El gobernador de Florida planteó la posibilidad de invocar la enmienda 25, que proporciona un marco legal para destituir del cargo a un mandatario incapacitado para ejercer sus funciones y poderes.
El gobernador del estado de Florida, Ron DeSantis, cuestionó cómo es posible que el presidente Joe Biden puede gestionar responsablemente los asuntos nucleares de EE.UU., después de la aparición de un informe que plantea dudas sobre la agudeza mental del mandatario y lo exime de cargos por el mal manejo de documentos clasificados.
“Creo que eso es algo como: ‘Muy bien, no puedes ser juzgado, pero de alguna manera puedes tener los códigos nucleares’“, afirmó DeSantis este sábado en una entrevista para el programa ‘Life, Liberty & Levin’ en la cadena Fox.
“¿Qué tal entonces invocar la Enmienda 25, si eso es lo que va a ser?” preguntó, citando la enmienda ratificada después del asesinato de John F. Kennedy, el 22 de noviembre de 1963, que codificó la sucesión presidencial y proporcionó un marco para destituir de su cargo a un mandatario incapacitado para ejercer sus funciones y poderes.
Salud mental cuestionada
En el informe, que puso fin a un año de pesquisa, el fiscal especial, Robert Hur, del Departamento de Justicia, concluyó que Biden “retuvo y reveló intencionadamente materiales clasificados después de su vicepresidencia cuando era un ciudadano privado”. Sin embargo, Biden fue eximido de los cargos, entre otras razones, por las “limitaciones significativas” en su memoria.
“No recordaba, incluso durante varios años, cuándo murió su hijo Beau”, detalló Hur en el informe.
El presidente respondió airadamente a las afirmaciones del fiscal especial en una rueda de prensa organizada apresuradamente este jueves, insistiendo: “Mi memoria está bien”. Pero más tarde, en la misma sesión informativa, se refirió erróneamente al mandatario egipcio, Abdulfatah al Sisi, como “el presidente de México”.
Biden es el presidente de mayor edad en la historia del país estadounidense. Frecuentemente, se ve envuelto en situaciones incómodas, se confunde en eventos públicos, lo que ha generado dudas entre la población sobre su capacidad para cumplir sus funciones.
Los agricultores que protestan con sus tractores en las carreteras son de extrema derecha. Da igual el país europeo en el que se movilicen. En España alguno lleva en su remolque la bandera bicolor con el aguilucho franquista. Son burgueses, incluso grandes propietarios de tierras y explotaciones agrarias. Otros son de Vox.
Los que se opusieron a los confinamientos durante la pandemia también eran de extrema derecha. En las manifestaciones alemanas algunos de ellos llevaban la bandera del Segundo Reich. No eran exactamente nazis, pero del Segundo al Tercer Reich no hay más que un paso insignificante.
No cabe ninguna duda que los antivacunas son de extrema derecha y, por derivación, casi todos los que critican las vacunas son antivacunas, o sea, que entre los médicos y los científicos la extrema derecha también prolifera.
Un inventor, como Pablo Iglesias, asegura que Putin es de extrema derecha. Los movimientos ultras apoyan a Rusia. En la reciente entrevista de Tucker Carlson con Putin, la extrema derecha se entrevistaba a sí misma.
Eso explica que en las elecciones presidenciales de Estados Unidos de 2016 la extrema derecha rusa (Putin) apoyara a la otra extrema derecha (Trump). ¿Se dan cuenta? La extrema derecha siempre se apoya a sí misma.
En la Guerra de Ucrania la extrema derecha, o sea, Rusia, pretende destruir a un país democrático, Ucrania, cuyo Presidente es judío y, por lo tanto, un defensor de los valores de occidente.
Hay otros que no dicen nada, ni se atreven siquiera, pero señalan con el dedo, y hace unos pocos años fue un lugar común asociar los chalecos amarillos a la extrema derecha. “Los chalecos amarillos parecen estar ideológicamente más cerca de la extrema derecha”, decía la cadena pública alemana Deutsche Welle el 4 de diciembre de 2018.
Si los chalecos amarillos no eran de extrema derecha, sus acciones beneficiaban a la extrema derecha. “La crisis de los ‘chalecos amarillos’ refuerza a la ultra Le Pen ante Macron”, titulaba El País el 14 de enero de 2019. Es la pregunta tópica: ¿a quién beneficia? Ya saben: alguien puede luchar de buena fe, pero le hace el juego a un tercero. Las cosas no son positivas o negativas en sí mismas, sino en función de un contexto que se escapa de las manos del que protesta. ¿A quién le hacen el juego? Manejos entre bastidores y maniobras ocultas explicados con sutiles análisis sociológicos…
Lo mejor es no salir a la calle a protestar porque así no le haces el juego a nadie.
La teoría del tonto útil es una derivación típica de la Guerra Fría: aunque te definas a ti mismo de una manera, en realidad estás al servicio de terceros (pero no te das cuenta), de algún país extranjero, e incluso de enemigos de la patria. Realmente no son “nacionales” sino traidores.
El ejemplo típico son los negacionistas del cambio climático, que están financiados por la industria petrolera, sirven a los grandes intereses económicos, no a un debate científico. La ebullición climática no puede ser una cuestión científica porque ya está muy demostrada. Es algo interesado: sólo los grupos de presión niegan el ascenso de las temperaturas.
A diferencia de los grupos verdes, la extrema derecha (El Primo de Rajoy) niega el cambio climático por intereses económicos. Lo que pone en peligro las políticas medioambientales y, en consecuencia, el planeta, es el ascenso de la extrema derecha, prevenía El País el 2 de julio del año pasado.
El negacionismo climático no es, pues, una cuestión científica sino económica y política. Pero lo más importante no es que la extrema derecha sea negacionista sino que los negacionistas pertenecen a la extrema derecha.
¿Comprenden ahora el auge de la extrema derecha? ¿No ven el peligro? Son los únicos que se movilizan, se han adueñado de las calles.
Así les luce el pelo a algunos. El papel de los descerebrados que ven a la extrema derecha hasta en la sopa consiste en eso: en arrojar a los que luchan en los brazos de la reacción pura y dura, y luego se lamentan de ello.
All’s fair in love and war – this is a 500-year old English proverb but it isn’t in the Geneva conventions on war crimes and genocide, much as the US and US-backed Israel claim it is.
In the war of US, NATO and their Asian allies against Russia, it is turning out that almost all the major companies on the enemy side love Russia too much to leave.
They also think Russia has won the war, so they are convinced — the executive managers, boards of directors, control shareholders, and bankers — that there is no point in leaving. So they continue to do business in the Russian market profitably, while they wait for the military defeat of the Ukraine and their own governments to register, and the terms of capitulation allow them to tell their shareholders, “we told you so.”
That notice will be delivered with a dividend paid out of the profits the companies continue to earn from their Russian businesses. The shareholders will be satisfied with both; they will vote their confidence, with a bonus, for the chief executive and board at the next Annual General Meeting.
Two studies on the enemy side, one by the Kiev School of Economy’s (KSE) “Leave Russia” and “SelfSanctions” projects, and a follow-up by the Russian-language publication Novaya Gazeta Europa have reported results of their surveys of 110 international firms working in Russia. This is fresh evidence of the defeat of the enemy in the economic war — from the foxhole of the enemy.
The survey results demonstrate that after two years of intense pressure and threat campaigns by the US, NATO and the Ukraine for the companies to wind up their Russian businesses and leave Russia, the outcome is defeat.
KSE claims this work has been done by “a team of Ukrainian IT volunteers;” the Yale University’s School of Management collaborated with data on the companies. Volunteer doesn’t mean what it seems in Ukrainian. The funding for the operation has come through KSE’s money suppliers, which include several Ukrainian ministries, whose funding comes in turn from the International Monetary Fund, the US, and the European Union (EU). “KSE Institute’s clients”, the institution’s website says of its paymasters, “also include the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine, the European Business Association, and a number of large law and development companies. Among the international partner organizations are USAID, UK aid, DFID, the embassies of the United States, Canada and the Netherlands, the EBRD, the World Bank, the EU Commission, IFC, WHO, UNDP, GIZ, UNICEF, Yale School of Management and others.”
KSE’s “SelfSanctions” project is paid for by another group of “partners” including George Soros, government-backed organizations in Germany, Norway, Taiwan, and Poland, and a Ukrainian entity called “Squeezing Putin”. This takes US and other intelligence material, feeds it to the Anglo-American media, and then identifies the media reports as corroboration of the process for sanctioning companies which remain in Russia and are attacked in the press as an “international sponsor of war”.
KS adds a note of self-importance: “Kyiv School of Economics holds the first place among the most powerful economic analytical institutions of Ukraine according to the RePEc rating.”
The importance, the breaking news, is that, according to the newly published evidence, 82.7% of the international companies surveyed have dismissed KSE, its foreign state financiers, and its economic warfare projects as a failure – and their shareholders concur.
This is how the Maidan cookie crumbles.
The Russian report by Novaya Gazeta Europa, officially identified by the Russian government media monitor as a foreign agent, was published on February 6. It appears on the Russian website of the publication; not on its English website. The publication attaches this notice: “Military censorship has been introduced in Russia. Independent journalism is banned. We continue to work because we know that our readers remain free people. Novaya Gazeta Europa reports only to you and depends only on you. Help us to remain the antidote to dictatorship – support us with money.”
Unlike the international companies it is reporting on, Novaya Gazeta Europa has left Russia, and is based in Riga, Latvia.
A summary report of the same material appeared on the same day in The Bell. This is also a foreign agent publication; since 2019 it is reportedly financed by the oligarch Mikhail Prokhorov; follow his business practices here. Prokhorov has become an Israeli citizen and lives in that country.
The Russian text has been translated verbatim; illustrations have been added for clarification.
“If you work quietly, no one will come for you” — we have studied the cases of 110 foreign companies doing business in Russia despite the war. That’s why they never left. By Denis Morozhin
The Russian authorities like to talk about how foreign companies only pretend to leave Russia, and if they do leave, they will certainly return. As the Novaya-Europa study shows, foreign business gives the Kremlin reasons for such statements. Of the 110 largest foreign companies which continue to operate in Russia, 51 were not even going to leave, and another 40 changed their minds or were unable to sell their assets at a bargain price. We tell you about the five main strategies that allow them to stay in the country during the war.
Shortly after February 24, four global tobacco giants that divided the Russian market among themselves — Japan Tobacco, Philip Morris, British American Tobacco and Imperial Brands — made the most radical statements about working in Russia: ‘We will leave the country, we will sell the business.’ Back in 2022, the sources of Novaya Europa assessed these plans extremely skeptically. “At least the largest tobacco companies will definitely not leave, why would they do that? Do you think that if Philip Morris does not close the factory near St. Petersburg, people in Indonesia or Brazil will stop buying Marlboros to take revenge on those who sold themselves to Putin and pay taxes for the war?” one of the insiders of this market said at the time.
Almost two years after the outbreak of a full-scale war, it turned out that this forecast has largely come true. Not only tobacco companies (of which only British American Tobacco and Imperial Brands have left), but also many other major companies continue to work in Russia despite all their promises and even despite the title of ‘sponsors of war’ assigned to them in Ukraine. It was the market leader, Japan Tobacco, who explained the continuation of work at the end of 2023 as follows: we do not want to “deprive consumers of the product they are used to.” At the same time, according to Novaya-Europa, back in the summer of 2022, this manufacturer was negotiating a sale, and its corporate statements confirmed this.
By the beginning of 2024, it became clear: some do not leave, because they know that if they anger the Russian authorities even a little bit, they will lose key assets and a lot of money. The second is just fine in Russia, they have no reason to lose a profitable business, and now they have even stopped hiding it — although they promised to leave the market. Still others, whose example is certain warning for others, did not want to come out on the Kremlin’s terms, went into conflict with the authorities — and lost everything. The fourth, looking at the first three groups, just remain silent and work quietly all these two years.
Novaya Gazeta Europa studied the cases of 110 foreign companies which either worked in Russia in 2023 or left the market no later than the second half of 2023. We took the 50 largest foreign companies according to the Forbes 2023 rating and added to them firms from the Novaya Europa rating compiled last year of the top 100 foreign companies by net profit in Russia in 2022 (minus those who completed their exit from the country before July 2023).
It has turned out that these companies can be divided into five categories depending on their operating strategies in Russia.
We have called the largest group, which included 51 companies, “Wait it out in silence.” At best, they have expressed concern about the outbreak of a full-scale war, or they have simply remained silent. Some of them have explicitly said that they would continue to work. Among those who still adhere to this model of behaviour are Auchan, Metro, Calzedonia, Ecco, Benetton, Ehrmann, TotalEnergies, Rockwool, Mitsui, and major pharmaceutical companies.
According to our calculations, in 2022 – the reports for 2023 have not yet been published — they have received a total net profit of 448 billion rubles.
The second largest group, in which we included 40 firms, are those which promised to sell their business, leave the market, reduce investments and abandon development plans in Russia – this is the “Promise and not leave” strategy. As a result, they retained a variety of assets in the country: production, retail chains, brands, service or supplies. Examples include BP, JTI, PMI, Pepsico, Mars, Nestle, Raiffeisen, UniCredit, Intesa, ABB, Bacardi, Campari. This group is smaller in number, but larger in total profit — 669.6 billion rubles. We have identified three companies in a separate group (Leroy Merlin, Decathlon, Adidas) which have retained their brands in Russia on one condition or another — in fact, they “left without leaving.” All of these companies did not disclose profits for 2022.
Two small groups, in each of which we have included 8 companies, have adopted the strategies of “Sitting until the last” and “Losing everything”. Those who stayed (with a total profit of 43 billion rubles) promised to leave the market, but sold the business only in the second half of 2023, usually at a discount and on unfavourable terms. These are Hyundai, Kia, Volvo, Ingka Group (shopping centre investor), AB InBev, Veon.
The same number also went into confiscation or external management because they quarrelled with the Russian authorities or became, according to the Kremlin, a “compensation fund” – held for potential offset if the West fails to compensate for its seizure of Russian assets abroad — Danone, Carlsberg, Fortum and others with a total net profit of 48.8 billion rubles.
According to the calculations of Novaya-Europa, the leaders in choosing the first two strategies, which involve maintaining business in Russia, are companies from the United States, a total of 20 of them. Germany is in second place with 14 firms (12 of them are “silently waiting it out”), Italy is in third place with 11.
The strategy of “sitting it out and keeping business” shows that foreign companies have verbally condemned the war. In fact, however, it is more important for them to preserve the opportunity to earn in a large and growing market. These earnings probably outweigh the potential problems in Western consumer markets for them. It is in order to create such difficulties for companies that the Ukrainian authorities have created a register of “International Sponsors of War”, which at the end of January includes 48 companies (31 of them from countries that the Russian authorities call “unfriendly”).
Since mid-2023, some companies on this list have begun to face corporate boycotts in the West. However, this has turned out to be very localized and has so far mainly manifested itself in the Scandinavian countries. For example, Swedish SAS has decided to stop feeding passengers with Mondelez and Nestle products, as well as drinking Pepsico soda and Bacardi alcohol.
Other consumers in Sweden and Norway, in particular, the railway company, the ferry carrier Tallink and others, began to refuse Mondelez chocolate. “At the same time, Mondelez is holding up for now,” a Russian lawyer who specializes in international trade said in a conversation with Novaya—Europa. In Finland, the VR rail carrier and Finnair airline have said they may reject Nestle and Unilever products.
Ukraine has included all these companies in the list of sponsors of the war, but it is still difficult to judge the economic consequences of the boycotts, because they began very recently. None of the companies has yet claimed damage from these measures.
Hostages and “calculating men”
Many companies found themselves in the position of hostages of the Kremlin, and these are both those who promised to leave Russia, but did not do so, and those who remained silent for two years, say the sources of Novaya Europa. “They are forced to work in Russia and have become an offset fund which the Russian authorities need to exchange for Russian assets blocked abroad,” an expert from one of the major analytical companies believes.
He explains the status of “hostages” by the mass of restrictions imposed on foreign firms, which deprive them of the chance to exit without serious losses for the business. In particular, bankruptcy is prohibited, and if there are signs of premeditated bankruptcy, then managers face criminal liability.
Assets can be sold at a discount of 50% of their current estimated value, which is now very low. And most importantly, you need to get a sale transaction permit through a special commission, which reviews and agrees to an average of one or two transactions per month, the expert notes.
Among the global giants who tried, but could not sell their factories in Russia on favourable terms, but did not want to lose everything, the experts identify Mitsubishi Motors, ABB, General Electric — all of them have stopped production in Russia.
But there is also a directly opposite group — the “calculating ones” who understand perfectly well that their position in the market is such that they can safely continue working in Russia. If the Kremlin takes their assets to bargain with the West, it will cause problems for the economy.
Despite the fact that the state, after the outbreak of a full-scale war, has learned to take away private business from owners, the authorities simply cannot nationalize some companies, otherwise that will be a “shot in the foot,” our sources say. Tobacco concerns are an example of this, according to our industry sources. Of the four largest cigarette manufacturers represented in Russia, Russian assets have been sold to British American Tobacco and Imperial Brands, while Japan Tobacco and Philip Morris are in no hurry.
“Let’s imagine that Putin took Russian factories from Japan Tobacco and Philip Morris, just as he confiscated the assets of Carlsberg and Danone. And then it is possible that factories in Russia will have serious problems with the supply of raw materials. Tobacco plantations, of course, do not belong to cigarette manufacturers. But global concerns still know how to interact with plantation owners who can meet the global giants halfway and arrange problems with the supply of tobacco raw materials to Russia,” says a source of Novaya-Europa, who knows this industry well.
At the same time, he adds, tobacco raw materials are produced, among other countries, in China: “But there is another tobacco, though it is not very suitable for our factories. And China, even though it is our friend, will also not want to quarrel with the West. And what happens when cigarettes run out in the stores, Putin and his friends should remember perfectly well, because in 1990 and 1991, because of such a shortage, people blocked Nevsky Prospekt in the president’s hometown”. Anatoly Chubais recalled such a riot – there was similar unrest in Moscow and other cities.
The Russian market for worldwide global tobacco manufacturers is at least number two in global size, so it cannot be lost, says another source in the industry. “They want to sit here until the last moment and earn money”, he thinks. For example, Japan Tobacco earned a fifth of its $3 billion in net profit for 2022 — or $645 million — in Russia (43.5 billion rubles, recalculated at the average ruble exchange rate of 67.46 to the dollar). At the same time, its ruble profit in Russia in 2022 increased by one and a half times compared to 2021.
At the same time, Philip Morris earned $787 million (53.1 billion rubles) in Russia in 2022 — about 5.4% of its total net profit of $9.05 billion in the same year. Its Russian net profit increased by a third in the first year of the war.
Stand with a drink replacing Coca-Cola at a grocery store in Moscow, June 10, 2022. After Coca-Cola announced the termination of its business in Russia, the new product has already appeared on the shelves of Moscow supermarkets. Bela Cola, produced in Belarus, was previously available only in some regions of Russia. It is reported that since February 2022, imports of carbonated beverages to Russia have increased by 50 percent. Photo by Vlad Karkov / SOPA Images / LightRocket / Getty Images
Promising does not mean leaving
Among those who spoke about their intentions to leave the market, but have remained while only partially reducing their presence, there are many global producers of what you can eat and drink. These include both of the world’s main suppliers of non-alcoholic soda, as well as both of the largest alcohol sellers, Bacardi and Campari Group.
It is noteworthy that all these companies (as well as Mars, Nestle, Procter& Gamble, Mondelez and others) have behaved in approximately the same way. In the early days of the war, they issued fairly similar statements about the suspension of some operations in Russia (Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Campari).
By the beginning of the third year of the war, in reality there their business has been preserved. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have left their production facilities in Russia and are making money on local brands, removing the global brands from the market. Campari has only slightly reduced its sales in Russia (according to Kommersant, through its Russian subsidiary in January–July 2023, this concern imported 3.12 million litres of alcohol against 3.58 million litres a year earlier).
A most interesting thing has happened with Bacardi: immediately after the outbreak of the war, the world’s largest family-owned alcohol company announced that supplies to Russia had been stopped and investments had been frozen. But in August 2023, The Wall Street Journal drew attention to the fact that these promises had disappeared from the statement on the company’s website. Bacardi not only kept supplies, but also continued to pour William Lawson’s whiskey in Russia.
“They are a non-public company, and they can afford to say that if there is no direct ban, then all this does not concern them. The fact that Bacardi’s headquarters are located in Bermuda helps them behave this way, and they can always say: ‘We are not an American company and we decide who we work with.’ Although in other situations they may associate themselves with the United States, where they have a large division,” said a source in the alcohol industry. Bacardi, as well as Campari, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo did not respond to questions for this article.
The predominantly American businesses have turned out to be much more cynical about the war, says Ivan Fedyakov, CEO of the INFOLine analytical agency. “European companies are afraid of a consumer boycott, which can cause significant damage to business. For Americans, the conflict with Ukraine is far away from them,” he says. If the conflict flares up more sharply, then American companies may remember that they pay taxes in Russia, but for now they are waiting for the pendulum to swing in whatever direction, the expert argues.
Another striking example of such a strategy is the Austrian Raiffeisen Bank. At the beginning of the full-scale war, the bank, like dozens of companies, published a cautious statement — this has now been deleted from the bank’s website, but has remained in the Wayback archive — about leaving Russia “under strict control.” After that, the bank repeatedly told the public about various exit strategies, including the separation or sale of the business, but repeatedly postponed the date for a possible transaction. However, as Reuters wrote at the end of 2023, citing Austrian officials, Austria itself is not interested in this: the government does not want to completely cut off relations with Moscow, because it still hopes for their resumption. And besides, Vienna wants to remain a “hub for money” that goes between Russia and Eastern Europe, Reuters concluded.
“Raiffeisen hopes that a possible change in the geopolitical situation will allow it to stay and work as before,” a member of the board of one of the Russian banks told Novaya-Europa. At the same time, the Russian business, according to the results for the first nine months of 2023, brought the Austrian bank half of its global profit (1.024 billion euros out of 2.114 billion euros). If you try to leave Russia without the consent of the authorities, then “you can only write everything off to zero, and also face arrest,” a source of Novaya-Europa in Western banking circles is sure.
At the same time, Raiffeisen is a systemically important bank in Austria — it holds the first place in terms of assets and a market share of 17%. The Austrian authorities would be forced to support such a financial institution if it has problems. And the loss of a huge business in Russia is quite capable of triggering such hypothetical difficulties, our banking source argues. It is unlikely that the Austrian authorities want to solve the problem of recapitalization of the giant bank.
Work and keep quiet
“We have a cynical opinion in the industry that the main reason is revenue. The Russian market may account for even a small share of their income, but in absolute numbers it’s still a lot of money,” explains the strategy of a manager of one of the largest food companies in Russia. “And if you work quietly, then no one will come for you,” says the source. He cites another reason why companies are “working quietly” without talking aloud about an exit: “The risk of asset loss. The illustrative cases are known; if the business is selected [by the authorities to make an example for others], then no one will help.”
Among those who chose the “work and keep quiet” strategy, the most notable are the giant retail chains: German Metro, French Auchan, as well as the Leroy Merlin network, presumably related to Auchan (both of them, as well as the Decathlon network, are owned by the French family company Mulliez). Auchan, Leroy Merlin and some other European companies are in no hurry, because for them leaving the Russian market will be more painful than a possible boycott or public opinion, says one of the industry sources.
Left: one of the LeRoy Merlin stores in Russia; right, Gérard Mulliez, patriarch of the family owning LeRoy Merlin, Auchan, Decathlon and other retail chains operating in Russia.
In December 2023, the data of the Unified State Register of Legal Entities showed that the owner of Leroy Merlin had changed: it became the company Scenari Holding LP from the United Arab Emirates. The market does not believe this. One of our industry sources, who asked not to be named, believes that in fact the French owners could have retained control of the network. He explains this by saying that Leroy Merlin, with 112 hypermarkets in Russia, which tops the Russian Forbes ranking of foreign companies by revenue, is too large an asset to be sold to an unknown company. The source recalls that until 2022, Leroy Merlin had more than a quarter of its revenue generated in Russia; losing that would mean dealing a severe blow to the business.
Two more examples of “changing signage” are Decathlon and Adidas. The first one sold its chain to the Russian company ARM (previously it specialized in the restaurant business), which opened stores under the name Desport. They sell products of the same brands as in the “old” Decathlon — the Desport online catalogue confirms this.
Adidas exited very cleverly. It subleased some of its stores to Lamoda, retaining its legal entity in Russia, and now sells its products through an official Russian distributor.
The illusion of return for energy production
The Kremlin has managed to show foreign companies that those who insist on their rights will lose everything. In particular, Shell, an oil and gas producer, and Carlsberg, a brewer, have faced this. The result is that only the one who knows how to negotiate retains assets or is allowed to leave Russia with money. Other companies from the same industries, oil and gas and beer, have succeeded: BP, TotalEnergies and Heineken.
Shell has been producing and liquefying gas on Sakhalin for 15 years and selling liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Asian markets, mainly to neighbouring Japan. Then a full-scale war broke out – and the concern, which had been friends with the Kremlin for decades, was one of the first to announce that it would withdraw from all enterprises in Russia. Moreover, it did this without equivocation, issuing a harsh statement on the fourth day of the invasion of Ukraine, on February 28, 2022.
Perhaps that is why Vladimir Putin by his decree dated June 30, 2022, effectively took away 27.5% of the LNG plant on Sakhalin from Shell. Formally speaking, according to this decree, the Kremlin took the plant from all its shareholders, including Gazprom (50%), Japanese Mitsui (12.5%) and Mitsubishi (10%) – the latter are representatives of the “sit and wait” strategy — and transferred the enterprise to a specially created Russian company, Sakhalin Energy. Of course, the Japanese and Gazprom agreed to become its shareholders. Shell refused this honour.
The refusal of the Anglo-Dutch company meant that, according to the same presidential decree, Shell’s share had to be sold, and the money blocked inside Russia in a Type C account. In the spring of 2023, the Russian government allowed Novatek to buy this block of shares. Novatek is the second gas producer in Russia after Gazprom and the Kremlin’s great hope for conquering the global LNG market. Its export is critically important for the budget of Russia, which is under an oil embargo due to the war.
In the spring of 2023, Kommersant reported that Novatek co-owner Leonid Mikhelson (right) asked Putin to allow Shell to withdraw $1.16 billion from Russia for the sale of the stake in the Sakhalin plant – and Putin, according to the newspaper, gave such consent. The deal is still in limbo and probably not completed, two sources in the oil and gas market told Novaya-Europa: they say they do not know whether Novatek will receive the share and Shell will receive the money. “In fact, [Shell] hasn’t left”, one of the sources said. One of the proofs of this, he believes, is that the stock quotes of Novatek “have not yet gained value on the entry into Sakhalin-2 in any way.” In the database of Spark legal entities, information about the shareholders of Sakhalin Energy is classified.
When asked by Novaya-Europa whether the company received money for the asset, Shell’s press office noted that they have nothing to add to what is written about this in the “Frequently Asked Questions” section on the company’s website. This says: “We reserve all our legal rights in relation to our share of 27.5% (minus one share) in the Sakhalin Energy Investment Company.” That is to say, the share in the very company from which Putin took the plant last year.
One of our sources in the oil and gas market believes that this statement of the company can be interpreted as follows: Shell considers the nationalization illegal and may well sue the Kremlin to protect its rights to the asset. At the same time, in December 2023, Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak did not confirm that the Shell and Novatek deal had been completed.
But Shell’s competitors, British BP and French TotalEnergies, did not issue loud statements and did not promise to protect their shareholder rights. And as a result, they have retained their assets in Russia. TotalEnergies’ strategy is to continue making money from LNG production together with Novatek, in which it owns a 19.4% stake. In addition, the French concern owns stakes in Arctic gas projects jointly with Novatek.
BP has carefully assured the public that “we continue to consider options for completing our exit.” At the same time, the company is well aware that it cannot sell 19.75% of its Rosneft shares due to the restrictions imposed in Russia. “It does not count on the imminent end of the war and normalization of relations, and therefore it does not think to sit it out”, a former manager of the oil company familiar with the situation told Novaya-Europa; he asked not to be named. In this situation, all BP could do has been to limit itself to “honest deconsolidation – it does not show this asset in the financial reports, displaying the subtraction from the point of view of the market. This is why its production, reserves, cash flows all fell,” he added. BP did not respond to a request for comment.
“Our business was stolen in Russia”
In the beer industry, there are also both nonconformists and skilful diplomats. The second obviously includes Heineken, which, according to our source in this market, “came to the authorities and said that the company was ready to leave on your terms, but with some money, bring your buyer, they say — the main point was that he was neutral and not under sanctions.” As a result, it was bought by the Russian concern Arnest, which in September 2022 bought three Russian factories for the production of aluminum cans from the American Ball Corporation.
Carlsberg, our source claims, was not ready to accept such conditions, and wanted to choose a buyer itself, and “from the point of view of the government behaved unconstructively.” As a result, Heineken earned at least a little on leaving: Arnest repaid the debt of its Russian subsidiary for €100 million. However, Baltika, owned by Carlsberg, came under the external control of the state. In response, the Danish concern stated that “our business was stolen in Russia.”
“Now, if this situation can be resolved, it is only at the level of heads of state and interstate negotiations. And since they are impossible now, it seems that Carlsberg will have to forget about the Russian asset,” says our source in the industry. At the same time, according to his information, Arnest was ready to buy the Russian business of both brewing companies (and Carlsberg in June 2023 even managed, without specifying the buyer, to announce that it had already signed an agreement on the sale of the business), but did not receive the Kremlin’s consent to Baltika.
Denmark’s share of total Russian assets frozen or seized in the EU as of April 2022 was very small. The data tabulation was reported by the Irish Times from a leaked internal EU document and appeared on April 21, 2022.
We are waiting until the last bell
The list of Novaya Europa includes eight companies which announced the sale of their Russian assets only at the end of the second year of a full-scale war. Almost all of them, except for the Belgian brewing company AB InBev, managed to come to an agreement with the Russian authorities and received consent to the deal.
Turkish Anadolu Efes, the owner of half of one of Russia’s largest brewing companies AB InBev Efes, has announced the purchase of the second half from its partner, the world’s largest beer producer AB InBev. The deal announcement emphasizes that the completion of the transaction can be discussed only after its approval by the regulatory authorities. Nothing has been reported that the Russian authorities have given such consent.
AB InBev announced its intention to sell its stake a long time ago — two months after the start of the war. The deal could not be completed for so long, not because the Belgians could not come to an agreement with the Russian authorities, but because “it is a matter of dividing the business at the international level between AB InBev and Anadolu Efes,” says our source in the beer market. And besides, the departure of the Belgian company turned out to be very conditional: AB InBev managed to leave without leaving, because it owns 24% of the shares of Anadolu Efes. This means that the European brewer will continue to earn money on the Russian beer market, but will retain its reputation.
Among the automakers, Hyundai, Kia and Volvo were late at the exit. Their competitors have already sold factories — but these three concerns were in no hurry to get to the end. At the end of the year Hyundai and its subsidiary Kia, which owned 70% and 30% of the automobile plant in St. Petersburg, received consent to sell their enterprise to the Russian company Art Finance LLC. The Russian authorities said Hyundai would have a two-year option to buy back. And in the third quarter of 2023, Volvo reported it had received permission to sell its truck manufacturing plant in Kaluga, which has since managed to change several owners.
Next to exit
The lawyers interviewed by Novaya-Europa, who are familiar with the plans of the global companies in Russia, do not have a consensus view on how this process will develop further. Some believe that under pressure from public opinion, companies will continue to try to leave. Others believe that everyone who wanted to has left already; the rest have adapted to the new conditions and learned how to earn money in them.
“They will try to get rid of the assets, as the pressure on them is strong,” says one of the lawyers working in Russia, who asked not to be named. And they will do this not because of money, because “there is little economic sense in selling assets, money can’t be withdrawn from Russia anyway,” but “it’s more about social responsibility, reputation, and so on.” At the same time, he believes, “there are those who hope to return to the market which is large and attractive. Bridges are not being burned – they are maintained, and will be preserved. But these are not the same bridges, of course. It won’t be the same as before.”
But not everyone will be able to return: “In the case of someone who has already quarrelled, they will not return here,” the lawyer said, and cited the example of Siemens, which completely withdrew from the energy, engineering and financial business in Russia in 2022, selling assets and stopping supplies and service.
Yegor Noskov, managing partner of the lawfirm, Duvernois Legal, has a different point of view. Those who decided in the spring of 2022 that their image losses from continuing to work in Russia exceeded their possible profits have left. “Other companies have found that the profits generated from the Russian market are too significant for their business and exceed image losses, and remain on the market, making record profits”, says the lawyer, and cites Raiffeisen as an example.
This configuration will continue in 2024, Noskov believes: “I think those who left will not return until the end of the military operations, and perhaps not for a long while after.” And those who remain will not sell their business, but will adapt to the situation using either other brands or all kinds of schemes allowing them to maintain a presence in the market, but avoid direct affiliation of the Russian assets with the parent companies abroad, Noskov says.
Ante la movilización convocada en Valladolid por los sindicatos mayoritarios bajo el lema “Respeto por Castilla y León”, a la que se han unido más de cien asociaciones, incluidos los partidos políticos de la vieja y nueva socialdemocracia (PSOE-IU-Podemos). El Partido Comunista de los Trabajadores de España (PCTE) quiere señalar que:
No compartimos el único carácter que se le ha dado a la movilización que centra su atención exclusivamente en las políticas de la extrema derecha en el ejecutivo autonómico para reclamar de forma ingenua “respeto” a los espacios de la cultura, la memoria democrática, la inmigración y la igualdad. Señalamos la falta de coherencia de dicha movilización, pues obvia las políticas antiobreras que el Partido Popular lleva ejecutando en la Comunidad desde 1987 y oculta la responsabilidad de los diferentes Gobiernos de España liderados por el PSOE y sostenidos por Podemos, Izquierda Unida, Sumar y la socialdemocracia nacionalista.
No compartimos la exigencia que se le hace a Alfonso Fernández Mañueco, presidente de la Junta de Castilla y León, de gobernar en solitario y expulsar a la extrema derecha del ejecutivo ¿Acaso un gobierno del PP, o de cualquier otro gobierno capitalista solucionaría los problemas de la clase obrera en nuestra Comunidad? La política del Partido Popular en el Gobierno se ha caracterizado por ahondar en la privatización de los servicios públicos y la destrucción de la vida digna en el medio rural. Hemos presenciado el desmantelamiento industrial, con deslocalizaciones y el cierre de sectores estratégicos claves para la economía del país y motor de nuestras comarcas mineras; el aumento de la pobreza en nuestros barrios y la creciente gentrificación en ciudades convertidas para el turismo, expulsando a los trabajadores de sus casas por no poder pagar el alquiler y la pérdida de poder adquisitivo.
Para la clase obrera de Castilla y León no va a cambiar en nada gobierne quien gobierne, ya sea desde la gestión socialdemócrata en el contexto nacional o una gestión más conservadora o liberal en el panorama autonómico.
Además, señalamos el error que supone que las principales organizaciones sindicales de nuestra Comunidad subordinen su lucha a agendas ajenas a la clase obrera en un contexto de empobrecimiento generalizado y de ofensiva contra los trabajadores. Nuestra Comunidad ya ha sido ejemplo de cómo desde las organizaciones sindicales se impulsaban movilizaciones interclasistas, que no ponían en primer plano las necesidades de la clase obrera para dar prioridad al acercamiento de la “ciudadanía” en abstracto, fueron fagocitadas y hegemonizadas por posiciones totalmente ajenas a la clase obrera, tal y como ocurrió el 12 de mayo de 2022. Y también hemos participado y luchado juntos a estas mismas organizaciones sindicales en movilizaciones clasistas como las luchas mineras de 2012 que impulsaron en España la solidaridad obrera y pusieron el foco de la política nacional en los intereses objetivos de nuestra clase en su conjunto. Este es el camino a seguir.
Por todo ello, el Partido Comunista llama a recuperar la batalla en los centros de trabajo y en las calles, a luchar por un sindicalismo de clase y combativo y a una movilización general por las condiciones de nuestras vidas, contra la carestía de la vida y por la intervención de los precios, por la organización y en defensa de la clase obrera migrante, por la lucha de la liberación de la mujer trabajadora y contra las guerras imperialistas.
Lo posible son unos márgenes de actuación cada vez más estrechos, donde cada vez más hombres y mujeres vamos quedando fuera. Lo posible es el pragmatismo de la derrota, que tratan de imponer quienes no sufren paro, hambre y miseria. Frente a sus migajas, elige acabar con todo rastro de explotación y opresión.
La portavoz del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores de Rusia, María Zajárova, aseguró quea su país no le sorprende la decisión de la Fiscalía de Suecia de interrumpir la investigación del ataque contra los gasoductos Nord Stream, ya que todos los esfuerzos de Occidente estaban dirigidos inicialmente a ocultar las circunstancias reales del sabotaje.
Los resultados de la operación especial de las Fuerzas Antifascistas contra el brazo armado del capital financiero estadounidense, la OTAN.
464+2 sistemas de defensa aérea S-300, Buk-M1 y Osa
14.953+15 tanques y otros blindados
8.000+5 cañones de artillería de campaña y morteros
1.218 lanzacohetes múltiples
570 aviones
265 helicópteros
12.137+97 drones
18.404+35 vehículos de diferentes tipos
Fuente: Ministerio de Defensa de Rusia Tomado de Sputnik
Si quieres seguir de cerca cómo se desarrolla la operación en el campo, el mapa interactivo de la agencia Spuntik te permite conocer la situación que se está viviendo día a día.
La precandidata republicana a la presidencia de EE.UU., Nikki Haley, aseguró que el mandatario «debería hacerse una prueba de aptitud mental inmediatamente».
El informe de un fiscal independiente que calificó al presidente de EE.UU., Joe Biden, de 81 años, como “un agradable anciano con buenas intenciones y mala memoria”, ha generado una tormenta política en Washington.
En su reporte, que puso fin a un año de pesquisa, el fiscal especial, Robert Hur, del Departamento de Justicia, concluyó que Biden “retuvo y reveló intencionadamente materiales clasificados después de su vicepresidencia cuando era un ciudadano privado”.
Entre las razones para eximirle de los cargos en el caso de los papeles clasificados, se citan “limitaciones significativas” en su memoria, trayendo a cuenta su entrevista con la Oficina del fiscal especial y conversaciones grabadas con su ‘escritor fantasma’. “No recordaba, ni siquiera al cabo de varios años, cuándo murió su hijo Beau“, detalló en el informe.
“Profundamente inquietante”
Biden ha sido objeto de una investigación desde hace un año tras encontrarse una decena de documentos del periodo en el que fue vicepresidente de Barack Obama (2009 y 2017) en su despacho privado en el Centro Penn Biden para la Diplomacia y el Compromiso Global, así como otros hallados en el garaje de su residencia de Wilmington, en Delaware.
La conclusión del informe provocó malestar, especialmente, entre los republicanos. “Los estadounidenses esperan igualdad de justicia ante la ley y están consternados de que el departamento de Justicia siga permitiendo que Joe Biden viva por encima de ella”, indicó en un comunicado el presidente del Comité de Vigilancia y Rendición de Cuentas de la Cámara de Representantes, James Comer.
“Joe Biden retuvo intencionalmente documentos clasificados durante años en lugares no seguros y los reveló intencionalmente, pero no enfrenta consecuencias por sus acciones (…) Quedan preguntas importantes sobre hasta qué punto Joe Biden conserva materiales confidenciales relacionados con países específicos que involucran los esquemas de tráfico de influencias de su familia que generaron millones para los Biden”, aseguró.
El presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, Mike Johnson, y otros líderes republicanos calificaron el informe de “profundamente inquietante”. “Un hombre demasiado incapaz de rendir cuentas por el mal manejo de información clasificada ciertamente no es apto para la Oficina Oval“, indican en un comunicado.
Por su parte, la precandidata republicana a la presidencia de EE.UU. Nikki Haley aseguró que Biden “debería hacerse una prueba de aptitud mental inmediatamente” y los resultados “deberían compartirse con el público”.
Biden responde
Bidenofreció una rueda de prensa para responder al informe, pero volvió a meter la pata cuando se refirió a su homólogo egipcio, Abdulfatah al Sisi, como el “presidente de México”, lo que generó una ola de memes.
“Tengo buenas intenciones, soy un hombre mayor y sé lo que hago. He sido presidente y he vuelto a poner a este país en pie. No necesito su recomendación”, aseveró. “¿Cómo diablos se atreve a plantear eso? No necesito que nadie me recuerde cuándo falleció”, dijo en referencia a la muerte de sus hijo. “Francamente, cuando me hicieron la pregunta, pensé que no era asunto suyo”, aseguró.
“La verdad es que asistí a una entrevista de cinco horas durante dos días sobre acontecimientos que se remontan a 40 años atrás. Al mismo tiempo, estaba manejando una crisis internacional”, justificó el mandatario, que aludía al ataque de Hamás del 7 de octubre contra Israel.
“Lenguaje muy perjudicial”
También Richard Sauber, fiscal especial del presidente, y su abogado personal, Bob Bauer, contestaron al informe: “No creemos que el tratamiento que el informe da a la memoria del presidente Biden sea exacto o apropiado”.
“El informe utiliza un lenguaje muy perjudicial para describir un hecho común entre los testigos: la falta de recuerdo de acontecimientos ocurridos hace años”, aseveraron.
Biden es el presidente de mayor edad en la historia del país estadounidense. Frecuentemente, se ve envuelto en situaciones incómodas, se confunde en eventos públicos, lo que ha generado dudas entre la población sobre su capacidad para cumplir sus funciones.
Su rival, Donald Trump, de 77 años, también cuenta con una amplía lista de despistes y afronta 37 cargos federales por haber guardado, supuestamente, material clasificado en su residencia de Mar-a-Lago al término de su mandato presidencial, negándose a entregarlos al FBI o al Departamento de Justicia durante más de un año.
La histeria alrededor de la entrevista del periodista estadounidense Tucker Carlson al presidente ruso Vladímir Putin mostró cuánto teme Occidente encontrarse con la verdad. Pero no solo eso, sino también con los motivos reales del actual conflicto en Ucrania.
Valdir da Silva Bezerra (Sputnik).— Este, a su vez, fue uno de los aspectos principales de la entrevista que Putin concedió al periodista estadounidense. Inicialmente, Putin necesitaba hacer un recorrido histórico por la trayectoria política de Rusia, desde sus orígenes hasta la época moderna, para poder situar tanto al entrevistador como a la audiencia respecto a los problemas que vivimos en la actualidad.
La elección del presidente ruso es bastante justificable. Después de todo, la experiencia de los Estados es, en cierto modo, comparable a la de los individuos, en el sentido de que ambos interpretan y utilizan el pasado para formular no sólo actitudes, sino también su propia identidad.
Tras este ejercicio inicial, Putin destacó los múltiples factores que vinculan a rusos y ucranianos, aludiendo en particular a una situación real ocurrida recientemente en el ámbito del conflicto en Ucrania, en la que un grupo de soldados rusos rodea a cierto destacamento ucraniano, exigiéndoles que se rindan, mientras este último grita en respuesta que “los rusos no se rendirán”.
Este ejemplo fue sin duda uno de los aspectos más destacados de la entrevista, ya que demuestra que todavía existen vínculos inseparables entre rusos y ucranianos –prácticamente dos partes de un mismo pueblo–, vínculos que ningún conflicto podrá destruir.
Además de esta cuestión, Putin también aludió a ciertos episodios de los años 1990, en los que Rusia intentó por todos los medios acercarse a Occidente. Sin embargo, los dirigentes estadounidenses y europeos ignoraron los legítimos intereses de seguridad de Moscú y se negaron a trabajar junto con Rusia para construir una nueva arquitectura de defensa.
Putin destacó que, a principios de la década del 2000, los rusos propusieron un proyecto conjunto con Estados Unidos y Europa en el segmento de sistemas de defensa antimisiles. Sin embargo, las propuestas de Moscú nunca se llevaron adelante.
Recordando una conversación con Bill Clinton, Putin explicó la pregunta que le había hecho al entonces presidente estadounidense sobre la posibilidad de que Rusia se uniera a la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte (OTAN). Al principio, Clinton no se opuso a la idea, pero después de una conversación a puerta cerrada con su “delegación”, Clinton dijo que tal posibilidad no era viable. Este episodio es muy ilustrativo y muestra cómo Rusia intentó acercarse a Occidente en diferentes momentos de su historia, proponiendo mecanismos que pudieran superar el legado de animosidad y desconfianza mutua de la época de la Guerra Fría.
Desafortunadamente, Estados Unidos optó por apoyar procesos que debilitarían a Rusia a nivel nacional e internacional. Un ejemplo citado por Putin a este respecto fue el apoyo de la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA) a grupos terroristas en el Cáucaso a finales de los años 1990 y principios de los años 2000.
Luego vino el apoyo estadounidense al golpe de Estado en Ucrania en 2004, la infame Revolución Naranja y la incitación de movimientos nacionalistas en ese país en torno a figuras controvertidas como Stepan Bandera. Bandera, que apoyó a los nazis durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, incluso fue elevado a la categoría de héroe nacional en Ucrania. Rusia no sólo no podría aceptar tales acontecimientos en el país vecino, sino que también defendería la desnazificación de Ucrania como uno de los objetivos de la operación militar especial.
Sin embargo, Putin mencionó los planes de Occidente de desmembrar a Rusia para poder controlarla eficientemente. Esta intención se basa en la negativa a aceptar que Rusia sea una voz fuerte e independiente en el escenario internacional y en la negativa a aceptar la realidad de un mundo multipolar. Sin embargo, el presidente ruso aludió a la velocidad de las transformaciones que se están produciendo hoy, poniendo de forma irreversible la hegemonía occidental.
“Es como el amanecer. Nadie puede detenerlo, hay que adaptarse a él”, dijo Putin. En el pasado, grandes imperios surgieron y cayeron. Así fue con el Imperio mongol de Genghis Khan, así fue con el Imperio Romano. Así será con el actual Imperio Americano.
De hecho, son los propios Estados Unidos los que contribuyen a acelerar su caída, cuando utilizan el dólar como arma política, por ejemplo. A partir de 2022, ante la política de sanciones de Occidente contra Rusia liderada por Washington, cada vez más países reducen el papel del dólar en el comercio y en sus reservas internacionales, un verdadero golpe al poder de Estados Unidos en el mundo.
No es de extrañar que, dadas las respuestas del presidente ruso, Tucker Carlson pareciera a veces sorprendido, a veces pensativo. Relegado por Fox News tras años como presentador principal de la cadena, el periodista estadounidense convirtió su entrevista con Putin en un proyecto de redención personal. ¡Y lo hizo! Este no sólo fue el punto más alto de toda su carrera, sino que la entrevista sirvió para mostrar a Estados Unidos y a Occidente en general la verdad sobre Rusia.
Después de todo, independientemente de las barreras impuestas a Rusia en los últimos años, la verdad siempre encuentra una manera de revelarse. La conversación de Tucker Carlson con Putin representó precisamente este momento y también representa un obstáculo a la narrativa autoritaria de Occidente, que no permite expresar opiniones diferentes sobre el conflicto en Ucrania.
En cualquier caso, de la entrevista quedó claro que Tucker Carlson también anhela el fin de las hostilidades en Europa del Este. En ocasiones, el periodista estadounidense preguntó a Vladimir Putin si Rusia estaría dispuesta a poner fin al conflicto mediante negociaciones. La respuesta del presidente ruso fue clara.
Moscú nunca se ha negado a negociar y, más aún, en abril de 2022, rusos y ucranianos estuvieron muy cerca de firmar un acuerdo de paz. Si no fuera por Occidente (en la forma de políticos irresponsables como Boris Johnson y Joe Biden, que obstaculizan el proceso de negociación), el conflicto, como afirmó Putin, habría terminado hace 18 meses. Por tanto, la idea de que Rusia estaría interesada en prolongar la guerra siempre fue mentira.
Fueron Estados Unidos y sus secuaces quienes, al creer en la ilusoria derrota estratégica de Rusia, alimentaron la continuación de la tragedia. En cualquier caso, esperar que la entrevista de Putin haga que las élites occidentales entren en razón sería demasiado ingenuo.
Sin embargo, ciertamente ha puesto a Occidente contra la pared. Además, felicitaciones a Tucker Carlson que tuvo el coraje de contribuir no sólo a la libertad de expresión, sino también al triunfo de la verdad.
«En todo el mundo la gente está viendo esa ridícula entrevista con Vladímir Putin realizada por Tucker Carlson», afirmó el ex primer ministro del Reino Unido.
El ex primer ministro del Reino Unido, Boris Johnson, criticó a Tucker Carlson por la entrevista que le concedió Vladímir Putin, emitida el jueves, tachando al comunicador estadounidense de “traidor al periodismo“.
“En todo el mundo la gente está viendo esa ridícula entrevista con Vladímir Putin realizada por Tucker Carlson”, afirma el político en un video en el que promociona su columna en Daily Mail. “En su felicidad servil por tener una ‘primicia’, boquiabierto y con risotadas, traicionó a sus espectadores y oyentes en todo el mundo”, manifiesta Johnson, que acusa a Carlson de “no hacerle preguntas difíciles” a Putin.
El exmandatario británico aseguró que reza “para que el pueblo de EE.UU. sea capaz de ver más allá de la infame farsa que fue la entrevista de anoche”. “A todos aquellos republicanos que actualmente están bloqueando la ayuda a Ucrania les digo: por el amor de Dios, recuerden quiénes son“, agregó.
El rol de Johnson en el conflicto ucraniano
Durante su encuentro con Carlson, el líder ruso recordó que fue Johnson quien empujó a Ucrania a continuar con las hostilidades en vez de negociar. Al respecto, afirmó que David Arajamia, uno de los negociadores ucranianos que participaron en las conversaciones de paz con Rusia en la primavera de 2022 y que “puso su firma preliminar” en el documento que negociaron Rusia y Ucrania, “luego declaró públicamente al mundo entero: ‘Estábamos dispuestos a firmar ese documento, pero llegó Boris Johnson, entonces primer ministro del Reino Unido, nos disuadió de ello y dijo que era mejor luchar contra Rusia. Nos lo darán todo para que podamos recuperar lo perdido durante los enfrentamientos con Rusia. Y estuvimos de acuerdo con esta propuesta’”, citó Putin las palabras de Arajamia.
En esa línea, Putin afirmó que le parece “absurdo” y “muy triste” el hecho de que las autoridades ucranianas “se hayan sometido a las exigencias o persuasiones” de Boris Johnson. “Porque, como dijo Arajamia, ‘hace un año y medio podríamos haber detenido estas hostilidades, detener esta guerra, pero los británicos nos persuadieron y lo rechazamos’. ¿Dónde está el señor Johnson ahora? Y la guerra continúa”, señaló Putin.
❗️ Putin muestra el acuerdo que Kiev firmó y violó
Según el mandatario, el documento de Estambul sobre Ucrania estaba rubricado, lo tenía todo, hasta el número de tropas, equipo, personal. «Lo echaron todo por tierra», comentó. pic.twitter.com/AfuBHrOAt8
“¿Por qué lo hizo?”, preguntó Tucker al respecto. “Quién diablos sabe, yo tampoco lo entiendo. Hubo una actitud general. Por alguna razón, todo el mundo tenía la ilusión de que Rusia podía ser derrotada en el campo de batalla; sería por arrogancia, o de manera sincera, pero no con una gran inteligencia”, concluyó Putin.
Der Friedensstifter 