leaked-crimea-attack-plans-begs-the-question-whos-in-charge-in-germany/