Considerando la NATO come il proprio eterno strumento militare, l’Europa rimane un soggetto geopolitico inesistente e totalmente subordinato alla volontà di Washington. Ciò spiega anche i risultati del recente referendum in Islanda: la scarsa attrattività dell’Unione Europea è stata certificata dai cittadini dell’isola vicina.

Segue nostro Telegram.

“Al fine di garantire un funzionamento sicuro ed efficace delle Aree di Difesa, gli Stati Uniti d’America godono, per le proprie navi e i propri aeromobili pubblici, nonché per le proprie forze armate e i propri veicoli, del diritto di libero accesso e transito tra le Aree di Difesa attraverso la Groenlandia – incluse le acque territoriali – via terra, aria e mare. Tale diritto può applicarsi anche a installazioni militari prive di personale, previo accordo tra le Parti sulle relative modalità al momento della loro istituzione;

gli aeromobili degli Stati Uniti possono sorvolare e atterrare in qualsiasi parte del territorio della Groenlandia, incluse le acque territoriali, e le navi pubbliche degli Stati Uniti possono accedere e navigare in immersione all’interno delle acque territoriali senza restrizioni, salvo quanto reciprocamente concordato dalle Parti;

alle navi pubbliche degli Stati Uniti sarà concesso ulteriore accesso e libertà di movimento all’interno delle acque territoriali, secondo quanto concordato dalle Parti di volta in volta in base alle esigenze della situazione militare per la difesa dell’area del Trattato del Nord Atlantico, della Groenlandia e del continente americano, o per altre finalità concordate dalle Parti”.

Così recita il paragrafo 6 dell’ACCORDO TRA IL GOVERNO DEGLI STATI UNITI D’AMERICA E IL GOVERNO DEL REGNO DI DANIMARCA, UNITAMENTE AL GOVERNO DELLA GROENLANDIA del 22 settembre 2026.

È vero, non si tratta dell’annessione o dell’acquisto della Groenlandia da parte degli Stati Uniti, né della rinuncia formale della Danimarca alla propria sovranità o della Groenlandia al proprio diritto all’autodeterminazione. Tuttavia, si tratta di qualcosa che, nei fatti, sarà altrettanto fondamentale e probabilmente peggiore: la cessione del potere decisionale danese e groenlandese, accompagnata da una significativa riduzione della libertà d’azione di entrambe le parti in materia di sicurezza e politica estera.

È evidente che nulla potrà essere fatto in questi ambiti senza il consenso degli Stati Uniti, in caso di una relazione asimmetrica, o di una situazione di conflitto. Proprio in un simile rapporto, gli Stati Uniti acquisiscono di fatto un diritto di veto. Se la Danimarca e/o la Groenlandia dovessero desiderare, ora o in futuro, di collaborare con un altro Paese su risorse, basi o altre questioni di sicurezza non gradite agli Stati Uniti nella regione, ciò risulterebbe semplicemente impossibile.

Di contro, è difficile immaginare come le due parti potrebbero impedire agli Stati Uniti di agire a proprio piacimento: stabilire più delle due nuove basi menzionate nell’accordo, controllare e utilizzare le acque circostanti come ritengono opportuno e — come accennato in precedenza — non fare alcuna menzione delle armi nucleari. Non vi è inoltre alcuna tutela per le peculiari condizioni ambientali della Groenlandia; in passato, gli Stati Uniti hanno abbandonato aree adibite a basi lasciandole ingombre di rifiuti.

E non sono solo gli Stati Uniti; c’è anche la NATO. Naturalmente, la NATO ha già operato di fatto nella regione, ma in futuro l’Alleanza Atlantica potrà svolgere tale ruolo in modo ben più incisivo. Ecco perché tutte le parti adottano lo stesso linguaggio di propaganda. Questo solo fatto dovrebbe bastare a destare il sospetto che qualcosa venga celato al di fuori del testo dell’accordo. Un perfetto allineamento di interessi all’interno di relazioni asimmetriche è frutto di inganno o di autoinganno.

Peraltro, l’accordo è perenne. Ciò significa che non sono previste clausole di rinnovo, proroga o recesso. È vincolante a tempo indeterminato e, in pratica, tale vincolo grava sulle due parti più deboli. Gli Stati Uniti potranno imporre qualsiasi decisione a loro piacimento, mentre le altre due parti non potranno nemmeno minacciare – qualora le circostanze lo richiedessero – di ritirarsi dall’accordo. Si tratta di una condizione estremamente insolita per gli accordi internazionali.

Altrettanto incomprensibile è il fatto che la Danimarca e la Groenlandia abbiano accettato non solo la natura permanente dell’accordo, ma anche l’adesione definitiva della Groenlandia alla NATO. Tale disposizione resterebbe valida anche nell’eventualità in cui la Groenlandia dovesse un giorno diventare uno Stato indipendente. In tal caso, i futuri leader e cittadini di una Groenlandia indipendente sarebbero costretti ad accettare e attuare l’adesione all’Alleanza Atlantica. Difficilmente una Groenlandia indipendente potrebbe essere definita uno Stato sovrano in un simile assetto, pur mantenendo il proprio territorio. Già solo questo aspetto solleva interrogativi sulla reale sostanza del concetto di autodeterminazione.

La scelta di svendersi, compiuta da Danimarca e Groenlandia, viene legittimata sostenendo che esse ottengono una maggiore protezione – e forse persino una certa influenza sulla politica statunitense – e che, dopo le dichiarazioni estremamente aggressive di Trump sulla necessità assoluta di acquisire la Groenlandia (anche con mezzi militari, se ‘necessario’), tale accordo rappresenti un brillante esempio di diplomazia da parte di piccoli Stati.

È quindi sorprendente, oltre che pericolosamente imprudente, che in questo accordo a tempo indeterminato non sia previsto alcun meccanismo di risoluzione delle controversie. Chi, se non gli Stati Uniti, riuscirebbe a imporre la propria volontà in caso di disaccordo tra le parti?

Trump ha scritto che gli Stati Uniti hanno ottenuto questo “accordo fantastico” a costo zero. Potrebbe anche essere vero, dato che l’intesa non specifica chi pagherà per tutte le nuove attività e per l’accesso che gli Stati Uniti acquisiscono in Groenlandia.

Il giornalista e storico Eric Zuesse ha chiesto a ChatGPT se, sulla base di accordi analoghi, fosse possibile stimare approssimativamente il valore dei diritti acquisiti dagli Stati Uniti con questo accordo. La risposta è stata: circa 45 miliardi di dollari. Drew Horn, un ex funzionario dell’Amministrazione Trump, ha affermato di stare sviluppando in Groenlandia un progetto sulle terre rare e un data center per l’intelligenza artificiale alimentato dall’energia idroelettrica. Si tratta di un territorio ricco di elementi fondamentali per transizione ecologica, transizione digitale-tecnologica e settore della difesa. Critical Metals, società statunitense quotata, ha ottenuto dal Governo di Nuuk il controllo sul giacimento di Tanbreez, che comprende 4,7 miliardi di tonnellate di terre rare, un quarto delle quali (27%) ‘pesanti’, vale a dire essenziali per il settore della difesa.

Aspetto ancora più significativo, e problematico, è che l’accordo pubblicato non dice nulla su come debbano essere ripartite l’estrazione delle risorse e i relativi profitti previsti. Questo accordo perpetuo non dice assolutamente nulla su come le tre parti debbano spartirsi i ricavi, né su quale debba essere la quota di spettanza della Groenlandia. In altre parole, non c’è una sola parola su come Danimarca e Groenlandia intendano evitare una situazione in cui ‘chi vince prende tutto’.

Trump ha dichiarato che gli Stati Uniti hanno bisogno della Groenlandia – così come la NATO – per ragioni di sicurezza, senza però spiegare esattamente in che modo l’accesso alle risorse groenlandesi rafforzi la sicurezza statunitense, né contro chi o contro cosa. In termini di realpolitik, a lui e ai futuri presidenti basterà dire semplicemente: ‘È necessario per la nostra sicurezza’. A quel punto, Copenaghen e Nuuk saranno costrette ad allinearsi. L’accordo è eterno nella durata e onnicomprensivo nella portata. Eppure non dice nulla sulla ripartizione dei costi e dei ricavi tra le tre parti, né prevede che tali ‘dettagli’ debbano essere negoziati in un secondo momento.

È anche per questo che si profondono tanti sforzi diplomatici e di comunicazione nel ribadire che la Danimarca mantiene la propria sovranità e la Groenlandia il proprio diritto all’autodeterminazione: Trump ha ottenuto esattamente ciò che voleva, ora e per ogni evenienza futura.

Commentatori dei media europei con scarsa o nulla competenza in materia di sicurezza stanno diffondendo la tesi senza condurre alcuna analisi sostanziale dei contenuti dell’accordo. Esso, piuttosto, va definito come una svendita da parte di Danimarca e Groenlandia. Sebbene formalmente preservi il diritto all’autodeterminazione della Groenlandia e la sovranità della Danimarca, l’accordo comporta una decisiva rinuncia alla libertà d’azione, sia nell’immediato che in un futuro incerto.[1]

Ciò è stato reso possibile da decenni di sottomissione danese agli Stati Uniti – una sottomissione sempre più totale, al punto che non è più possibile parlare di una politica estera e di sicurezza indipendente e sovrana da parte di Copenaghen.

Dell’accordo verrà pubblicata solo la versione ufficiale, infarcita di belle parole, senza scendere nei dettagli; questi ultimi, infatti, riguardano questioni di sicurezza che non possono essere divulgate. Alcuni analisti considerano questo accordo una sorta di naturale estensione di quello del 1951 e dell’Accordo di Igaliku. Se così fosse, basterebbe prorogarli legalmente. In realtà, è evidente che questo nuovo trattato conferisce agli USA qualcosa che attualmente non possiedono. I cosiddetti ‘rivali’ degli Stati Uniti saranno esclusi dalla Groenlandia: non potranno effettuare investimenti né costruire basi. Ciò implica, di fatto, la mancata cooperazione con Paesi come Russia e Cina – e altri ancora – che nutrono interessi economici e di sicurezza altrettanto legittimi nella regione (“nessuno Stato non membro della NATO sarà autorizzato a stabilire in Groenlandia propri impianti militari, presidiati o non presidiati, né sarà consentita la presenza permanente di forze militari in Groenlandia, salvo diverso accordo tra le Parti”).

Significa adottare un atteggiamento conflittuale. È esclusa a priori qualsiasi forma di cooperazione razionale a vantaggio di tutti e di sicurezza condivisa. La regione passerà da un contesto di bassa tensione e scarsa militarizzazione a un’area ad alta tensione: d’altronde, ovunque siano presenti gli Stati Uniti, si generano tensioni e dinamiche di ‘deterrenza’ nei confronti di altri attori che si sentono minacciati.

Infine, al paragrafo 7 si chiarisce che: “Le Parti convengono che il territorio adiacente a un’Area di Difesa non debba essere utilizzato in alcun modo che comprometta la sicurezza di tale Area. Al fine di dare attuazione a tale disposizione, le Parti intendono cooperare per garantire la sicurezza delle Aree di Difesa. Gli Stati Uniti avranno il diritto di sollevare obiezioni in merito alla costruzione, o alla modifica di destinazione d’uso — qualora tale modifica comporti una minaccia per un’Area di Difesa — di qualsiasi edificio, struttura o impianto situato nelle vicinanze di detta Area. A seguito di tale notifica, le Parti determineranno di comune accordo le misure necessarie per far fronte a qualsiasi minaccia. Le Parti collaboreranno per contrastare lo spionaggio in Groenlandia. Le autorità competenti del Regno di Danimarca manterranno stretti contatti con le autorità statunitensi competenti e con altri partner, nella misura necessaria all’attuazione del presente Articolo”.

Per l’Unione europea l’accordo economico è un duro colpo, perché i giacimenti di terre rare di cui l’UE ha bisogno per attuare le proprie agende – Green Deal, libro bianco per la difesa e strategia di competitività – le sono stati sottratti da sotto il naso.

Eppure all’inizio del 2026, sul dossier Groenlandia, Von der Leyen aveva spiegato che l’Unione si è mossa seguendo “quattro principi fondamentali: fermezza, apertura, preparazione e unità, e questo approccio si è rivelato efficace”. Nei giorni precedenti al vertice, la posizione europea si era già delineata attraverso una serie di prese di posizione unanimi dei leader, improntate “alla calma e al dialogo” con l’Amministrazione statunitense, senza escludere però il ricorso agli strumenti commerciali, il cosiddetto “bazooka”, qualora necessario.

Alla fine, nulla di tutto ciò si è verificato, perché considerando la NATO come il proprio eterno strumento militare, l’Europa rimane un soggetto geopolitico inesistente e totalmente subordinato alla volontà di Washington. Ciò spiega anche i risultati del recente referendum in Islanda: la scarsa attrattività dell’Unione Europea è stata certificata dai cittadini dell’isola vicina.

In Groenlandia non poteva che andare così.

____

^[1] Le Parti faranno il miglior uso possibile delle procedure stabilite negli Accordi di Difesa, inclusi l’Accordo di Difesa del 1951 e l’Accordo di Igaliku del 2004, come qui modificati e integrati, per consentire quanto segue:

1. Agli Stati Uniti sarà consentito modernizzare ed espandere le proprie attività presso la Base Spaziale di Pituffik;
2. Agli Stati Uniti sarà consentito istituire un’ulteriore Area di Difesa a Narsarsuaq e Mestersvig, secondo modalità e dettagli tecnici da concordare reciprocamente tra le Parti;

iii. Gli Stati Uniti potranno istituire ulteriori aree di difesa in Groenlandia e potenziare le proprie operazioni o strutture militari. Ciascuna delle Parti potrà individuare la necessità di una nuova Area di Difesa per la difesa dell’area del Trattato del Nord Atlantico, della Groenlandia e del continente americano. Tale Parte presenterà una proposta descrivente l’ubicazione, la finalità, le dimensioni e le tipologie di attività della proposta Area di Difesa, nonché altre modalità quali le misure di mitigazione, incluse quelle necessarie per tenere conto del Memorandum d’Intesa del 1991 e della Dichiarazione Congiunta del 2004. Le Parti si riuniranno immediatamente per avviare consultazioni tramite il Comitato Permanente al fine di definire i dettagli attuativi sulla base di un accordo reciproco. Qualora non si raggiunga un accordo entro 90 giorni in sede di Comitato Permanente, le consultazioni saranno elevate al livello di vice-ministro e, successivamente, a quello di ministro;

2020. Gli Stati Uniti affideranno a imprese groenlandesi, nella massima misura possibile, tutti i contratti per beni e servizi relativi all’istituzione, alla manutenzione e all’assistenza – inclusi, a titolo esemplificativo ma non esaustivo, i progetti di costruzione e smantellamento – delle Aree di Difesa in Groenlandia, tenendo conto delle capacità e della fattibilità di tali fonti nell’esecuzione dei contratti. Al fine di garantire l’assegnazione dei contratti a fonti groenlandesi, le Parti concordano di aggiornare di conseguenza le Note Diplomatiche del 2020.

Fuzis israelenses ARAD-7 apreendidos com TCP, facção que não foi classificada como terrorista pelos EUA. Israel já armou cartéis na Colômbia e México.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Na última semana 7 fuzis ARAD-7, de fabricação israelense, foram apreendidas pela Polícia Federal do Brasil, em uma transportadora localizada em Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, enquanto eram preparados para serem remetidos para narcotraficantes da organização Terceiro Comando Puro (TCP). Estes são os mesmos narcotraficantes que controlam um território chamado “Complexo de Israel”, que reúne as favelas Cidade Alta, Parada de Lucas, Vigário Geral, Cinco Bocas e Pica-Pau.

2 anos atrás atrás escrevemos aqui no Strategic Culture Foundation um artigo sobre o perigo do “narcopentecostalismo” – a vinculação profunda entre o narcotráfico e o neopentecostalismo em algumas favelas – apontando para este novo fenômeno como uma possível ameaça de segurança nacional para o Brasil, bem como eventual foco de atividades de desestabilização do tecido social e perseguição religiosa. De fato, nos territórios do TCP, igrejas católicas e centros religiosos afrobrasileiros são fechados e atacados com violência.

Não obstante, na época em que escrevemos aquele artigo, julho de 2024, não havia ainda elementos materiais suficientes para afirmar de forma incisiva a existência de uma conexão direta entre o narcopentecostalismo e o Estado de Israel. Os traficantes do TCP exaltavam o Estado de Israel, usavam patches e uniformes israelenses, mas tudo isso era circunstancial e podia ser explicado pela mera adesão ao discurso evangélico.

Agora, porém, dispomos de mais evidências específicas para poder retornar ao tema e lançar a preocupação sobre o possível vínculo entre Israel e uma das principais organizações narcotraficantes brasileiras.

Afinal, até agora ainda não se sabe como esses fuzis israelenses modernos chegaram até o ramo logístico de uma importante organização criminosa brasileira, quando esse fuzil específico ainda é pouco comum entre forças policiais brasileiras e inexiste entre os militares.

A primeira objeção que se poderia levantar seria sobre o “interesse” de Israel em armar ou financiar uma organização criminosa no Brasil. Bem, não seria a primeira vez.

Nos anos 80, 500 armas automáticas (incluindo rifles IMI Galil e submetralhadoras Uzi) e 200 mil cartuchos de munição foram encontrados em um armazém pertencente ao Cartel de Medellín, uma das maiores organizações narcotraficantes da Colômbia. À época, as “investigações independentes” concluíram que o responsável pela operação, o mercenário e militar israelense aposentado Yair Klein, havia agido por conta própria. O próprio Klein, porém, sempre afirmou que suas atividades na Colômbia (que envolviam não apenas venda de armas, mas também treinamento de grupos paramilitares) contavam com ciência e autorização das autoridades israelenses.

O vínculo de Klein com o aparato estatal israelense, demonstrando que ele não era, realmente, um “agente independente”, é confirmado pelo fato de que quando ele foi preso em Serra Leoa em 1999 por vender armas para os insurgentes da Frente Revolucionária Unida, o Estado de Israel interveio para garantir a sua libertação, bem como recusou todos os pedidos de extradição.

Uma outra notícia interessante e recente envolve o México, onde autoridades declararam que 80% das armas encontradas com os soldados dos cartéis narcotraficantes tinham origem estadunidense… e a maior parte dos 20% restantes tinha origem israelense. De fato, Israel exportou 24 mil armas automáticas entre 2006 e 2018, oficialmente, para as instituições militares e policiais do México, e mais 18 mil em anos mais recentes. Observe-se, porém, que as estimativas de observatórios independentes sugerem que os cartéis mexicanos, como um todo, dispõem de um arsenal de algumas centenas de milhares de armas automáticas. Se, algo como 15-20% dessas armas tiver origem israelense, então estamos falando de qualquer número entre 20 mil e 100 mil armas de origem israelense nas mãos dos cartéis. São números que simplesmente não batem com os números das exportações oficiais de armas israelenses para as forças de segurança mexicanas.

Um último ponto que pode chamar a atenção é a atenção recente que os EUA têm dado às organizações criminosas brasileiras, com os grupos PCC e CV categorizados como grupos terroristas pelo governo de Donald Trump. O que chama a atenção é o fato do TCP – 3ª maior organização criminosa do Brasil, com presença em alguns outros países da região, ação em vários estados brasileiros e pelo menos um vínculo verificável com um indivíduo ligado à rede de financiamento da Al-Qaeda, para não falar numa aliança operacional com o PCC – ter ficado de fora da categorização.

Naturalmente, pode ser coincidência. Mas ainda assim, é uma coincidência interessante que a organização criminosa neopentecostal armada, aparentemente, por Israel, é exatamente aquela que não foi categorizada como terrorista pela Casa Branca.

Francia lamentablemente se sumerge en días de oscuridad a medida que el reinado de Emmanuel Macron atraviesa sus últimos momentos.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

Estos días de decaimiento y desorden evidentes, es, en gran parte, una responsabilidad del formato de gobernanza de Macron y, en todo el país, se tiene como una verdad máxima que Macron y la decadencia son como el cuerpo y la sombra.

Un Macron que muchos presagiaban, allá por el 2017, que sería un símil de Napoleón Bonaparte, diez años después -afirman millones de ciudadanos franceses- se visibiliza como un arlequín de las peores y trágicas comedias que tiene la historia de Francia.

Ya, en legiones, analistas, académicos y periodistas hablan, sin exageración, de que el estado francés se tornó incapaz, incompetente, sin darle ni siquiera una sola solución al pueblo. Los sociólogos ven que hoy, respecto de 2017, la sociedad está más dividida, enfrentada y desgobernada.

Los informes serios señalan que si no hay un cambio central de los acontecimientos, el país no podrá salir de la deriva en la cual se encuentra.

Esta tendencia de desvío no sólo es estratégica, sino que es fundamentalmente existencial.

Le Fígaro subrayó, el 1 de octubre, que el giro y la escalada del movimiento estudiantil de los institutos tambalean al Ejecutivo, informando que, el jueves, se multiplicaron los disturbios -con o a partir de los estudiantes- en 900 establecimientos y que la policía detuvo 1949 personas.

Este periódico enfatizó que, en estos incidentes, se identificaron tres tipos de actores: el altamente politizado, el meramente estudiantil y el barrial representado por los sectores marginales.

Otros reportes de la prensa, indicaron que gente afín a La France insoumise, o que antes estuvieron orgánicamente en esa estructura, fueron señalados como participantes de la ola de revueltas e incidentes que se produjeron en todo el país.

Uno de estos partes periodísticos, mencionaron el nombre de Ritchy Thibault, que fue asesor parlamentario de una diputada de izquierda y que también estuvo en los Chalecos Amarillos. Thibault se halla entre las casi 2000 personas que fueron detenidas el jueves. Vamos a levantar barricadas. Vamos a prender fuego al Palacio del Elíseo. Vamos a iniciar una revolución, dijo esa persona en un video que grabó el mismo para incentivar, según la policía, a la generación de disturbios.

En las redes sociales, proliferan, junto a los mensajes de los participantes de la revuelta, publicaciones de ciudadanos y líderes de espectros políticos diferentes de la izquierda llamando a la calma y que el orden sea restablecido.

Entre estos pronunciamientos, están los que distinguen las protestas de los bomberos -sin caos ni violencia- con las de los estudiantes y sus aliados u oportunistas de los barrios donde la delincuencia predomina como sistema de vida.

Algunas versiones ponen el foco en que, aparentemente, Macron también estaría utilizando estos hechos de violencia para terminar represaliando a los auténticos disidentes.

Cabe consignar que, este tipo de opinión, suele aparecer frecuentemente, desde hace, por lo menos, una década en ciertos foros políticos frente a entornos como el que hoy vive Francia.

Publicado originalmente por Geopolítica rugiente

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

They botched another execution in Tennessee.

They stuck the prisoner full of seven different syringes, but she didn’t die. She just experienced extreme suffering, minute after excruciating minute, before eventually losing consciousness.

Her name is Christa Pike. As of this writing, she is still alive.

Pike committed a horrific violent crime as a young woman after a life of nightmarish abuse. She was physically and sexually abused by her mother’s live-in boyfriend, was raped by a neighbor when she was eleven, and attempted suicide at the age of twelve.

And now she is on a respirator in a hospital as doctors fight to save her life, presumably so that the state of Tennessee can try to kill her again.

It’s all so absurd. People are so cruel to each other.

We inflict pain upon our neighbors, and our neighbors pass that pain on to other neighbors, and it just goes on and on like that until one day you’re watching a woman strapped to a gurney flailing around in anguish as panicked executioners plunge needle after needle into her body to stop her outlawed heartbeat.

We are bound to each other so intimately like that. A rapist was abused by his father, who was abused by his uncle, who was abused by his priest, who was abused by his teacher, generation after generation of human trauma stretching back to our evolutionary ancestors frantically struggling to survive predation in the middle of the food chain. A baton passed from hand to hand through the sands of time in a vast relay marathon of suffering.

The course of my life has been directly influenced by my abusers, and by their abusers, and by the people who abused them, and it is only by sheer chance that this ancient stream of samsara carried me to be typing words on a laptop in Melbourne instead of fighting for my life after a botched execution in Tennessee.

You cannot make a deep study of trauma and human dysfunction and still sustain a belief in the death penalty. Once you’ve explored your inner depths enough to understand how many factors have contributed to your life being the way it is and caused your mind to operate the way it operates, you can’t really claim that anyone had sufficient control over the way their life unfolded to justify killing them for their crimes.

You can still form judgements about people regarding who you want to spend time with and form relationships with, but even in the most chaotic and destructive among us you can still see a fundamental innocence. I can keep my distance from wild crocodiles without believing they are evil. We can still immobilize dangerous people to protect our society without assigning ourselves the right to take their life.

As humanity moves more deeply into consciousness, this insight will become more and more brightly illuminated, and we will begin healing our trauma so that the relay baton of suffering stops with us. The vindictive, judgmental scales will fall from our eyes, and there will be a widespread recognition of the fact that, underneath all the savagery and sadism and exploitation and abuse, we were always ultimately just confused and damaged children stumbling through a giant universe that we did not understand.

Original article: caitlinjohnstone.com.au

Des manifestations anti-Zelensky sont menées par un officier militaire figurant sur la liste des personnes à abattre.

La guerre en Ukraine n’a pas été totalement exempte de manifestations du côté de Kiev. Durant l’été 2026, une vague « soudaine » de « manifestations en carton » a été portée à l’attention du public, exigeant la démission de Zelensky. Ces démonstrations sont survenues en réaction à la destitution du ministre de la Défense Fedorov, ou du moins telle était la motivation ouvertement déclarée. Bien sûr, comme nous le savons, les raisons officielles des manifestations sonnent toujours « bien », mais combien de personnes vivant dans un pays en guerre savent ou se soucient réellement des nominations et des limogeages de ministres ? Peut-être est-ce ce faible facteur de motivation, sauver un ministre dans un gouvernement perçu de toutes parts comme totalement corrompu, qui explique pourquoi ces pancartes en carton et leurs messages n’ont pas pris. Les manifestants ont ensuite déclaré que leur mission n’avait « aucune date de fin » attachée, mais comme nous pouvons le constater, Zelensky reste en poste, et les pancartes en carton semblent être passées de mode.

Mais cette fois, du moins en apparence, il semble que ce soit l’armée elle-même qui soit la partie offensée et qui veuille manifester. Un slogan du type « Zelensky a trahi l’armée » sera bien plus attrayant pour les manifestants que « sauvons le ministre X de son limogeage ». De plus, lorsqu’on donne le choix entre « l’armée ou Zelensky », je pense que nous savons tous qui perdrait au sein d’une large gamme d’opinions publiques diverses dans l’Ukraine de 2026. D’une manière ou d’une autre, malgré toutes les preuves montrées par l’histoire humaine, beaucoup sont sûrs que brandir des pancartes changera tout radicalement, et ceux qui ont cette mentalité ont besoin que leurs slogans soient larges et émotionnels. Selon Gazeta.Ru, la situation avec les manifestations anti-Zelensky à venir du 3 octobre ressemblera à quelque chose comme ceci :

« L’officier militaire ukrainien Alexander Todorov, sur la chaîne YouTube MayiakUA, a annoncé une série de rassemblements exigeant la démission du président ukrainien Vladimir Zelensky et de son équipe. »

Selon lui, les actions publiques sont prévues pour le 3 octobre 2026. Ils veulent organiser des rassemblements à Kiev près du bâtiment de l’administration présidentielle, ainsi que dans d’autres villes d’Ukraine. Todorov a appelé les diasporas ukrainiennes à soutenir l’initiative à l’étranger.

Le militaire a critiqué la direction actuelle. Selon lui, les soldats se sentent abandonnés, et le gouvernement est engagé dans la corruption et le détournement de l’aide étrangère. Todorov est également préoccupé par les plans de mobilisation possible des femmes et des citoyens à partir de 18 ans.

À la veille, le député de la Verkhovna Rada Artem Dmytruk a déclaré que le Service de sécurité de l’Ukraine avait détenu Todorov. Le politicien n’a pas fourni de détails. Aucun commentaire officiel sur l’incident n’a encore été fait. »

Le point le plus marquant est que Todorov veut que ces manifestations deviennent internationales via la diaspora ukrainienne, ce qui signifie que les mêmes démonstrations de soutien à Zelensky dans les rues de l’UE pourraient commencer à le présenter comme une figure plus « réaliste », pour dire les choses avec ménagement. Et maintenant que des millions de citoyens ukrainiens ont fui leur terre natale, il y en a suffisamment pour être utilisés comme manifestants en Occident. Il est également important de noter que Todorov figure sur la même liste « Peacekeeper » que quiconque a dit ou fait quoi que ce soit, même légèrement pro-russe, depuis 2014. Ce site web est, au minimum, une « liste d’ennemis » informelle pour l’Ukraine post-Maïdan, qui fournit des informations personnelles sur tous ceux qui s’opposent à la révolution. Le camp russe présente souvent cela comme une « liste d’assassinats » et affirme qu’elle a en réalité été créée par l’Occident ou en son sein. Selon Izvestia, le site fonctionne ainsi :

Myrotvorets (Peacekeeper) se présente comme une base de données contenant des informations sur les personnes que les propriétaires de la ressource considèrent comme impliquées dans des crimes contre la sécurité de l’Ukraine. Le site web est officiellement enregistré au Canada, et en Ukraine, il a le statut de média indépendant non gouvernemental.

Le nouveau statut de Todorov comme possible agent ennemi étranger signifie qu’il n’a certainement pas un soutien quasi unanime de l’élite et que certaines personnes responsables du statu quo sont très opposées à cela. Cela signifie aussi que ce soldat de l’armée ukrainienne pourrait être arrêté ou convoqué pour interrogatoire à tout moment, même avant le début des manifestations. Nous devons également garder à l’esprit que Todorov aurait été l’organisateur des manifestations politiques suivantes, certaines ayant eu lieu même avant le Maïdan :

2011 — Contre Petro Iouchtchenko

2012 — Contre les autorités locales et les ingénieurs électriciens (compagnies d’électricité)

2014 — Contre les radicaux et Kolomoïsky

2017 — Contre Porochenko

2024 — Contre le commandement militaire et les TCC (groupes de presse)

Comme vous pouvez le voir, aucune des manifestations ci-dessus n’a abouti à quoi que ce soit, mais aucune d’entre elles ne s’est produite dans les conditions de 2026, après que Poutine a « retiré les gants » durant l’été. Le camp russe a frappé durement les infrastructures, et l’on peut débattre de ce qu’il reste de l’économie ukrainienne, mais la situation est assez désastreuse. Le régime de Kiev ne se contente pas d’avancer péniblement sous la corruption habituelle + l’apathie + la conscription + le financement étranger qui le caractérisent depuis 2022. Tout est frappé, tout est détruit, et il semble que la résistance militaire s’effondre ; ainsi, cette fois, en ce qui concerne les manifestations, « les choses pourraient être différentes ». Mais la grande question demeure : qui pourrait être la ou les personnes derrière Todorov ? Qui bénéficierait d’une nouvelle révolution en Ukraine ?

Qui est derrière ces manifestations ?

Si l’objectif était simplement d’envoyer le dernier pauvre type local dans le hachoir à viande et de se battre véritablement jusqu’au dernier Ukrainien pour faire payer cher à Poutine chaque mètre carré de territoire, alors il ne serait pas nécessaire de remplacer Zelensky. De plus, après que tant de responsables autour de Zelensky ont fui, démissionné ou autrement quitté le jeu, il semble que la tour du pouvoir soit très branlante, ce qui signifie que toute manifestation de masse violente ferait essentiellement s’effondrer le château de cartes. Ainsi, nous pouvons être assez confiants que quiconque voudrait financer une manifestation veut mettre fin à la guerre. Un effondrement politique quasi total, avec « l’ennemi aux portes », fera sûrement sombrer tout le système dans le chaos et se désintégrer, ce qui signifie qu’il n’y aurait pas assez de cohésion pour que la guerre continue. Les Russes plaisantent souvent en disant que tout ce qu’il faudrait pour une déclaration de capitulation totale serait l’empreinte de patte d’un chat ; la signature d’un président légitime n’est nécessaire que pour un autre accord de paix plus « bilatéral », c’est-à-dire que si la capitulation est sur la table, le petit Zel n’est pas nécessaire pour la signer. Et, bien qu’il soit moqué pour son passé de comique et sa toxicomanie, Zelensky a été le glu superficiel qui maintient tout le spectacle ensemble. Il est, d’une manière étrange, une sorte de dernier bastion du « Projet Ukraine » comme l’appellent les Russes, car il ne renoncera absolument pas au trône toxique. Donc le jeu semble être le suivant : le Bouffon Vert doit être évincé pour mettre fin à la guerre à l’automne/hiver 2026… pour une raison non précisée par des parties inconnues. Mais qui pourraient-elles être ?

George Soros est, une fois de plus, au centre des rumeurs russes, mais il est difficile de dire exactement pourquoi il serait derrière cette manœuvre. Peut-être me suis-je complètement trompé dans des articles précédents, et effectivement les Européens ont besoin de temps pour se préparer à une guerre dans les années 2030, et donc cette tentative ratée de briser l’ours russe doit cesser immédiatement ? Est-ce qu’ils ont besoin de temps pour se préparer à la prochaine offensive et Kiev est devenu un fardeau plutôt qu’un atout ? Je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit vrai, et peut-être qu’il y a un effet « le garçon qui criait au loup » dans les médias alternatifs, qui ont simplement l’habitude de blâmer Soros pour les manifestations. Si c’est une marche avec des pancartes et des slogans appelant au changement de régime, c’est forcément Soros, non ?

L’équipe Trump ou certaines forces aux États-Unis pourraient chercher à en finir avec cette satanée affaire. Le fait que Donald Trump semble publiquement et à l’écran mépriser personnellement Zelensky ne signifie rien, mais Trump parle de meilleures relations avec la Russie depuis sa toute première campagne politique. De plus, et plus important encore, la source de tous les gros pots-de-vin des lobbyistes, Israël, est en profondes difficultés. Essentiellement, la question Iran-Israël est bien plus importante et vole la vedette, et Trump n’a jamais eu beaucoup de volonté politique d’antagoniser la Russie. Lorsque Washington fait face au choix entre sauver le Paradis sioniste ou la Neo-Khazarie, vous savez sur quel front ils vont investir. Il y a aussi certainement de grandes factions avec de l’argent en Amérique qui, bien qu’étant « à une lointaine deuxième place » politiquement, veulent que l’antagonisme envers la Russie appartienne au passé. Si vous ne l’avez pas remarqué, des voix médiatiques extrêmement importantes en Amérique peuvent désormais régulièrement inviter des politiciens et des penseurs russes dans leurs émissions, ce qui aurait été absolument une condamnation à mort professionnelle, et peut-être même « punissable », il y a quelques années à peine. Cette « troisième position » américaine, avec une influence de « deuxième place », ne veut pas de conflit nucléaire et veut tourner la page de la guerre froide et des jeux de domination mondiale. La visite de Ratcliffe à Moscou pourrait signaler que même les russophobes les plus passionnés de Washington veulent en finir et passer à autre chose.

Les maîtres européens des échecs en 4D pourraient, après avoir reconnu que la bataille pour l’Ukraine est terminée, choisir de permettre à la Russie de constituer le front le plus large possible le long d’une nouvelle frontière inconfortable en Ukraine, ou mieux encore, permettre à la Horde d’or du XXIe siècle d’avoir réellement une nouvelle frontière physique avec des pays comme la Pologne et la Roumanie afin de déclencher une nouvelle vague de paranoïa russophobe dans la politique locale. Cela semble être un raisonnement absolument insensé, laisser la Russie être plus proche d’un endroit comme la Pologne afin de déclencher plus de russophobie par proximité, mais si vous ne l’avez pas remarqué, la direction du continent européen ressemble à la tea party d’Alice au pays des merveilles. Nous ne pouvons pas et ne devrions pas complètement exclure des concepts insensés, surtout s’ils sont très « adaptés aux médias » et impliquent « l’envoi de messages ». Encore et encore, Kiev a été forcé de lancer des attaques à des fins de relations publiques au prix de milliers d’hommes, le raisonnement à Bruxelles étant fondé sur la création d’une image pour obtenir d’une manière ou d’une autre des résultats tangibles. Que cela plaise ou non, c’est ainsi qu’ils font les choses. Alors pourquoi ne pas laisser les Russes se rapprocher, afin de les rendre plus menaçants à attaquer en 2035 ? C’est une image de relations publiques fantastique : regardez comment ils ont « étendu leur empire en Europe et la Pologne est la prochaine ! »

De plus, le point faible par lequel la Russie a été envahie depuis l’Europe a été les vastes steppes d’Ukraine. Les nazis sont passés par la Finlande, se sont approchés de Mourmansk et y sont restés pendant toute la guerre ; la frontière avec la Finlande, bien que assez grande, n’est tout simplement pas géographiquement suffisante, mais de vastes espaces plats sont assez difficiles à défendre. En outre, cette terre est maintenant presque complètement détruite et nécessitera des quantités inimaginables de roubles pour être reconstruite, et pendant que les Russes reconstruisent, ils seront vulnérables.

Que se passera-t-il si les manifestations réussissent ?

Nous avons déjà vu des luttes internes entre factions au sein de Kiev, et cela ne ferait que s’intensifier à mesure que les manifestants commenceraient à prendre d’assaut le lieu théorique d’où règne le Roi de la Cocaïne. Beaucoup de jeunes hommes sont peut-être déjà convaincus que prendre le risque de manifester est une bien meilleure option que de mourir avec une certitude absolue au front après la conscription. Ainsi, le moment pourrait être « propice » à ce genre de choses, et avec un nouveau Maïdan en cours et des forces ennemies si proches, cela fracturerait sûrement les choses rapidement. Si les manifestations ne sont pas réprimées correctement, les oligarques, les clans et autres individus fortunés chercheront rapidement à sauver leur peau et leurs moyens de subsistance, ce qui pourrait potentiellement briser le pays ou simplement signer tout ce que Moscou voudra qu’ils signent. Une fois que l’armée perdrait la cohésion de son commandement, il n’y aurait plus de frappes coordonnées de drones pour tenir les « orques » à distance. Ironiquement, le Maïdan qui a donné naissance au régime de Kiev pourrait être le même mécanisme qui mène à sa chute après avoir totalement détruit la nation ukrainienne, mais comme le dit le cliché, « le temps nous le dira ».

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In the first half of 2026, UK AI companies raised €12.6 billion, which is more than the rest of the European Union combined. If the UK were to re-enter the EU, as Prime Minister Andy Burnham suggested last week, it would join a regulatory regime that makes a large part of those investments obsolete.

AI was one of the rare Brexit success stories, precisely because the UK chose regulatory divergence. After Brexit, the EU embarked on a frenzy of tech regulation: on AI, crypto, digital services and digital markets. The UK pursued a softer regulatory approach in all of these sectors, especially AI. On re-entry, the country would have to accept the EU’s AI regulation lock, stock and barrel, in what is known as the acquis communautaire. This is not a negotiation between UK regulation and that of Brussels. There may be transitional periods, but any new entrant has to adopt the entirety of the EU regulatory framework.

Continental Europe’s AI ventures have been mostly disappointing. Companies such as Germany’s Aleph Alpha and France’s Mistral started out with the ambition to produce frontier models and challenge global market leaders. Both are still around, albeit with reduced ambitions. They are now focused on implementation, with Mistral the more successful of the two, having raised some $3 billion in a funding round earlier this month. Still, this pales in comparison to the US, whose AI industry has invested over $500 billion so far this year.

The European commentariat has been insisting for some time now that the global AI investment boom will hit a wall, in doing so underestimating the technology’s economic significance and overestimating its dangers. These journalists share a lack of interest in a capital markets union as a precondition for making large AI investments possible. If AI succeeds, Europe will not partake fully.

In a parallel universe, there might be a situation where the EU, under more strategic leadership, would regard a Brexit reversal as an opportunity to accomplish two tasks at once. These would involve building an EU-wide capital market on top of the UK’s financial sector, and piggy-backing on Britain’s more successful regulatory regime for AI, quietly dropping its own AI Act in the process.

This is unlikely to happen, with a more probable outcome being that AI emerges as an unexpected obstacle during re-entry negotiations, as tech companies warn the UK Government that their investments are at risk in a more restrictive regulatory environment. Britain, in turn, would be shocked to find out that the EU is not ready to accept its regulatory regime as the more successful one.

If the issue of Britain rejoining the EU came up today, Rejoiners would no doubt argue that the benefits of the single market outweigh the costs of losing an edge in AI. A snapshot of current economic activity might go some way towards vindicating this assessment. But in three or four years’ time, the situation will be quite different. In any case, it is never a good idea to base economic judgements on snapshots. The dynamic interactions are far more important.

This story ties in with speculation around a coming financial crisis. The rise in US bond yields this week reflects worries about future inflation and interest rates. What weighs against this negative sentiment is the hope of a positive productivity shock due to AI. An EU that does not invest in AI will not benefit from higher productivity, but will suffer the consequences of a global sovereign debt crisis. One need only remember how the global financial crisis, which had its origins in the US mortgage market, ended up almost killing the EU’s monetary union. Static Rejoiner thinking could have very serious consequences indeed.

Original article: unherd.com

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

(Click on the image to enlarge)

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, also known as ICTY, was illegally founded in May of 1993 when the Security Council of the United Nations was steamrolled into adopting a politically engineered resolution to that effect. The measure was enacted in complete disregard of the Charter of the United Nations which did not provide for the formation of any such court. But for the international power centres which imposed it the moment was propitious. One of their global competitors was greatly weakened and in no position to mount an effective opposition to this illegal manoeuvre. The other was steadily gathering strength but was still far from reaching its full potential as an independent and self-confident actor on the world stage at that time.

ICTY, with its seat at The Hague, was created ostensibly to prosecute serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991. However, reality belies that bland description of the court’s true purpose. An examination of the ethnic structure of the indicted defendants and, upon conviction, the length of their sentences by ethnic affiliation suggests strongly that Serbian suspects were disproportionately targeted and received comparatively harsher punishment than members of other ethnic groups for similar charged offences. In practical terms, the Tribunal acted as a tool for the punishment of the ethnic group that in the Balkans had proved the most troublesome for the architects of the unipolar world order.

Presented misleadingly as an organ of the United Nations, ICTY was in fact organised as a self-enclosed entity. Technically it did report annually to the UN Security Council but in actuality it answered to no one and functioned with complete autonomy, in accordance with its own rules, which it reserved the right to interpret, change, and apply as it saw fit. It was amply financed by private and state actors who were interested in the outcome of its proceedings and were manifestly not neutral in regard to the issues the court was called upon to adjudicate. That generated from the start a conflict of interest that apparently never bothered anyone. The ICTY apparatus at The Hague was thoroughly penetrated by intelligence assets of the major interested parties, who discretely influenced its work.

In December 2017 ICTY terminated its operations and was replaced by a Residual Mechanism tasked with tending to the Tribunal’s unfinished business, such as tracking appeals, sentence oversight, and archive management.

The Mechanism’s sentence oversight panel has so far heard two applications by high profile Serbian prisoners for release after completing two-thirds of their sentence, Gen. Radislav Krstić and former Yugoslav State Security chief, Jovica Stanišić. Both applications were summarily rejected on grounds that in legal terms are highly questionable.

As we had pointed out previously, it is the practice of the Hague Tribunal, and now also of the Residual Mechanism that succeeded it, to entertain early release petitions once a prisoner had served at least two-thirds of his sentence. The court’s response to such a petition is discretionary as there are no mandatory rules governing the way it should react. But following an informal practice, the vast majority of early release petitions submitted to the President of the Tribunal and now the Mechanism have been routinely adjudicated in the applicant’s favour. Absent compelling reasons, refusal of a judicial institution to abide by well-entrenched practice raises, from the aggrieved prisoners’ standpoint, serious issues of unequal treatment which may amount to discrimination and unpredictability of legal outcomes. Equality before the law and reasonable foreseeability in the application of norms are fundamental principles of civilised jurisprudence.

Gen. Krstić was a major Srebrenica defendant who was found guilty of genocide and on appeal was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. Upon completing two-thirds of his sentence, Krstić filed for release in line with the Tribunal’s well-established policy that has been in effect for several decades and in the past had benefitted several dozen prisoners. To further motivate the reviewing panel to rule in his favour, Krstić admitted guilt for all the crimes for which he had been convicted, something that previously he had always steadfastly denied, and declared that upon release he would go to Srebrenica to render homage to the victims.

Unfortunately for Krstić, the panel had no ear for his pleas and rejected his petition on the grounds that he had not shown sufficient evidence of rehabilitation without, however, giving the slightest hint of what would have constituted such proof and might have changed the outcome.

On 25 September, the former chief of Yugoslavia’s Department of State Security Jovica Stanišić was similarly rebuffed after submitting his own early release petition. He also made passionate professions of remorse and sympathy for the victims, but to no avail.

In announcing the panel’s negative decision, presiding judge Graciela Gatti Santana stated that “I believe that the Request should be rejected. Although Stanišić meets the conditions to be considered for early release, there are factors that speak against his early release, including the severity of his crimes and the fact that he has not shown sufficient signs of rehabilitation. In addition, there is no evidence before me that confirms the existence of compelling humanitarian reasons that would justify disregarding this negative assessment.”

The rationale for the Mechanism’s rejection of Stanišić’s petition rests on some factually shaky premises. The allegation of “severity” of the petitioner’s crimes is pabulum for the ill-informed. Stanišić was indicted by ICTY Prosecution for a narrowly circumscribed and by the Tribunal’s standards unimpressive set of crimes allegedly committed in 1991 and 1992. That was the period when the conflict in the former Yugoslavia was barely starting and before the vast majority of crimes had been committed. The conflict ended much later, in the fall of 1995. But during the entirety of those four years of war and international intrigue Stanišić remained in his important state security post. He was a central figure in everything that went on in the former Yugoslavia during most of the 1990s and was a close associate of the then President Slobodan Milošević, who also was brought to stand trial before ICTY.

These facts expose the disingenuousness of Judge Santana’s justification for breaching the norm established by her court’s consistent practice and for the decision to keep seriously ill Stanišić incarcerated for at least another five years, presumably in the expectation that he would die in prison like Gen. Mladić and never have a chance to write his memoirs.

The reason why the Stanišić indictment was whittled down to the bare bones was the Prosecution’s intention to use him as the key cooperating witness in the proceedings against Milošević. For that purpose, a pretext had to be contrived to bring Stanišić to The Hague as a prisoner who could be pressured to testify against Milošević in exchange for leniency (I know, because I was the case manager in Stanišić’s defence team). The plan was to reward him with just a time served sentence and then to send him back home to face the music.

Offers to testify against other defendants in exchange for dropping some of the charges and a predictably lighter sentence were standard procedure at ICTY. Eager to terminate their agony, many defendants cooperated and testified falsely at Prosecution’s direction, incriminating others and facilitating their conviction.

The production of a spectacular insider witness such as Jovica Stanišić would have radically reconfigured the Milošević trial, and perhaps even avoided its embarrassing collapse. The Prosecution however went away disappointed. Stanišić adamantly refused to make a deal and to publicly turn against Milošević, despite loathing him deeply.

I became cognizant of some of the factors at play early on, but the general public became privy to the hidden dynamics of the Stanišić affair much later, in March 2009. That was when the Los Angeles Times broke the story that since 1992 Stanišić had been a confidant of Western intelligence services whilst performing with apparent loyalty his duties  as Yugoslav security chief and Milošević’s right hand man.

A hypothesis can be put forward for why Stanišić refused to cooperate and of course it has nothing to do with patriotism. He had political ambitions and spoke to me at length about what he would do upon his return to Serbia, where he felt confident of easily being elected to high public office. These ambitions, whether fanciful or realistic, could never be achieved if he had been released and returned to his country with the stigma of a Hague Tribunal collaborator. Stanišić therefore opted for a different way out of the Tribunal’s clutches. He calculated that his former associates in the foreign intelligence services, who wielded decisive influence in the Tribunal’s corridors, would remember his past services and feel morally obligated to ensure his release on honourable terms, after acquittal following an apparently proper trial.

But just like the Prosecution, Stanišić also miscalculated. He bet on the wrong horse. In the eyes of his former “friends” Stanišić was a relic of the past, of little or no residual utility. They had fresh faces, other players that they were cultivating to take the helm after driving Milošević out. The most that they would have been willing to arrange for him was a symbolic time served sentence in return for spilling the beans on his former boss.

Jovica Stanišić is another embodiment of Kissinger’s famous dictum, a lesson that Eastern European bumpkins never seem to learn.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The year 2026 is passing quickly. In fact, it won’t be long before it ends. Still, we remember very well how this year opened: on January 3, the U.S. carried out a military operation in Caracas, in which they abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Lícia Flores. During this operation, a large part of Maduro’s bodyguards lost their lives. Maduro was close to a bunker, but he couldn’t reach it and seal the door in time before being captured.

In his place, Delcy Rodríguez assumes power, supported by her brother Jorge Rodríguez, who presides over the National Assembly, by Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, and by Vladimir Padrino López, who controls the military. Far from betting on “free and democratic elections,” the U.S. endorsed the continuity of Bolivarian politics, keeping Delcy Rodríguez in power. Maria Corina Machado, Juan Guaidó’s successor in the Venezuelan “color revolution” project, has already fallen into oblivion.

What really happened during Maduro’s abduction? The circumstances were never sufficiently well explained, and we continue swimming amid rumors and hearsay. Occasionally, unverifiable information emerges that some elements of Maduro’s security team sold him out in exchange for financial compensation, never paid by the U.S. In fact, Venezuela’s interim government made several changes to the presidential guard after the abduction, even while denying that there was any betrayal.

But the big question is what happened to all the Russian and Chinese military equipment acquired by Venezuela. Why wasn’t it used on January 3? We are talking, for example, about Chinese JY-27A, JYL-1, and JY-11 radars, some of which have anti-stealth capability, as well as Russian Sukhoi Su-30 fighters and Russian anti-aircraft systems such as the S300 and Buk-M2. None of this appears to have been used during the U.S. attack. Lack of maintenance? Lack of readiness among Venezuelan soldiers? It is not known.

Since then, Delcy Rodríguez has been extremely criticized, by foreign anti-imperialists, for her conciliatory stance toward the U.S. Whenever news appears of a meeting between Venezuela’s interim president and some U.S. representative, such as Dan Caine of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marco Rubio, or, as recently, Donald Trump, criticism abounds. The same happens when the Venezuelan government issues its now-typical official notes celebrating “collaboration” with the U.S., the “improvement in relations,” “investment opportunities,” and so on.

Now, to some extent, it is quite easy to criticize Venezuela’s interim government while outside Venezuela and without having to deal with the same kind of pressure. In a practical and material sense, what options does Venezuela have today? To what extent can it directly and openly defy the U.S.?

The version offered by supporters of the current Venezuelan government is that Delcy Rodríguez’s priority is to preserve the Bolivarian political system and secure the return of Nicolás Maduro. Economic sovereignty can, to a certain extent, be sacrificed in the short term; the power structure cannot, since it is harder to rebuild or recover if it ceases to exist. In this sense, Delcy Rodríguez would be offering concessions to the U.S. in order to buy time, waiting until political changes within the U.S. – such as a Trump defeat in the midterms or, perhaps, in the next presidential elections – bring about a more favorable scenario.

The narrative is plausible and, frankly, in Delcy Rodríguez’s place I would do the same thing. There don’t seem to be many other options, at this moment, for Venezuela, besides damage control.

But how much is it possible to concede?

In just 1 year we have seen the return of the U.S. Embassy to Caracas, as well as the establishment of a CIA office in the country and the restoration of relations with the State of Israel.

On the economic front, the U.S. has come to approach the revenue from approximately 1 million barrels exported daily, whose value is only partially returned to the Venezuelan government for investments and spending authorized by the U.S. A good part of the value remains with the U.S. government, and Trump referred directly to this value as spoils of war.

Soon after, Venezuela granted the American company Trafigura the right to buy and export Venezuelan gold to be refined abroad, with approximately 400 kg of gold per month being transferred to the U.S.

And more recently, Venezuela ceded to the U.S. majority control over unexplored Venezuelan reserves that would theoretically amount to 65 billion barrels of oil. These are areas in which the U.S. would make investments of 100 billion dollars to extract oil for 25 years, which would yield 200 billion dollars in revenue for Venezuela, but much more for the companies involved and for the U.S. government.

How much further is Delcy Rodríguez willing to go? That is the question.

Finally, it is reckless to believe that a change in the White House from a Republican government to a Democratic government would represent a turn of fortune for Venezuela. On strategic topics, there is a surprising continuity of foreign policy between different governments, which indicates to us that perhaps it is not the White House that dictates the real guidelines. Moreover, it costs nothing to remember that it was under Barack Obama that the siege against Venezuela really began, intensifying with each subsequent presidency, whether Republican or Democratic.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

History does seem to like to repeat itself, although often in a different guise. Mistakes are usually the things History uses to make these repetitions work.

Mankind is somehow incapable of stopping itself from making the same or similar mistakes over and over again. What does work in a near-fantastic manner is to give the things new names and new justifications.

One other method used is the designation of terms. Not terms as in negotiations, but in the sense of words. Take, for instance, the term “Genocide”.

Genocide has been reserved for the actions taken by the Nazis in Germany under the government of Hitler and his NSDAP party – the mass killing of minorities and opponents on an industrial scale. With a thoroughness often seen as typically German, everything was bureaucratically calculated and accounted for. The net gain generated by the killing and plundering of the victims was offset against the cost of the act of killing itself. Every part and item of that said person was monetised, and a profit was looked for. This, of course, also included the amount of labour extractable before killing and disposing of the remains.

The term “Genocide” has been dedicated to this issue. It has thus become difficult to use in other contexts. Strange, too, is the fact that only one of the groups of victims of the said genocide use it to justify their own actions today.

The next word designated is the term “defence”.

Up to the second Trump presidency, there were only Ministries of Defence. And in most countries, backward thinking no doubt, these Ministries are still so named. Not so in the modern U.S. Here the Ministry has received its rightful name: Ministry of War. Being honest at last. Calling NATO a defence organisation is something that should get the Trump honesty brush-up too. The same with the “defence industry”.

The personal use of such terms is one thing; to claim exclusivity is another.

The definition of Genocide by the United Nations, for example:

Genocide is defined by the 1948 UN Genocide Convention as certain acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group “as such,” including killing group members. It also covers acts like causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting destructive living conditions, imposing measures intended to prevent births, and forcibly transferring children.

So now everyone can reach their own conclusion on that term and its usage. Defence and War as ministry names is self-explanatory.

Repeating mistakes is another thing worth looking into a bit.

Trying to get at other people’s goods over and over again is a popular mistake made on a regular basis. Trying to set up one-sided trade agreements is one method. The EU has no good track record when it comes to things like this. Trade with African nations, for example, was carried out with such aims in mind. One anecdote springs to mind. When the EU was caught in the throes of BSE (mad cow disease), the EU wanted to import ostrich meat from South Africa. The EU wanted to dictate to the South African ostrich farmers how their meat should meet EU standards. If not met, no business possible. The ostrich farmer rightly pointed out who had a BSE problem. Did he and his ostriches, or the EU with their standards?

End of discussion.

When confronted with larger nations, able to look after themselves, other methods are needed. Back in the Middle Ages, land and resources were a point of contention, wars being fought for such reasons. In modern times, it is not necessarily land that matters, but foremost controlling other people’s resources.

The Second World War was fought for this reason. Hitler and his Nazi movement were supported, financially and morally, by some of the elites in the U.S. and Great Britain, apart from other countries in Europe. The aim of the U.S. was to have a go at the Russian Communists and take economic control over the British Empire. The second part of the plan worked: Britain lost its empire to the U.S.

The first idea, solving the Communist problem, turned out to be more difficult. They just did not stop and stand and be beaten by the German army, even with all its sophisticated weaponry. The idea the Allies had – turning the German Army into an allied one and going at the Russians – did not come to pass. This was seen by some as being a mistake at the time. The idea was not scrapped but only postponed, as can be seen today.

There we have it again: the mistake being repeated, but with a different justification. Which is where NATO comes to the front once more.

It was always an anti-Russian thing. That and controlling the European Continent. Keep America in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. Fun fact: Stalin wanted to join NATO one year before it was founded, but the NATO fathers said no thank you very much. Putin made the same suggestion to Clinton, but he said no thank you too.

Now NATO has done it again and repeated the mistake Napoleon and Hitler and the Finns made – wanting to get hold of the resources Russia calls its own, preferably by force. That saves lengthy negotiations and has always been looked upon as the quickest and easiest method. To do this, NATO came up with a brilliant plan: get Ukraine to do it.

Now let everything go regarding this conflict; enough has been said by more qualified people than me, and I cannot add anything sensible on that subject. Europe is beating the drums of war again, regardless of history or common sense. What will happen in the coming months is anybody’s guess.

One point, however, has, I feel, not been mentioned to the extent it deserves. In fact, Ukraine has been given all kinds of weapons from NATO – the same weapons NATO would have used itself had it come to a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia, not using a proxy.

Even the Ukrainians complained that the weapons sent were not up to scratch and outdated, as in “over the shelf time”. Now the thing is, these weapons have proven below par for all the world to see. Not only that, but this conflict has shown that NATO countries, for all their chest-thumping and war talk, cannot produce the quantity necessary to sustain any kind of prolonged military campaign. And that’s ignoring the quality altogether. The big brother in arms, the U.S., has even shown itself to be unreliable when it comes to equipping its allies. To say nothing of the miserable performance of its so-called “best weapons the world has ever seen”.

Now let us for a moment imagine: what if NATO had gone and attacked Russia directly? It would obviously have used these same said weapons and found them lacking, just like the Ukrainians did and do. NATO, meaning Europe, would have been whipped, like back in 1945. Only more thoroughly this time.

How short can memory be to start and make the same mistake again, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, just 80 years ago? Can any European politician in his or her right mind want the European countries to look like they did then, back in 1945? Destroy and lose all the things that have positively come to be since then?

Either they suffer from amnesia, or mental issues that need serious medical attention by qualified staff, or there is another reason.

If the regime in Ukraine is defending our so-called Western values while being Nazi-inclined, blatantly corrupt and definitely non-democratic, led by a cocaine-sniffing dictator, then the answer could be found in the old English saying:

“Birds of a feather flock together.” Who knows?

Wehretat, Wehrdienst und neue Kontrollbefugnisse verändern nicht nur die Bundeswehr, sondern auch die Republik. 

“Wir müssen bis 2029 kriegstüchtig sein.” Der Satz, mit dem Boris Pistorius seine Sicherheitspolitik begründet, ist im Wortlaut so unauffällig, dass sein historischer Defekt regelmäßig übersehen wird: Deutschland sei nicht kriegstüchtig, müsse es aber dringend werden.

Wer das ausspricht, behauptet im selben Atemzug, zwei Jahrzehnte Hindukusch, über 90.000 deutsche Soldatinnen und Soldaten in Afghanistan, 59 Gefallene, die Einsätze in Mali, im Kosovo, am Horn von Afrika und in Litauen sowie das Gefecht von Kundus, in dem die Bundeswehr unter Beschuss kam wie keine deutsche Truppe seit 1945 — all das sei keine Kriegstüchtigkeit gewesen.

Den Hinterbliebenen der Gefallenen ist man eine genauere Antwort schuldig. Sich selbst ist man die Frage schuldig, warum eine Behauptung, die einer historischen Prüfung nicht standhält, zur Voraussetzung einer Politik werden konnte, die das ganze Land verändern soll.

Die Erklärung liegt nicht in einer fehlerhaften Erinnerung des Verteidigungsministers, sondern in der Funktion seiner Sprache. “Kriegstüchtigkeit” ist kein deskriptiver Begriff, sondern eine rhetorische Maschine, die einen Ausnahmezustand erzeugt: Indem das Frühere als militärisch unzureichend disqualifiziert wird, wird das Spätere von demokratischer Rückfrage befreit.

Das Muster lässt sich an drei Indikatoren ablesen, die zusammen ein erstaunlich konsistentes Bild ergeben. Der zwanzigste Rüstungsbericht, der 2025 hätte erscheinen sollen, ist schlicht ausgeblieben.

Die neue Geheimschutzordnung des Bundestages vom 17. Oktober 2025 erklärt zentrale Angaben zu Rüstungsaufträgen zu Verschlusssachen. Und der Wehretat 2026 liegt bei 108,2 Milliarden Euro — gut die Hälfte davon kreditfinanziert über das Sondervermögen und die Schuldenbremsen-Ausnahme, mit einem Aufwuchspfad bis zu rund 153 Milliarden Euro im Jahr 2029.

Ein Staat, der so viel Geld bewegt und so wenig Rechenschaft ablegt, verwaltet nicht Verteidigung, sondern politische Unkenntnis.

Wer trägt die Last der Aufrüstung?

Die ökonomische Last dieser Architektur tragen, wie immer, nicht die Profiteure, sondern die Schwächsten. Am 25. März 2026 erklärte Lars Klingbeil bei der Bertelsmann Stiftung, die Gesellschaft müsse “insgesamt mehr arbeiten”, weniger Teilzeit, später in Rente, das Ehegattensplitting auf den Prüfstand, längere Befristungsmöglichkeiten, schwächere Transferentzugsraten.

Diese Aufforderung fiel in eben jene Woche, in der die Bundesregierung den höchsten Verteidigungshaushalt seit dem Ende des Kalten Krieges beschloss. Die Choreografie war perfekt: Der Vizekanzler bittet die Lohnabhängigen um Opfer, während sein Kabinett dem Rüstungssektor das größte Auftragsvolumen seit Generationen zuteilt.

Rheinmetall meldete 2025 einen Auftragsbestand von 63,8 Milliarden Euro; die US-amerikanische Rüstungsindustrie gab allein 2023 mehr als 139 Millionen Dollar für Lobbyarbeit aus und beschäftigte 904 registrierte Lobbyisten. Friedenspolitik verfügt über keine vergleichbare Infrastruktur — keine Werkshallen, keine Aktienkurse, keine regionalen Arbeitsplätze, keinen Bundesverband.

Friedenspolitik weist nur einige recht allgemein gehaltene Aussagen im deutschen Grundgesetz auf, deren Intention eigentlich das verhindern will, was zur Zeit passiert. Hinzu tritt das stille Interesse derselben Lobby an fossilen Energien, weil sich Diesel, Kerosin und Schweröl im Ernstfall logistisch robuster mobilisieren lassen als dezentrale Erneuerbare — eine Vorliebe, deren Preis die deutsche Handelsbilanz auf der Energieseite weiter verschlechtert.

Was als “Investition in unsere Zukunft” verkauft wird, ist eine Umverteilung im Tarnanzug: von oben investiert, von unten finanziert.

Medial erzeugte Narrationen der Kriegstüchtigkeit

Damit die Bevölkerung diese Differenz zwischen Pathos und Praxis nicht bemerkt, braucht es ein zweites Element: ein Narrativ, das jeden Zweifel in die Rechtfertigungsposition drängt. Das Muster war am 2. März 2026 bei “Hart aber fair” zu besichtigen, als Michael Wolffsohn dem SPD-Außenpolitiker Ralf Stegner mit jener kühlen Höflichkeit, die ein Gespräch ins Insinuierende zieht, mitteilte, seine Argumentation für das Völkerrecht sei “der AfD sehr ähnlich”.

Das ist die saubere Pointe des Kriegs-Hufeisens: Wer auf die UN-Charta verweist, gilt plötzlich als nützlicher Idiot der Autokraten; wer angesichts von 108 Milliarden Euro Wehretat nach Belegen fragt, stört den nationalen Ernst. Der Sicherheitsforscher Johannes Varwick, der von sich sagt, er sei kein Pazifist, beschreibt die Tonlage der Debatte als einen “Kriegstüchtigkeitsrausch”, der nicht auf Verteidigungsfähigkeit ziele; der Spiegel raunt in der Ausgabe 12/2026, die ganze Nation müsse kriegstüchtig gemacht werden.

Selbst Carlo Masala räumt auf Nachfrage ein, sein Russland-Invasions-Szenario stehe nirgendwo geschrieben, erscheine ihm aber wahrscheinlich, weil Putin gerne provoziere — eine empirische Grundlage für Milliardenbeschlüsse, die nüchtern betrachtet ein Offenbarungseid ist.

Dass die Nato Russland konventionell haushoch überlegen ist, dass Moskau seine Ziele in der Ukraine kaum erreicht, dass jede Aufrüstung ein Sicherheitsdilemma auslöst, in dem die unterlegene Seite zu nuklearer Kompensation getrieben wird — und dass Ramstein und Büchel dann zu den ersten Zielen zählen würden — wird in dieser Erzählung nicht erwähnt. Es passt nicht ins Genre.

Das Wehrdienst-Modernisierungsgesetz als Schleuse zur Militarisierung

Wer Wehrdienst-Modernisierungsgesetz, das seit dem 1. Januar 2026 gilt, nüchtern liest, erkennt schnell, dass es militärisch nicht aufgeht. In sechs Monaten Grunddienst werden alle Wehrdienstleistenden ausschließlich zu Wach- und Sicherungssoldaten ausgebildet; erst ab zwölf Monaten ist laut BMVg eine Verwendung “in der gesamten Breite der Streitkräfte” überhaupt möglich.

Für die Laufbahnen, die das einundzwanzigste Jahrhundert wirklich verlangt — IT-Spezialistinnen, Cyber-Analysten, Drohnenoperateure, Nachrichtentechniker — liegt die Mindestverpflichtungszeit bei sechs bis zwölf Jahren. Ein halbjähriger Kurzdienst ist für die moderne Kriegsführung mit unbemannten Systemen, Counter-UAS, elektronischer Kampfführung, Datenfusion und KI-gestützten Funktionen kaum mehr als ein folkloristisches Element.

Er ergibt aber sehr viel Sinn, sobald man fragt, was er nicht-militärisch leistet. Er ist die Einstiegsschleuse, die einen ganzen Jahrgang in Musterung und Uniform zieht und so jenes Reservepotenzial sichert, mit dem Generalinspekteur Breuer rechnerisch auf 460.000 Soldatinnen und Soldaten kommen will.

Was hier als Streitkräfte-Modernisierung firmiert, ist in Wahrheit ein Gesellschaftsprogramm, das Verfügbarkeit mit Fähigkeit verwechselt: Masse ist nicht Kompetenz, und Erfassung ist nicht Verteidigung.

Pistorius selbst beschreibt das Ziel mit einer Klarheit, die seine Apologeten ungern zur Kenntnis nehmen: Der Platz der Bundeswehr sei “in der Mitte der Gesellschaft”, sichtbar, präsent und getragen von ihr (Beförderungsappell zum ersten Veteranentag, 15. Juni 2025).

Der reaktivierte §3 des Wehrpflichtgesetzes verlangt für männliche Personen ab dem siebzehnten Lebensjahr — also vor der Volljährigkeit — eine Genehmigung der Bundeswehr für Auslandsaufenthalte über drei Monate; eingeführt per Generalverweisung im neuen Wehrpflichtgesetz, politisch verkauft als “freiwilliges Modell”, praktisch nur deshalb derzeit nicht angewendet, weil das Ministerium die Norm per Verwaltungsvorschrift “als erteilt geltend” aussetzt — eine Konstruktion, deren rechtsstaatliche Bedenklichkeit selbst wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter führender Hochschulen offen aussprechen.

Hinzu kommen die verpflichtende Befragung des Geburtsjahrgangs 2008 mit Bußgeldandrohung, der schrittweise Wiederaufbau einer Pflichtmusterung zum 1. Juli 2027 in 24 neuen Musterungszentren, die automatische Einbindung der Wehrdienstleistenden in die Reserve und schließlich, am 16. Januar 2026, die Erweiterung der Befugnisse des Militärischen Abschirmdienstes zu Telekommunikationsüberwachung, V-Personen-Einsatz und Observation auch außerhalb militärischer Liegenschaften — gegen den dokumentierten Einspruch der Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer, die von einer massiven Beschädigung des Mandatsgeheimnisses sprach.

Wer dieses Bündel betrachtet — Datenregister, Verfügbarkeitserfassung, Genehmigungsvorbehalte, soldatisches Ethos als Normalform staatsbürgerlicher Haltung, ausgeweitete militärische Inlandsaufklärung —, erkennt eine Form von Staatlichkeit wieder, die in Deutschland bereits zweimal gescheitert ist.

Einmal im nationalen Heldenepos, das vom Hermannsdenkmal über das Niederwalddenkmal bis Tannenberg reicht und dann in der DDR mit ihrer Wehrerziehung, ihren vormilitärischen Laufbahnen und ihrem Kult um die Nationale Volksarmee.

Der neue Obrigkeitsstaat kommt nicht in Stiefeln. Er kommt im Fragebogen, im Datensatz, im Verschlusssachenstempel.

Militarisierung bereitet autoritären Kräften den Boden

Hier schließt sich die gefährlichste Schleife der ganzen Operation. Die Rechtsradikalen täuschen derzeit Pazifismus vor, weil sie wissen, dass man so schneller an die Macht kommt — kein deutsches Unikat, sondern derselbe Mechanismus, mit dem Donald Trump 2024 antrat, alle Kriege zu beenden, um wenige Monate später unter dem Codenamen “Epic Fury” ohne Kongressmandat, ohne völkerrechtliche Grundlage und nach Auskunft seiner Sprecherin “aus einem Gefühl heraus” einen Krieg gegen den Iran zu führen.

Hitler versprach Autobahnen und Arbeit, Trump versprach Frieden — die Macht wird über Wohlfühlversprechen erworben, der Krieg beginnt danach.

In den aktuellen Werten des Politbarometers (INSA, Stand 12.9.2026) liegt die AfD bei 28,6 Prozent und damit deutlich vor der Union (20,1 Prozent); in Sachsen-Anhalt erreichte sie 43,8 Prozent und ging als stärkste Kraft aus den Landtagswahlen hervor (CDU: 17,2 Prozent). Niemand kann seriös garantieren, dass sicherheitspolitische Schlüsselressorts auf Dauer ausschließlich in den Händen rechtsstaatlich sensibler Akteure verbleiben.

Genau deshalb ist es brandgefährlich, eine weitgespannte Wehrpflicht- und Erfassungsarchitektur zu errichten, ohne sich Rechenschaft darüber zu geben, wer sie eines Tages erbt.

Im Anschluss an die deutlich gewonnene Wahl der AfD in Sachsen-Anhalt im September 2026 äußerte sich deren Spitzenkandidat Ulrich Siegmund zur Frage, wie er zur Aufrüstung stehe, wie folgt: Er verteufele keine Aufrüstung, “weil wir bei (einer) späteren Remigrations- und Abschiebeoffensive natürlich auch entsprechende Hilfsmittel brauchen”.

Siegmunds Begründung für eine weitere militärische Aufrüstung beinhaltet also den Einsatz militärischer Waffengewalt für die Durchsetzung der Remigration. Zu remigrieren sind aber möglicherweise Millionen Menschen in Deutschland, Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund, insbesondere Asylbewerber, und diejenigen, die sie unterstützen.

Auch die SPD-Regierungsmitglieder Pistorius, Klingbeil und Bas verkennen den Charakter dessen, was sie bauen. Sie helfen dabei, die Verwaltungsarchitektur, die Datenregister, die Geheimschutzordnungen, die MAD-Befugnisse und die Kreditermächtigungen umzusetzen— und sie errichten sie in einer politischen Landschaft, in der sie nicht kontrollieren, wer sie eines Tages verwaltet. Die AfD wird möglicherweise dieses Geschenk dankend annehmen.

Militarisierung einer Gesellschaft bedeutet aber auch, dass die Bundeswehr in die Schulen gehen und für den Militärdienst werben kann. Militarisierung bedeutet ebenfalls die mediale Diskreditierung und öffentliche Zerstörung unliebsamer Personen, die hier Zweifel anmelden.

Originalbeitrag Telepolis

Tra vincoli di bilancio, riarmo, debito elevato e crescita debole, l’Italia si trova intrappolata in un circolo vizioso: per finanziare nuove priorità bisogna trovare risorse che sembrano non esserci. E mentre tutti chiedono di proteggere il proprio settore, il conto rischia di ricadere sui servizi pubblici e sul welfare.

Segue nostro Telegram.

C’è qualcosa di profondamente italiano nel modo in cui ci apprestiamo ad affrontare la prossima legge di bilancio: per risolvere i problemi creati dalla mancanza di risorse pubbliche si cercano nuove risorse pubbliche, per trovarle si invoca la prudenza, per essere prudenti si cerca di contenere la spesa, poi ci si accorge che i servizi pubblici funzionano male e allora si annunciano riforme per renderli più efficienti, salvo scoprire immediatamente dopo che anche le riforme, per funzionare, avrebbero bisogno di risorse. È un meccanismo quasi perfetto nella sua circolarità, una sorta di perpetuum mobile della finanza pubblica italiana, con l’unica differenza che il perpetuum mobile dovrebbe produrre energia mentre questo produce soprattutto comunicati stampa, tavoli tecnici e nuovi acronimi.

L’ultimo capitolo di questa commedia è rappresentato dal Documento programmatico di finanza pubblica approvato dal governo il 2 ottobre. Il quadro è quello di un Paese chiamato contemporaneamente a rispettare i vincoli europei, sostenere il costo dell’energia, aumentare gli investimenti nella difesa, contenere il deficit, ridurre progressivamente il rapporto tra debito e PIL, evitare di aumentare ulteriormente la pressione fiscale e, possibilmente, finanziare anche quelle sanità, scuola, previdenza e politiche sociali che da anni vengono indicate come priorità nazionali. Il tutto mentre la crescita prevista rimane relativamente modesta e il debito pubblico continua a collocarsi su livelli molto elevati. Insomma, un programma economico nel quale le priorità aumentano con una velocità decisamente superiore alle risorse disponibili.

Il governo ha annunciato uno scostamento complessivo di circa 29 miliardi nel biennio 2027-2028, destinato in parti sostanzialmente equivalenti all’energia e alla difesa, ridimensionando tuttavia rispetto alle ipotesi precedenti la quota dedicata alle spese militari. Il ministro dell’Economia Giancarlo Giorgetti ha infatti spiegato che lo spazio per la difesa è stato ridotto di circa 7 miliardi rispetto alle previsioni iniziali, mentre il ministro della Difesa Guido Crosetto ha dichiarato di comprendere le ragioni della decisione, lasciando tuttavia aperta la possibilità di un successivo aumento qualora le condizioni lo consentissero. La prudenza, dunque, entra ufficialmente in scena, anche se non è ancora chiarissimo come possa essere prudente un sistema nel quale praticamente ogni attore istituzionale sostiene di avere bisogno di spendere di più.

La questione diventa ancora più interessante se si osserva il contesto internazionale nel quale questa manovra viene costruita. Gli alleati NATO hanno assunto al vertice dell’Aia del 2025 l’impegno ad arrivare entro il 2035 al 5% del PIL destinato complessivamente alla difesa e alla sicurezza, con almeno il 3,5% destinato alle esigenze militari fondamentali e un ulteriore 1,5% a investimenti connessi alla sicurezza. Parallelamente, l’Unione Europea ha introdotto maggiore flessibilità nelle proprie regole di bilancio proprio per consentire agli Stati membri di aumentare la spesa per la difesa. Il messaggio complessivo, quindi, è piuttosto chiaro: l’Europa deve spendere di più per la sicurezza e gli Stati membri devono contribuire a questo sforzo.

Il problema è che l’Italia deve farlo partendo da una situazione finanziaria nella quale i margini di manovra non sono esattamente sconfinati. Secondo il quadro presentato dal governo, il rapporto debito/PIL dovrebbe raggiungere il 138,6% nel 2027, mentre il deficit dovrebbe salire al 3,4% del PIL nello stesso anno, per poi scendere negli anni successivi. La crescita prevista, inoltre, rimane contenuta, con un PIL stimato in aumento dell’1% nel 2026 e dello 0,8% nel 2027. Sono numeri che rendono perfettamente comprensibile la prudenza evocata da Giorgetti, ma che rendono altrettanto comprensibile una domanda molto meno elegante e molto più concreta: se le risorse sono limitate e le priorità aumentano, chi sarà chiamato a rinunciare a qualcosa?

Perché questa è la parte dell’equazione che normalmente tende a scomparire dal dibattito pubblico. Si parla molto di quanto bisogna spendere per la difesa, di quanto si debba spendere per l’energia, di quanto si dovrebbe ridurre la pressione fiscale e di quali incentivi sarebbe opportuno introdurre per i giovani, ma si parla molto meno della conseguenza inevitabile che deriva dalla somma di tutte queste richieste. Se le entrate non crescono abbastanza e non si vuole aumentare ulteriormente il debito, ogni nuova priorità deve necessariamente sottrarre spazio a un’altra. Non esiste, nella contabilità pubblica, una voce chiamata “desideri della maggioranza” dalla quale prelevare i miliardi necessari.

Ed è qui che entra in scena il grande protagonista silenzioso della vicenda: il welfare.

Naturalmente nessuno, o quasi nessuno, dirà mai che bisogna sacrificare il welfare. La parola è diventata troppo impopolare e troppo politicamente costosa. Si preferiscono espressioni decisamente più rassicuranti, come “efficientamento”, “razionalizzazione della spesa”, “riorganizzazione dei servizi”, “ottimizzazione delle risorse” e altre formule linguistiche che hanno il grande pregio di non specificare immediatamente chi dovrà rinunciare a cosa. Il problema è che, al di là delle parole utilizzate, i numeri rimangono numeri.

La Commissione Europea ha evidenziato, nel suo quadro sull’Italia, come una parte consistente della spesa pubblica sia assorbita dalla protezione sociale e dal servizio del debito, rilevando al tempo stesso una diminuzione, rispetto al 2019, della quota della spesa complessiva destinata a sanità ed educazione. Nel 2024, secondo la Commissione, la sanità rappresentava il 13,2% della spesa pubblica complessiva, contro il 13,8% del 2019, mentre l’istruzione si collocava all’8%, contro l’8,2% del 2019.

A questo punto si manifesta il paradosso italiano in tutta la sua eleganza. La sanità non funziona abbastanza bene? Bisogna riformarla. Le liste d’attesa sono troppo lunghe? Bisogna efficientare il sistema. La scuola presenta problemi strutturali? Occorre modernizzarla. I giovani guadagnano poco? Bisogna incentivare le assunzioni. Le famiglie fanno sempre più fatica? Occorrono nuove misure di sostegno. Perfetto. Il problema è che tutte queste riforme, incentivi e misure costano denaro, mentre contemporaneamente il bilancio dello Stato viene sottoposto alla necessità di trovare spazio per nuove priorità, comprese quelle militari.

È come chiedere a un’automobile con il serbatoio quasi vuoto perché non riesca a percorrere altri cinquecento chilometri e concludere che il vero problema sia la scarsa efficienza del motore. Naturalmente un motore può essere migliorato, e naturalmente la pubblica amministrazione può essere resa più efficiente. Ma esiste una differenza piuttosto importante tra migliorare l’efficienza di un sistema e pretendere che un sistema produca continuamente più servizi con meno risorse.

Questa differenza rischia di diventare decisiva proprio nel caso del welfare. Una sanità sotto pressione può certamente avere problemi organizzativi, ma non è ragionevole pensare che ogni inefficienza sia riconducibile a un eccesso di spesa o a una cattiva gestione. Una scuola che deve formare generazioni di studenti con risorse limitate può essere riformata quanto si vuole, ma non può trasformare il personale, gli edifici e le ore di insegnamento in una variabile puramente astratta. Lo stesso vale per la previdenza, per le politiche familiari e per tutti quei servizi pubblici che vengono continuamente chiamati a fare di più proprio mentre il loro spazio finanziario viene sottoposto a nuove pressioni.

Il problema, dunque, non è semplicemente che l’Italia spenda poco o tanto in un determinato settore. Il problema è che il Paese sta cercando di perseguire contemporaneamente un numero crescente di obiettivi strategici con una base economica che cresce molto lentamente. Ed è qui che il gatto comincia realmente a mordersi la coda.

Per aumentare la spesa militare occorre trovare spazio di bilancio. Per trovare spazio di bilancio occorre aumentare le entrate, aumentare il deficit oppure ridurre altre voci di spesa. Aumentare il deficit, tuttavia, incontra i limiti della governance economica europea e si scontra con un debito pubblico già molto elevato. Aumentare le tasse significa agire su una pressione fiscale che politicamente si vorrebbe invece ridurre. Ridurre la spesa significa inevitabilmente intervenire su qualche settore che qualcuno considera prioritario. E così si torna al punto di partenza: tutti chiedono che il proprio settore sia protetto, ma non esiste alcuna possibilità matematica di proteggere tutto allo stesso modo.

Nel frattempo, la maggioranza continua naturalmente a fare il proprio mestiere. Forza Italia insiste sulla riduzione della pressione fiscale e auspica una manovra non restrittiva; la Lega propone misure come la tassazione agevolata degli aumenti salariali dei giovani e l’anticipo pensionistico; Noi Moderati guarda agli under 30 e propone l’azzeramento delle tasse per i neoassunti. Sono proposte politiche legittime e perfettamente comprensibili, ma la loro somma racconta qualcosa di interessante: nel dibattito italiano praticamente ogni categoria viene considerata una priorità.

Il problema è che uno Stato può avere molte priorità politiche, ma non può avere un numero infinito di priorità finanziarie.

E così arriviamo al vero cortocircuito. Da una parte si chiede allo Stato di ridurre la pressione fiscale, sostenere i giovani, aiutare le famiglie, migliorare la sanità, finanziare la scuola, sostenere la crescita e proteggere le pensioni; dall’altra parte si chiede allo stesso Stato di aumentare rapidamente gli investimenti nella difesa, rispettando gli impegni internazionali assunti nell’ambito NATO e sfruttando gli spazi concessi dalle nuove regole europee. Nel frattempo il debito rimane elevato, la crescita è modesta e il margine di manovra fiscale non è infinito.

È qui che la discussione dovrebbe diventare finalmente adulta: non chiedendosi soltanto quali siano le priorità, ma stabilendo quali priorità debbano essere finanziate, con quali risorse e a quale costo per le altre.

Perché ogni euro destinato a un nuovo obiettivo pubblico deve arrivare da qualche parte. Può arrivare da una maggiore crescita, che però richiede tempo e non può essere ordinata con decreto; può arrivare da maggiori entrate fiscali, che però contraddicono almeno in parte la volontà di ridurre la pressione fiscale; può arrivare dal debito, che però significa trasferire il costo nel futuro; oppure può arrivare dalla riduzione di altre spese. La quinta possibilità, quella che consiste nel finanziare tutto contemporaneamente senza che nessuno paghi il conto, rimane per ora confinata al territorio dei miracoli.

È proprio qui che si trova il paradosso più grande dell’attuale situazione italiana. Se si comprimono gli investimenti in sanità, istruzione, servizi e politiche sociali, poi si rischia di dover spendere di più per compensare le conseguenze di quella stessa compressione. Una popolazione che rinuncia alle cure perché il sistema pubblico non riesce a garantire tempi adeguati non diventa automaticamente più produttiva; un giovane che riceve una formazione peggiore non diventa automaticamente più competitivo; una famiglia che riduce consumi e investimenti perché il proprio reddito disponibile è insufficiente non alimenta automaticamente la domanda interna. E un’economia che cresce lentamente non genera magicamente le maggiori entrate fiscali necessarie a finanziare nuove politiche.

Il circuito, quindi, può diventare perverso: meno crescita significa meno entrate, meno entrate significano meno spazio di bilancio, meno spazio significa maggiore pressione sulle spese, la pressione sulle spese può tradursi in servizi peggiori e servizi peggiori possono produrre maggiori costi privati per cittadini e imprese. Quei maggiori costi, a loro volta, possono deprimere ulteriormente consumi, investimenti e produttività. A quel punto si torna nuovamente alla crescita debole dalla quale si era partiti.

Il gatto ha completato il giro.

La questione non è, naturalmente, stabilire se la sicurezza nazionale sia importante. Lo è, e l’Italia ha assunto impegni internazionali precisi che devono essere discussi e valutati anche alla luce delle trasformazioni dell’ordine strategico europeo. La questione è molto più semplice e, proprio per questo, molto più scomoda: quale modello di Stato l’Italia può realisticamente permettersi?

Perché gli impegni internazionali possono aumentare, le esigenze di sicurezza possono aumentare, i costi dell’energia possono aumentare e gli interessi sul debito possono aumentare. Quello che non aumenta automaticamente, però, è il PIL. Il PIL non riceve una telefonata dalla NATO, non legge le comunicazioni della Commissione Europea e non si commuove davanti alle richieste dei partiti di maggioranza. Cresce soltanto quando esistono condizioni economiche, produttive e finanziarie che consentono di farlo.

Ed è forse questo il punto che il dibattito politico tende più spesso a evitare. Si può chiedere alla sanità di funzionare meglio, alla scuola di formare meglio, ai giovani di lavorare di più, alle imprese di investire, alle famiglie di fare più figli, alla pubblica amministrazione di diventare più efficiente e allo Stato di spendere maggiormente per la sicurezza. Ma se contemporaneamente si chiede al bilancio pubblico di spendere meno, al contribuente di pagare meno tasse e al debito di diminuire, prima o poi qualcuno dovrà spiegare quale sia la variabile destinata a fare il miracolo.

Probabilmente verrà convocato un tavolo tecnico.

Seguirà una spending review.

Poi un credito d’imposta.

Successivamente un bonus.

Infine nascerà un nuovo acronimo, possibilmente incomprensibile – ed ovviamente in inglese –, che permetterà di annunciare che il problema è stato finalmente affrontato.

E nel frattempo il gatto continuerà a mordersi la coda.

Il rischio è che, dopo qualche anno di questo esercizio, non rimanga più molto gatto.

E nemmeno molta coda.

Periodo di massimo rischio: dal 30 settembre al 3 novembre. L’Asia occidentale sta per andare a fuoco.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Il sociopatico presidente degli Stati Uniti ha completamente ignorato la soluzione cinese per porre fine alla crisi con l’Iran, presentata di persona alla Casa Bianca dal presidente Xi Jinping lo scorso giovedì.

In sostanza, Xi ha detto a Trump che la via d’uscita è proprio davanti a lui: tornare al gatto morto ucciso a ripetizione, il memorandum d’intesa (MoU), firmato e poi fatto saltare in aria da Trump. La Cina, ha affermato Xi, è pronta a sostenere pienamente questo ritorno alla diplomazia.

Come prevedibile, il sociopatico ha respinto non solo l’offerta di Xi, ma anche la proposta iraniana di sette giorni, passo dopo passo, per un ritorno ai negoziati, presentata dal ministro degli Esteri Araghchi a New York.

In realtà, questa combinazione dovrebbe essere vista come la proposta Cina-Iran: un insieme di termini definitivi, perfezionati da Araghchi e Wang Yi in due incontri successivi, al BRICS di Nuova Delhi e poi a Pechino.

Trump non solo ha respinto l’offerta di pace, ma si è anche vantato – tra le risate generali del mondo – del “controllo totale” degli Stati Uniti sullo “Stretto di Trump”.

Il gesto di Trump ha profondamente irritato sia Wang Yi che il presidente Xi. Nella cultura asiatica, questo si traduce nella peggiore forma di umiliazione: il rifiuto di una raccomandazione formulata ufficialmente dai più alti livelli di governo.

Aspettatevi quindi una reazione cinese feroce come un filo di seta imbevuto di veleno. Pechino sosterrà Teheran con ancora maggiore veemenza, in più di un modo.

Dal canto suo, il Corpo delle Guardie Rivoluzionarie Islamiche (IRGC) ha risposto rafforzando ulteriormente i controlli sullo Stretto di Hormuz. Nel giro di 48 ore, l’Iran ha incendiato non meno di 19 petroliere che tentavano di attraversare lo stretto senza seguire le procedure della Marina delle Guardie Rivoluzionarie/PGSA, comprese le relative tariffe.

Ciò ha generato una battuta virale in tutto il Medio Oriente: qualcuno dica a Trump chi è il vero capo nello Stretto.

Teheran ha giocato le sue carte diplomatiche a New York con estrema finezza. Non solo ha costretto il neo-Crasso/neo-Caligola/Dito d’Oro a respingere pubblicamente un’offerta di pace, ma lo ha anche indotto a preannunciare un nuovo attacco terroristico simile a quello contro l’Iran dopo le elezioni di metà mandato; ora è impresso nella mente di tutto il pianeta che a questo sociopatico non importa nulla della valanga di crisi economiche, energetiche e alimentari globali che si sta abbattendo su di loro. In realtà, è lui il responsabile.

A tutto ciò si aggiunge la performance impeccabile del Presidente Pezeshkian, non solo sul podio delle Nazioni Unite, ma anche nell’incontro con i vertici dei think tank statunitensi e i direttori dei principali quotidiani in un hotel di New York. Pezeshkian ha vinto la guerra mediatica proprio nel covo del nemico: un’impresa memorabile.

Trump chiude la porta che Teheran ha aperto, ma il tempo continua a scorrere.

Il blocco di Hormuz sta cedendo a ritmo incalzante. Gran parte del petrolio transita attraverso petroliere saudite e irachene, con tonnellate di petro-yuan che cambiano di mano. Il contrabbando è dilagante persino nel corridoio omanita, teoricamente controllato dagli Stati Uniti, con petrolio iraniano che finisce sia su petroliere clandestine degli sceicchi petroliferi che su petroliere ufficiali.

In fatto di contrabbando e strategie di sopravvivenza, dopo 47 anni di sanzioni, nessuno batte i persiani. È proprio questo che mantiene fedeli i clienti del settore energetico, come Cina, Sud-est asiatico e persino Corea del Sud.

Questo mercoledì scade il termine di 45 giorni fissato da Teheran il 16 agosto per la fine del blocco navale di Trump. Altrimenti… Il 30 settembre è anche la data limite fissata dagli iracheni per il ritiro definitivo degli Stati Uniti dall’Iraq.

E tutto ciò coincide con la recente scadenza di 4-5 giorni fissata da Mohsen Rezaee, segretario del Consiglio Supremo per la Sicurezza Nazionale (SNSC) e numero due di fatto in Iran, entro la quale gli Stati Uniti dovrebbero porre fine al blocco. Tale scadenza cade lunedì, ovvero oggi.

In sintesi: mentre Washington chiudeva la porta aperta da Teheran, il tempo a disposizione di Teheran continuava a scorrere. Il nostro canale Transition Protocol ha confermato che i vertici politici e del Corpo delle Guardie Rivoluzionarie Islamiche hanno già deciso il da farsi.

Manterranno la posizione fino a mercoledì. E se non si troverà una via d’uscita alle condizioni che il presidente Xi ha presentato a Trump nello Studio Ovale, Teheran è pronta a intraprendere 5 passi cruciali:

1. Estendere il campo di battaglia oltre Hormuz fino all’Oceano Indiano. 2. Riservarsi il diritto di colpire qualsiasi nave da guerra americana che imponga il blocco. 3. Collaborare con Ansarallah per estendere il blocco fino a Bab al-Mandab. 4. Agire preventivamente contro qualsiasi rafforzamento militare ritenuto minaccioso. 5. Limitare l’aviazione di qualsiasi nazione che aderisca al blocco aereo.

Senza remore. Letteralmente.

Quindi, al momento abbiamo un inquietante avvertimento sull’Oceano Indiano; una minaccia confermata a tutti i centri di dispiegamento statunitensi in caso di attacco da parte di Washington; e una dichiarazione di dottrina di guerra preventiva.

Ciò che ancora non abbiamo è un ordine di colpire direttamente le navi statunitensi.

Sul fronte aeronautico, l’Iran punterà sulla reciprocità, non sui missili.

La posizione della leadership iraniana in merito alle sanzioni secondarie statunitensi contro praticamente qualsiasi aeroporto del mondo che accolga voli iraniani è piuttosto chiara:

“Se i nostri aerei non riescono a decollare, neanche i vostri riusciranno a farlo.”

Questa affermazione è stata fatta dal consigliere della Guida Suprema Mohammad Mokhber. Sabato, Mohsen Rezaee ha dichiarato che l’Iran non risponderà militarmente al divieto; sta negoziando con gli Stati interessati; e dispone di “molteplici opzioni non militari” per alcuni aeroporti.

A parte le grandi potenze Cina e Russia, diversi stati – tra cui Turchia, Malesia, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Tagikistan e Kazakistan – stanno completamente ignorando l’assedio aereo imperiale alla Persia.

Poi c’è il caso straordinario dell’Iraq.

La Resistenza irachena ha inizialmente annunciato l’intenzione di colpire gli aeroporti del Consiglio di Cooperazione del Golfo. Successivamente, diversi religiosi di alto rango a Najaf e Karbala hanno protestato in modo coordinato, minando la legittimità del governo fantoccio di Baghdad.

Enormi proteste hanno travolto anche Bassora, la capitale irachena ricca di petrolio, con tribù beduine sciite armate fino ai denti (le ricordo con affetto, dai primi anni 2000). Uno dei loro sceicchi ha dato a Baghdad 48 ore di tempo per ritirare la sua complicità con l’assedio statunitense all’Iran. Quindi, alla fine, potrebbe esserci un’esenzione per i voli tra l’Iran e Najaf, fondamentalmente per il trasporto di pellegrini.

L’orologio dell’Iran e l’orologio degli Stati Uniti: la finestra del rischio supremo

Ora passiamo al fronte del Mar Rosso.

Quella misera “coalizione dei volenterosi” – i capi di stato maggiore di Arabia Saudita, Turchia e Pakistan, riuniti a Riyadh venerdì scorso come membri della Mecca Defense Alliance – è passata dal bla bla bla a un possibile tentativo di accordi operativi, pur non annunciando attacchi congiunti contro lo Yemen.

Ansarallah non è certo terrorizzata. Hanno lanciato droni verso Riyadh e missili verso Khamis Mushait, definendo le loro operazioni una “prova generale” per un’escalation su vasta scala.

Aspettate solo la tempesta yemenita in arrivo.

Lo Yemen è in preda alla rabbia dopo che i sauditi hanno bombardato un mercato affollato a Taiz, uccidendo e ferendo almeno 50 persone, tra cui donne e bambini, secondo un bilancio preliminare. Questo deve aver avuto un contributo diretto da parte dell’intelligence e dei servizi di intelligence, sorveglianza e ricognizione (ISR) del CENTCOM e del culto della morte.

Secondo fonti yemenite a Sana’a, Ansarallah potrebbe essere sul punto di imporre un embargo aereo all’Arabia Saudita. Riyadh sta già precipitando in una situazione critica, con Google e i satelliti occidentali costretti a censurare le prove della distruzione di infrastrutture e siti petroliferi a Riyadh, Jizan, Abha e Najran.

Pertanto, rimane alta la probabilità di azioni significative da parte dell’Iran e/o di Ansarallah contro le risorse navali statunitensi, le rotte marittime più ampie o la tangenziale saudita verso Yanbu, fino alla fine di questa settimana.

Tuttavia, l’esito più probabile rimane una situazione di stallo estremamente militarizzata in cui Teheran, il 30 settembre, si limiterà a lanciare segnali anziché colpire.

Fatto accertato: il periodo compreso tra l’orologio iraniano e quello di Washington – dal 30 settembre al 3 novembre – è ormai la Finestra di Massimo Rischio.

Veri poli della civiltà araba contro stupidi pastori di cammelli

E questo ci porta a una rivelazione chiave da parte di una fonte interna alla riunione di alto livello tra Cina, Pakistan e Iran. La fonte ha confermato che, dopo la visita di Xi negli Stati Uniti, Wang Yi e il ministro degli Esteri pakistano Ishaq Dar hanno avuto una conversazione diretta e top secret.

Pechino ha rinunciato a Washington e ora sta giocando di nuovo le sue carte attraverso Islamabad, incaricando apertamente i più alti livelli di governo di contenere la crisi. Ai pakistani è stato affidato il compito di intervenire a nome di Pechino e Teheran sia con Trump che con Mohammed bin Salman prima che la situazione raggiunga un punto critico questa settimana.

Ciò che si deduce è che certamente il Pakistan – nessuno sa nulla della Turchia – non sosterrà l’Arabia Saudita nella sua presunta, massiccia offensiva pianificata contro lo Yemen.

Ciò è stato confermato da un’altra fonte autorevole a Islamabad; il governo pakistano ha certamente fatto i suoi calcoli: aiutare a salvare l’irrecuperabile Casa dei Saud seppellirà il ruolo del Pakistan come mediatore tra Iran e Stati Uniti, rendendolo morto come il gatto morto del Memorandum d’intesa di Islamabad.

Non basta mai ricordare che per secoli Baghdad, Damasco, Il Cairo e Sana’a hanno rappresentato i veri poli civilizzazionali degli arabi sufi cosmopoliti. Niente a che vedere con gli stupidi pastori di cammelli che compongono la ripugnante Casa dei Saud.

E questo si collega ai due imperativi categorici principali del gruppo Epstein.

Vogliono la distruzione della Persia – il genocidio nucleare annunciato sul podio dell’ONU dal sociopatico Presidente degli Stati Uniti. A questo dovrebbe aggiungersi la distruzione dell’Asse della Resistenza Araba – in Libano, Iraq e Yemen. E poi anche la distruzione degli stupidi sceicchi petroliferi del CCG, perché rimarrebbero troppo ricchi, influenti e potenzialmente imprevedibili anche dopo la fine dell’Asse della Resistenza.

Ecco che il leader del culto della morte in Medio Oriente vola “segretamente” su un aereo privato ad Abu Dhabi domenica per incontrare MbZ. Ha trascorso l’intera giornata negli Emirati. Non c’è stata alcuna fuga di notizie sull’incontro. Questo è accaduto subito dopo che il leader del culto della morte ha nuovamente demonizzato l’Iran all’ONU.

È ormai chiaro che Yemen e Persia formano un tutt’uno – i due fronti privilegiati del teatro di guerra in Medio Oriente. Prestate attenzione alle conseguenze di questo incontro “segreto” tra il culto della morte e i sionisti arabi. Il Medio Oriente sta per essere travolto dalle fiamme.

La Embajada de los Estados Unidos en Argentina envió una advertencia a la Cooperativa CALF, principal distribuidora de energía eléctrica de la Patagonia: amenazó con la revocación o denegación de las visas de ingreso a EE. UU. a un total de 18 directivos de la entidad (16 integrantes del consejo de administración y dos síndicos).

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

El mensaje de la diplomacia norteamericana busca interrumpir las negociaciones entre la cooperativa neuquina y la tecnológica china Huawei para construir un data center regional con equipamiento de esa firma.

Según trascendió, la intromisión de Washington responde a cuestiones de seguridad nacional y geoestrategia, debido a que la administración de Donald Trump considera a Huawei una amenaza ligada al Partido Comunista y al Ejército del gigante asiático, susceptible de ser utilizada para espionaje. A esto se le agrega la proximidad a Vaca Muerta. Temen que la posibilidad del crecimiento de la infraestructura tecnológica china impacte sobre el yacimiento, donde operan inversores estadounidenses como Chevron y Continental Resources…

Publicado originalmente por  Pagina12

Zelensky et son régime à Kiev sont les « plus grands obstacles à la paix », selon son ancienne porte-parole.

Cela aurait dû faire la une des journaux la semaine dernière, mais cela n’a pas été le cas. L’ancienne porte-parole du pseudo-président de l’Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, s’est vu interdire de s’adresser au Parlement européen.

Pourquoi ? Parce qu’Iuliia Mendel devait livrer des révélations accablantes sur la corruption endémique dans le régime de Zelensky et sur la façon dont la guerre soutenue par l’OTAN dans son pays est une combine pour s’enrichir.

Quelle ironie que un tel témoignage ne soit pas autorisé dans ce qui est censé être le siège de la démocratie et des valeurs européennes. Si la liberté d’expression remet en cause le récit officiel, alors elle est interdite. Le seul récit autorisé est que l’Ukraine est un modèle de démocratie cherchant à adhérer à l’Union européenne et à l’OTAN, mais qu’elle est contrariée par « l’agression russe ». Combien fragile est cette représentation, pour que quiconque ayant un point de vue différent et des faits soit purement et simplement réduit au silence et diffamé comme propagandiste russe ?

Remarquablement, presque aucun média occidental n’a rapporté ce fiasco.

Iuliia Mendel a été conseillère personnelle de Zelensky pour les médias de 2019 à 2021, date à laquelle elle a démissionné, désillusionnée par sa corruption. Elle a observé de près les tractations, le comportement maniaque de Zelensky et de ses acolytes, et son mépris pour la démocratie. Elle décrit son témoignage comme un « devoir moral » de dire à ses concitoyens ukrainiens et au reste du monde la vraie nature de son ancien patron. Qu’il est un escroc aux tendances psychopathiques qui se moque éperdument de la vie du peuple ukrainien. Sa seule préoccupation est de rester au pouvoir le plus longtemps possible et de s’enrichir avec les milliards d’argent des contribuables occidentaux qui sont acheminés vers son régime.

Zelensky et son régime à Kiev sont les « plus grands obstacles à la paix », dit Mendel, qui a donné cette interview à Weltwoche, après avoir été empêchée d’entrer au Parlement européen. La corruption en Ukraine, dit-elle, dépend de la poursuite de la guerre, et c’est pourquoi le régime de Kiev oppose son veto à tout effort diplomatique visant à mettre fin au conflit qui dure depuis près de cinq ans. Quiconque s’oppose à la guerre et appelle à la diplomatie est sanctionné, emprisonné ou envoyé au front pour mourir. Zelensky supervise une junte militaire (que l’Occident appelle « démocratie ») dans laquelle ses sbires traquent les gens dans les rues pour la conscription. Pour échapper au hachoir à viande, ils doivent payer un pot-de-vin pouvant atteindre 20 000 dollars.

Mendel a d’abord fait sensation lorsqu’elle a été interviewée en mai de cette année par le diffuseur américain Tucker Carlson. Dans cette interview, elle a décrit Zelensky comme un dictateur toxicomane émotionnellement instable, bien que dissimulé par ses talents d’acteur d’ancien artiste de divertissement. Les partisans politiques et médiatiques occidentaux, bien sûr, jouent le jeu en fermant les yeux sur cette mascarade et le célèbrent comme un « héros churchillien de guerre ».

Tout cela est une combine méprisable jouée aux dépens des contribuables occidentaux et du peuple ukrainien qui souffre depuis longtemps.

Pour avoir révélé les secrets de son ancien patron, Mendel a été immédiatement inscrite sur la liste noire Mirotvorets, soutenue par l’État ukrainien, comme « propagandiste russe ». Mirotvorets a acquis une triste réputation de liste de morts, car plusieurs personnes qu’elle a blacklistées ont fini mortes. Elle dit qu’elle est interdite de diffusion publique vers ses concitoyens ukrainiens par des entreprises médiatiques occidentales comme Meta/Facebook.
Plus tôt cette semaine, quelques jours avant qu’elle ne s’adresse au Parlement européen, le régime de Zelensky a annoncé des sanctions contre Mendel. Elle ne peut pas accéder aux avoirs ukrainiens et ne peut pas rentrer dans le pays de peur que sa vie soit en danger. Elle craint que sa famille en Ukraine ne soit persécutée, envoyée au front en représailles pour sa prétendue « trahison ».

La décision de lui interdire de parler devant l’assemblée de Strasbourg aurait été prise par la présidente du Parlement européen, Roberta Metsola. Metsola, comme d’autres dirigeants de haut rang de l’UE, tels que la présidente de la Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, et le président du Conseil, António Costa, est une supportrice inconditionnelle de l’Ukraine, acheminant des milliards d’aide au régime.

Mendel apparaît comme une personne d’intégrité, de décence morale et de véritable indépendance. Elle rejette catégoriquement l’accusation d’être « pro-russe ». En effet, dans ses interviews avec Carlson et Weltwoche, Mendel critique vivement la Russie pour ce qu’elle appelle une invasion cruelle de son pays. Il semble parfaitement clair que sa préoccupation constante est d’empêcher la guerre de détruire sa patrie.
Cependant, la guerre ne peut pas être arrêtée parce que le régime de Zelensky et ses partisans européens de l’OTAN sont investis dans sa prolongation. La corruption du régime est mariée à l’idéologie de la russophobie qui est endémique dans l’élite européenne.
Cette perspective a été corroborée par deux autres sources impeccables cette semaine. Comme Mendel, ces deux autres figures sont également ignorées par les médias occidentaux.
Le professeur Ivan Katchanovski de l’Université d’Ottawa a été interviewé par Lena Petrova, dans laquelle il a passé en revue la corruption flagrante et la politique néonazie du régime de Kiev.
Les recherches révolutionnaires de Katchanovski ont révélé comment le massacre des snipers de Maidan, au cours duquel plus de 100 manifestants et policiers ont été tués à Kiev en février 2014, était une opération sous fausse bannière menée par des éléments néonazis et leurs sponsors de l’OTAN, qui a précipité le coup d’État. Le coup d’État a conduit à la prise de contrôle de l’État ukrainien et des forces de sécurité par des forces fascistes, ce qui a à son tour conduit à la guerre avec la Russie en 2022.

Zelensky, qui est nominalement juif, s’appuie sur les forces néonazies pour sa survie politique et la poursuite de la corruption qui sévit au sein du régime. Le professeur Katchanovski, qui est originaire d’Ukraine, souligne que de nombreux ministres, conseillers et hauts responsables judiciaires proches du cercle de Zelensky ont dû démissionner ou fuir le pays à la suite d’innombrables scandales de corruption. Il est difficile de croire que Zelensky ne soit pas lui aussi jusqu’au cou dans le racket. Corruption, guerre et néonazisme sont tous inextricablement liés en raison de l’implication de l’OTAN dans le pays depuis son indépendance en 1991 vis-à-vis de l’Union soviétique après l’effondrement de cette dernière.

Une autre vue corroborante est celle de l’éminent universitaire américain le professeur John Mearsheimer. Il a donné cette semaine un compte rendu très large d’une récente visite en Russie au cours de laquelle il a rencontré de hauts responsables gouvernementaux, des décideurs politiques et des diplomates. Mearsheimer a déclaré, peut-être à la surprise de certains, que lors de ses nombreuses conversations, il n’a décelé aucune animosité profonde envers l’Ukraine ou le peuple ukrainien parmi ses interlocuteurs russes, ni d’ailleurs parmi les Russes ordinaires. « Beaucoup de Russes que j’ai rencontrés ont de la famille en Ukraine… partagent un héritage culturel », a-t-il remarqué.

Mearsheimer attribue la disparition tragique de l’Ukraine et de ses liens historiques avec la Russie à la politique de l’OTAN visant à faire entrer le pays nouvellement indépendant dans l’alliance militaire dirigée par les États-Unis en 2008 avec la Déclaration de Bucarest. Cette politique a garanti que les deux pays seraient désormais sur une trajectoire de collision menant au conflit, qui a finalement éclaté en 2022. L’objectif occidental plus large était d’utiliser l’Ukraine comme proxy pour mener la guerre et déstabiliser la Russie. En bref, pour la « défaite stratégique de la Russie ».

En poursuivant cet objectif impérialiste, l’Ukraine a été infectée par le néonazisme, la corruption et une dictature de facto dirigée par un clown toxicomane qui réprime impitoyablement toute opposition. Des millions de personnes ont été déplacées, tuées et mutilées ; la société et l’économie sont en ruines abyssales.

Mais cette vérité ne doit pas être permise par les idéologues occidentaux et leurs médias contrôlés, qui persistent dans leurs fantasmes russophobes malgré la destruction et la souffrance déchaînées et le danger très réel d’une guerre totale explosant en Europe. Les élites occidentales se livreront à toutes sortes de maux dans leur poursuite de la tentative de vaincre la Russie. L’Ukraine a été totalement détruite par les objectifs impérialistes occidentaux. Et pourtant, la Russie est blâmée comme le méchant dans cette entreprise horrible et criminelle.

Na Rússia, todos os partidos têm tempo igual de TV e rádio. No Brasil, só quatro candidatos aparecem; nove ficam de fora. Democracia de fachada.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

A máquina de propaganda dos Estados Unidos e dos regimes europeus, incluindo suas sucursais nas semicolônias, prega que a Rússia é uma autocracia, um regime antidemocrático. Como tal, suas eleições não são livres, mas sim controladas por Vladimir Putin e seus aliados.

Um bom exemplo dessa lavagem cerebral foi vista nas eleições recentes para a Duma Estatal, o parlamento russo. O Rússia Unida, partido de Putin, obteve uma votação recorde: elegeu 349 dos 450 deputados. Todo o aparato de propaganda da CIA que são os grandes jornais e agências de notícias ocidentais acusou Putin de manipular as eleições, que teriam sido fraudadas.

Mas basta fazer uma comparação com as eleições no Brasil para perceber que as eleições brasileiras são uma fraude e as eleições na Rússia são muito mais livres que no Brasil.

Na Rússia, todos os partidos registrados têm tempo de propaganda gratuita em rádio e televisão. A propaganda é veiculada nas emissoras públicas e estatais, com o tempo distribuído de forma igualitária entre todos os partidos. Sim, é garantido por lei que todos os partidos devem ter o mesmo tempo para apresentar suas propostas à audiência.

Essa é uma das principais vantagens da Rússia sobre o Brasil em relação às campanhas. É um sistema muito mais democrático. No Brasil, uma parte dos partidos, mesmo que estejam registrados no Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE), sequer tem direito de aparecer na TV e no rádio. Somente os partidos com um número mínimo de parlamentares no Congresso Nacional podem apresentar suas propostas ao grande público. Caso contrário, precisam se coligar com outros partidos. Os que não se aliam com os partidos que já têm vagas no parlamento ficam de fora da campanha de rádio e TV.

Ou seja, os partidos pequenos precisam submeter suas ideias e seus programas políticos, na prática abandonar sua independência, vendendo-se aos grandes partidos, para terem acesso ao tempo de TV e rádio. É um sistema eleitoral que visa acabar com os partidos pequenos, reduzir o número de partidos e concentrar o poder nos grandes partidos. Isso nem de longe é um sistema democrático e livre. Ele apaga parte das ideias políticas que existem na sociedade para que o eleitor só tenha acesso à outra parte, orientando assim o voto do eleitor. É uma das inúmeras facetas da fraude eleitoral.

Mas mesmo entre os partidos com tempo de rádio e TV esse tempo não é igualitário. Os partidos grandes e suas coligações (com as maiores bancadas na Câmara dos Deputados) têm direito a um tempo muito maior do que os menores. Nestas eleições presidenciais, a coligação de Lula recebeu 5 minutos e 31 segundos para fazer propaganda política dentro do bloco de propaganda eleitoral gratuita obrigatória diária. A coligação de Flávio Bolsonaro recebeu 4 minutos e 20 segundos, a de Ronaldo Caiado recebeu 2 minutos e 02 segundos e a de Augusto Cury recebeu 35 segundos. Além dos blocos, há as inserções de 30 segundos a 1 minuto distribuídas ao longo da programação diária. No 1º turno, Lula tem direito a 433 inserções, Bolsonaro a 339, Caiado a 159 e Cury a 47.

Apenas quatro candidatos tiveram tempo para apresentar suas propostas em TV e rádio. Os outros nove concorrentes ficaram de fora. De treze candidaturas, os eleitores não puderam conhecer nove delas, apenas quatro, através da propaganda nos meios de comunicação convencionais. Os quatro privilegiados, portanto, foram extremamente beneficiados pela legislação eleitoral antidemocrática. Mas mesmo entre esses quatro existe uma hierarquia, que privilegia uns e prejudica outros.

Há ainda os debates eleitorais. Na Rússia, pelo menos metade do tempo gratuito de rádio e TV deve ser dedicada a eventos conjuntos entre candidatos e partidos, como debates, mesas-redondas ou entrevistas coletivas. E todos têm direito de participar. Assim, além de apresentarem suas ideias na propaganda eleitoral, os partidos podem confrontar suas ideias, para que o eleitor possa compará-las.

Além de não terem direito de tempo de TV e rádio para fazer propaganda, no Brasil a maioria dos partidos e candidatos também não tem o direito de participar dos debates. Ao contrário da Rússia, a legislação eleitoral não obriga as emissoras a convidarem a todos. Apenas candidatos de partidos, coligações ou federações que tenham ao menos cinco parlamentares no Congresso Nacional devem ser obrigatoriamente convidados a participar dos debates organizados nos meios de comunicação. Isso significa que, nestas eleições presidenciais, menos da metade dos candidatos participaram dos debates. Os meios de comunicação podem convidar os outros candidatos, mas não são obrigados. E, assim, não os convidam. Afinal de contas, assim como o TSE, os grandes canais de TV e emissoras de rádio são controlados pelas classes dominantes e não interessa a eles que candidaturas que, de alguma maneira, questionam a dominação de classe, possam expor suas ideias. Ou mesmo que partidos que não incomodam as classes dominantes exponham suas ideias, pois quanto menos debate de ideias existir, mais embrutecido o povo fica, e mais fácil é manter o status quo.

By Craig MURRAY

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Rather than abandoning the plainly nuts Fairford narrative, Burnham and his government are doubling down on the claim it is an Iranian terror plot.

It remains quite possible the men were indeed fuel thieves, simply stealing fuel from farms. They appear to have been equipped for fuel theft and all they were carrying was petrol. It is worth a footnote that there is a very real history of US military personnel, and indeed British personnel, selling military fuel from bases. Stolen red diesel meant for HMS Bulwark fuelled fairground rides throughout England, which I think is rather lovely. But if the Fairford Five were fuel thieves, farms are more probable as the target.

We should pause here to acknowledge that USAF Fairford is falsely designated RAF Fairford, itself a propaganda lie, just like “RAF Lakenheath” or “RAF Mildenhall”. The UK is full of US military bases, on which US law applies. (My birth certificate gives my father’s occupation as “Clerk USAF”. He was employed at Mildenhall at the time).

It is a classic example of state propaganda that the petrol discovered in the Fairford vans was described by counter terror police as a potential accelerant for a bomb.

Well yes, petrol is that. It has however, rather more obvious uses too. The same technique was used at the height of the War on Terror propaganda in the Great Easter Bomb Plot, that never was. Police rounded up and arrested many young Muslims across the Manchester region, which was front-page news. They were all later released without charge.

But at the time of arrest the police announced they had found a potential bomb-making ingredient in a kitchen.

Well, they had. It was a bag of sugar. Sugar is indeed a potential bomb-making ingredient. Yet most of us have a bag in the kitchen. At least it did not take the police ten days to find the bag of sugar in the kitchen, unlike when they searched Charlie Rowley’s flat for a vial of novichok, and it took them ten days to “find” a bottle of perfume sitting on the kitchen counter.

For Fairford, on balance I think a false flag gone wrong is a little more likely than just fuel thieves. We know the men had no bombs and no guns, which makes the terrorist narrative rather hard for the government to sustain. But if they were patsies set up in a false flag, there would be plenty of things already on the base that go bang which could have been used to create the “terrorist incident” around them.

Two key points make me think this was a false flag. Firstly the lady farmer who called 999 was adamant there were more men that the five arrested and bailed. The others would have been the spycops – agents provocateurs – who would have been quietly spirited away from the scene. That also fits with the released information that it was one of the men who phoned in a warning about the “attack”.

It looks to me like a false flag spectacular had been planned, with US involvement as claimed by Trump and possibly Israeli knowledge as claimed by Netanyahu. This operation by the security services was viewed as over the pay grade of local police (who might be inconveniently honest) who were not in the picture. It all went horribly wrong for the government when an alert local farmer called the local police, and when a participant also called it in. That could have been one of the recruited “terrorists” who got cold feet, or one of the agents panicked they had lost contact with their line of command.

The use of recruited patsies to carry out false flags is now better understood. I have been writing about it since before the Newburgh bomb plot which was a particularly egregious example. In the United States there has been more awareness of and reaction to agent provocateur incited plots than in the UK.

For anyone sceptical, here is a summary of Newburgh:

In May 2009 the FBI arrested four poor men from Newburgh, New York, and announced it had foiled a plot to bomb two synagogues in the Bronx and shoot down military planes at Stewart Air National Guard base. The plot, the targets, the inert bombs and the disabled Stinger missile were all supplied by the Bureau. The recruiter was Shahed Hussain, a Pakistani fraudster who had become an informant to avoid deportation after a driving-licence scam. Paid nearly $100,000, he spent more than a year fishing at a Newburgh mosque, posing as a wealthy Jaish-e-Mohammed agent, before latching onto James Cromitie, a Walmart stocker and petty drug dealer.

Hussain offered heavenly reward and as much as $250,000. Cromitie brought in three others: Onta Williams, David Williams and Laguerre Payen. Hussain drove them across a state line to inspect the fake weapons, which federalised the charges and carried a 25-year minimum. They were convicted in 2010.

The sentencing judge, Colleen McMahon, said she believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that there would have been no crime except that the government instigated it, planned it and brought it to fruition. In 2023 she ordered the release of three of them, calling it an FBI-orchestrated conspiracy and writing that the real lead conspirator was the United States. She freed Cromitie in 2024 on the same basis, describing him as a small-time grifter with no history of violence and Hussain as a villain who had lured him with promises of both heavenly and earthly rewards.

The Golders Green ambulances arson was a classic of this false flag genre. Four young Muslims were recruited, in this case online rather than in person, by someone they never saw who was almost certainly a Mossad agent. They were offered money to attack the ambulances, which they did. The attack is then blamed on Iran through a claim on a Telegram channel on behalf of an “Iranian organisation”, Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia, which is a Mossad fabrication.

HAYI first became known to the world through simultaneous press releases on 16 March by five Israeli government outlets in Israel, US and UK (including BICOM) and an article by the Israeli front “Foundation for Defending Democracy”. The FDD’s Nick Stewart travels with Kushner and Witkoff as part of the US negotiating team on the Middle East.

There are numerous reasons for doubting the real existence of HAYI. None of its material is in Farsi. All of its “attacks” have been minor arson attacks on pointless targets that hurt nobody. The grammar, calligraphy and imagery of its materials are all wrong.

The UK state itself has now debunked some of the Mossad HAYI narrative. On 29 April, when Essa Suleiman stabbed three men, the entire media blocked out the first Muslim victim and claimed an antisemitic terrorist attack on the two in Golders Green. The HAYI Mossad run “Iranian” Telegram channel immediately put out a statement claiming responsibility for the attack. But yesterday police and prosecution were forced to drop the claim it was a terrorist attack at all. The stabbing of the Muslim is charged as attempted murder, though still ignored by the media. So “HAYI” claimed responsibility for a non-existent terrorist incident.

A false flag can be, but is not necessarily, the state planting a bomb and then blaming someone else. It can be more complex – the state recruiting people to plant bombs. Those people may believe they are genuinely part of an ideological campaign, or may just be doing it for money.

The opaque Starmer rent-boy arson plot, in which Ukrainian male models burnt property associated with Keir Starmer, remains unclear, largely because any discussion of what lay behind the attacks was banned by the judge in the trial. But the media, with government encouragement, continually relays the story that the arsonists were recruited online by a man known as “El Money”. An interesting twist here is that the media constantly refer to him as Russian-speaking. But the evidence in court is that he spoke both Russian and Ukrainian.

Almost all adult Ukrainians can speak Russian. The number of Russians who speak Ukrainian is very small. Yet El Money is now routinely portrayed as Russian.

Which brings us to the whole question of Russian “hybrid attacks”, where we are asked to believe the narrative of the security services of states whose leaders are openly promoting war with Russia, about desultory and mysterious attacks. The rather sorry Leipzig drone is a good example. We have a more recent claim of Russian arson from Estonia, a state which has instituted massive discrimination against the 29% of its population who speak Russian.

Not only has Estonia closed Russian schools, libraries, theatres, churches, cinemas and university courses, it even refuses passports to people born and bred in Estonia, whose parents were born and bred in Estonia, if they cannot speak Estonian. That is totally contrary to numerous UN, Council of Europe and OSCE instruments on protection of minority linguistic rights.

It is one thing to insist on language qualification for citizenship for new immigrants. Many countries do. It is quite another thing to deny citizenship to a native linguistic minority. Estonia was part of Russia from 1721 to 1919 and of the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1991. It has Russian speakers.

So I decline to believe the Estonian government on Russian “hybrid attacks”.

Which brings us to the amazing “FlyDubai” hijacking and the heroic plumber who knew how to rescue a plane from a death dive because he watched Air Crash Investigation.

There are real problems with this narrative. One is that the plane is said to have dived approximately 15,000 feet in about 30 seconds. This is said to be confirmed by independent flight trackers.

The force was so enormous that the rudder ripped off the plane.

Picture a dive of 500 feet – that is more than a 40 storey building – per second. Picture that. 500 feet in a second. Imagine yourself falling that fast. The forces would be enormous inside the cabin. Anybody not strapped in would be lifted right out of their seats and probably hit the ceiling. Many would be injured. Any unfastened object, including major ones like food trollies, would be hurled about with great force. Baggage lockers would come unlocked as the weight of the bags inside was hurled up. Remember this dive ripped the rudder off. It would be impossible for anyone not strapped into their chair to keep their footing or seat.

We have a great many videos from on board the plane but nothing like this is shown. No video shows this kind of extreme situation, and the cabin at the end of the flight is remarkably undisturbed.

There is also a problem with that flight-tracking data. As pointed out by this commercial pilot on CNN, a plan can’t easily slow down in mid-air. He is disbelieving of how quickly the flight trackers show the plane returning to normal speed. He is also deeply sceptical of the ability to control the plane after the rudder came off due to loss of hydraulic fluid, and of the chances of the airframe staying together. Now compare that to the lack of cabin tumult.

I have seen it argued that if you entered the dive very gently and carefully without sudden change of pitch, and exited it similarly smoothly, then you would avoid extreme G-forces and the cabin might be relatively undisturbed. Even if so, it is hard to imagine the kind of smooth transition into the dive in the circumstances we are told were occurring in the cockpit, with the co-pilot deliberately putting the plane in a death dive while fighting with the pilot.

The smooth transition out of the dive in the official story was achieved by a plumber who knew what to do from watching Air Crash Investigation. I don’t think I need to comment on that.

We will never find out the truth about FlyDubai. The plane diverted to Saudi Arabia. The copilot who is being painted as an Islamic extremist will be isolated there and tortured by the Saudis. Netanyahu has already said Israel will join the interrogation. Do not believe any confession or evidence from the co-pilot.

The plane was a Boeing, so the USA will join the initial investigation alongside UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel. A more potent coalition of Zionist evil does not exist. We will certainly have faked flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder evidence coming from that shower.

I do feel something has snapped in people’s willingness to believe official narratives. The Skripal narrative was even more crazy than any of these, but most people still trusted government. Thankfully that faith has been seriously shaken.

Original article:  www.craigmurray.org.uk

By Kurt NIMMO

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

President Donald Trump has gone and really done it this time. “We had them under view for a long time, and we got them,” he said about the five British men arrested at RAF Fairford, initially said to be terrorists targeting US aircraft at the British base.

It turns out the would-be terrorists did not have explosives. Instead, they had stolen red diesel for farm equipment. The British cops are mum. They’re not saying much about the arrest or the incident. The Gloucestershire Police advised the public not to speculate, but how could there possibly be no speculation in the age of social media?

Naturally, speculation went ballistic on X and other platforms. It was immediately declared that the alleged perpetrators were Iranian terrorists, maybe sleeper cells, and an image was posted of men stripped to the waist in handcuffs as evidence. It was soon discovered the image was an AI fake.

The Secretary of State went before the cameras and told the American people a “foreign actor” is responsible for the foiled attack. Initially, the knee-jerk reaction was to blame Russia. It had to be Russia, but that was not very useful, so it became evil Iranian terrorists caught in the act of sabotaging our aircraft used to bomb grade schools and hospitals.

The Brits released the five men, most likely because there is no evidence they are terrorists, but rather thieves attempting to make a buck on stolen diesel in a market where diesel is rapidly becoming scarce and expesnive, thanks to Trump’s war. There is currently an epidemic of fuel thefts from farms, but that’s not exploitable for the narrative that insists wicked mullahs in Iran can’t wait to nuke America, Israel, and maybe even the UK.

Not that facts matter to the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Andy Burnham, the former frontbencher. He said there are strong indications that Iran played a part in what happened over the weekend at RAF Fairford.

Prior to Burnham, Zia Yusuf, the spokesperson for home affairs, trekked to the site of the diesel terrorism incident and said the UK must declare a national security emergency. He said there are “strong indications” Iran was involved.

Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage also demanded the declaration of a national emergency in response to “potential terrorists” stealing diesel. Farage said the diesel heist was a dry run for an attack on US forces. It is said he later deleted his social media posts, possibly because he looks like a fool.

Tobias Ellwood, a Conservative MP, demanded to know why the suspects were released on bail, while a BBC “military expert” said it was probably the Russians that nicked all that diesel.

Some folks believe the Fairford incident was a botched false flag. I disagree. The misinterpreted episode provided an excuse for the state and its corporate media to amplify the claim that there are deadly Iranian terrorists out there sleeping in cells, waiting to kill Americans.

Trump, Rubio, neocons of all stripes, and MAGA bystanders are desperate to pin something on Iran as a pretext to escalate the war. Instead of backing off and admitting they hysterically jumped the gun, they will double down and further complicate what was an avoidable situation that is now eating away at the global economy.

Trump is incapable of conceding. He will continue this disastrous war as long as possible, up until the time he is removed from the Oval Office or put on cholinesterase inhibitors to manage his hallucinations.

Original article:  ronpaulinstitute.org

Brazil’s alignment with Europe amid current geopolitical tensions poses a serious threat to Brazil’s traditional policy of neutrality.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

On September 30, all major Brazilian newspapers published a report stating that the Brazilian Intelligence Agency (Abin) had allegedly warned European authorities about supposed simultaneous interference by the United States and Russia in Brazilian elections. The case raises questions that go far beyond the 2026 electoral dispute. The central issue is the accusation against Moscow, as well as the political and institutional circumstances in which it was presented.

Within Brazil’s intelligence system, Abin is institutionally linked to the Presidency of the Republic, while the Federal Police, another intelligence-related institution in the country, has stronger links to the Judiciary. Its function is to produce strategic information to assist the Brazilian government. Therefore, when representatives of Brazilian intelligence inform foreign authorities that Russia is interfering in the electoral process, it is inevitable to ask to what extent this assessment reflects the political position of the government that controls the agency.

The issue becomes even more significant because, according to the information released, the European delegation received an accusation concerning Russian interference without substantial details about its nature being made public. No agents, operations, funding mechanisms, propaganda structures, or specific campaigns attributed to Moscow have been identified, at least in the material made public so far. There is therefore an accusation, but its foundations remain largely unknown.

This creates a particularly convenient situation for certain political actors. Europe – which is hostile toward both Russia and Trump – receives information suggesting that Washington and Moscow are attempting to influence the Brazilian elections. This would allow Brussels – and especially France and Germany, currently Lula’s key “friends” – to potentially “support” Brazil in “counter-intelligence” efforts aimed at combating alleged US and Russian influence. In other words, the accusation of interference, even in the absence of evidence, could serve as a pretext to justify actual interference (by Europe).

There is also a broader political issue. A significant portion of the Brazilian left has consolidated in recent years an unfounded interpretation according to which Vladimir Putin belongs to a kind of “far-right international movement,” alongside Donald Trump and other Western conservative leaders. This interpretation places Russia, Trump, and the Brazilian right within the same international political camp, despite profound differences between their respective positions and interests.

Within this framework, associating Russia with a potential Flávio Bolsonaro candidacy becomes politically convenient. Flávio is identified with Trump, the Republican Party, and the American right. The existence of an alleged Russian connection would allow the Brazilian electoral dispute to be incorporated into a broader international narrative in which different conservative forces are presented as parts of the same network of influence.

However, it is absolutely obvious that Russia has no interest whatsoever in interfering in the Brazilian elections to favor either side. Furthermore, the majority of pro-Russia activists in Brazil identify with the left or remain neutral regarding both sides of national politics. The accusation appears to be made simply to please the European Union, given that Europeans prefer Lula to Flávio (as the latter is subordinate to Trump). The lack of details substantiating the accusations only reinforces this point.

The truly relevant question is different: why did an intelligence agency subordinate to the Presidency of the Republic present European authorities with an accusation against Russia without its foundations subsequently being clarified? And why is this happening precisely during preparations for the Brazilian elections and at a time of extraordinary deterioration in relations between Russia and Europe?

The answer to these questions matters because Brazil is operating in an increasingly polarized international environment. Russia occupies a central position within the BRICS and maintains strategic relations with Brazil, while Europe is going through a period of growing confrontation with Moscow. In this context, any official Brazilian information associating Russia with an electoral interference operation carries serious diplomatic consequences.

Moreover, tensions between Russia and Europe are increasing, and there is a real risk of conflict due to Europe’s continued provocations. Clearly, in such a context, it is not in Brazil’s interest to become part of either side of the crisis. But nothing could be more damaging to Brazil’s policy of neutrality than reporting a formal accusation against Russia to the European Union.

In theory, it is possible that the report was delivered to European authorities without prior communication to the Brazilian president – although this seems highly unlikely. If Lula wants to preserve Brazil’s neutrality, the appropriate course of action would be to publicly disavow Abin and apologize for the incident. The question, however, is whether he would actually be willing to do so, considering that the European Union is currently the Lula government’s main international “ally”.

Classical nuclear deterrence is dead. New START expired, tripolarity returns, verification gone. Iran proves nonproliferation is a trap.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A contingency mistaken for law

We have often discussed nuclear deterrence and how the doctrine has changed, especially in the context of hybrid wars and the new weapons now available. Precisely on this point, at the 23rd annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, my friend Nelson Wong put forward a thesis that deserves attention precisely because it is presented without fanfare.

The classic theory of nuclear deterrence, developed during the Cold War around the concept of mutually assured destruction, was based on historical conditions that have largely ceased to exist today. The framework isn’t entirely wrong: mutual vulnerability remains, and the threat of unacceptable retaliation is perhaps still the only thing preventing a direct war between major powers. But too many features of the landscape have changed for that map to serve as a guide. My argument is that the individual factors eroding deterrence share a common root: the transition from unipolarity to a tripolar system, managed by elites trained in an era when competition among equals had been declared over.

Classical deterrence arose from specific circumstances: two main actors, fairly predictable escalation ladders, and functioning channels of communication. That shared grammar was not a given, but the product of costly learning. Thomas Schelling described the diplomacy of violence as a tacit bargaining process in which a threat is valued for what it communicates; the code of bipolarism was written through crises in which the two sides teetered on the brink and drew institutional consequences from them, from the 1963 hotline to the 1972 ABM Treaty. Atlantic simulations confirm this. Carte Blanche (1955) and Proud Prophet (1983) showed that stopping a Warsaw Pact offensive with tactical weapons would have killed about 1.7 million Germans and that keeping the war at the “tactical” level was an illusion, because the leap to the strategic level seemed almost automatic. Deterrence worked in part because those who planned it knew that once the threshold was crossed, it would no longer work. It was a culture of limits rather than a theory of calculation.

The guardrail has shattered

In February 2026, New START expired, and for the first time in over half a century, Russia and the United States are not bound by any binding bilateral nuclear treaty; verification, notifications, and data exchanges have ceased. That same year, the NPT Review Conference ended without results. Verification was not merely a technical mechanism: it was the arena where two military bureaucracies learned to understand one another. With that channel closed, each side has reverted to assessing the other based on worst-case scenarios – the very raw material of the security dilemma.

Added to this is the end of bipolarity. In the realist interpretation that John Mearsheimer has revived with Glenn Diesen, the current disorder stems from the transition toward multipolarity and the persistence of problems inherited from the unipolar era. The liberal order was the global projection of the Western order of the Cold War, possible only as long as the sole remaining great power was a liberal state. Today there are three powers, each with a different conception of order. A tripolar system is not simply a bipolar system with an extra player: with two actors, it is sufficient for one dyad to be stable; with three, all must be stable, and each measures its own arsenal against the potential combined strength of the other two. This is why the growth of China’s arsenal weighs on U.S. planning, regardless of Beijing’s intentions.

Thus, the security dilemma returns to the forefront: China’s intercontinental missiles are defensive for Beijing and offensive for Washington; Taiwan’s weapons are defensive for the United States and offensive for China. There is also a more troubling element. The stated goal of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia is not containment, but rollback. During the Cold War, deterrence preserved the status quo; today, the West invokes it while it is itself the revisionist pole, pushing the line forward through NATO expansion and increasingly advanced weapons. This amounts to asking the adversary not to react while one climbs the ladder of escalation. Deterrence that masks a shift in the strategic balance ceases to convey stability and begins to convey an intention.

The Iranian test case

No theater puts these theories to the test quite like Iran. On June 13, 2025, Israel struck the Islamic Republic with Operation Rising Lion; Tehran responded with “True Promise 3.” The paradox was already evident: Iran had signed the NPT, and the Supreme Leader had issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, while Israel possesses an undeclared arsenal estimated at between 75 and 200 warheads and keeps Dimona off-limits to inspections. I wrote at the time that the attack would not destroy Iran’s program but would push Tehran to view the weapon as a deterrent. The nonproliferation regime promises security to those who renounce nuclear weapons; the Iranian case teaches us that those without them are targeted, while those who possess them are not.

In the summer of 2026, there was open discussion of using tactical nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country, in an air and naval conflict whose stated aim was to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Against whom? Striking the strait would contaminate the waters of the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia; striking the interior would not guarantee surrender. In either case, the nuclear taboo would be broken, setting a precedent for Moscow, Beijing, and Tel Aviv; it is not surprising that, according to available information, Trump’s advisors oppose this. Nina Tannenwald has shown that the non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945 rests on an established norm, not merely on the calculation of retaliation. Today, that norm holds more because of the prudence of certain advisors than because of its own strength, and a deterrent that depends on the character of individuals is no longer an institution.

The Gulf also shows that the logic of “unacceptable punishment” is shifting toward non-nuclear infrastructure. After the refineries in Tehran, Haifa and the Bapco refineries in Bahrain were struck; and the attack on the desalination plants in Qeshm has effectively legitimized retaliation against Israel’s desalination network – on which over 60 percent of the country’s water supply depends – and against that of the Gulf, where some states derive 80–90 percent of their drinking water. It is an energy-humanitarian “Samson option”: the threshold of unacceptable punishment, which during the Cold War coincided with the nuclear threshold, is now reached by drones launched against a desalination plant. Herman Kahn’s escalation ladder assumed visible and costly steps to climb, but in the Gulf, the steps have been crushed one on top of the other.

The material basis and the fearless machine

Deterrence is also a function of the ability to sustain a war over time. While Washington was burning through interceptors over Iran, Beijing was presenting its 15th Five-Year Plan, featuring “extraordinary measures” for self-sufficiency in critical supply chains. China controls about 90 percent of the world’s rare-earth refining, on which every F-35, every Patriot battery, and every THAAD interceptor depends; starting in 2025, it will subject these materials to export controls, while the Pentagon must eliminate its dependence by January 2027. If the replenishment of conventional deterrence depends on the rival, the threshold beyond which one is tempted to compensate with nuclear weapons is lowered: a deterrent that cannot be replenished tends to become nuclear out of necessity. Whoever controls weapons materials controls the pace of others’ wars.

Then there is artificial intelligence. In 1983, Stanislav Petrov deemed a report of a U.S. launch to be a false alarm; when integrated into command systems, AI can reduce that pause from minutes to seconds, and a system that feels no fear cannot be dissuaded. The immediate danger is not the machine that decides to launch, but the decision-support system that accelerates escalation or excludes de-escalation from the options. I’d like to add a point about the education of decision-makers: if Mearsheimer is correct, the current ruling class came of age after 1991, when the study of the balance of power had all but disappeared from European universities. In 1983, the machine made a mistake, and the human knew it. Today, the risk is that the machine will make a mistake and the human will lack the tools to detect it.

Legitimacy eroded from the center

The NPT established a two-tier system with clear colonial legacies, and the 2017 Prohibition Treaty challenges its legitimacy. But the erosion of the legal framework does not originate at the periphery. It starts at the center. Washington has claimed control over an international strait as national territory and the right to seize Iranian oil tankers; the European Commission has proposed a “reparations loan” of up to 165 billion euros guaranteed by Russian funds frozen at Euroclear. However one judges it, the inviolability of sovereign assets is being called into question by the very states that established it. If sovereign property, freedom of navigation, and nonproliferation are suspended when it suits those who wrote the rules, others draw the most rational conclusion: the only reliable guarantee is one’s own strength.

This does not mean that deterrence is dead. Following the August 26 Storm Shadow attack on Donetsk, Maria Zakharova warned that Moscow could strike British installations “in Ukraine and beyond its borders”: the most explicit threat to date directed at a NATO member, one to be taken seriously without overreacting, as it remains merely verbal. Ratcliffe’s mission to Moscow on August 25 shows that the channels of communication are not closed. The warning system still works; what is missing is the predictability of the response. Deterrence is being practiced, but blindly.

For the 2026–2028 period, based on evidence of moderate quality, the most likely scenario (approximately 55 percent) is unregulated deterrence: no successor to New START, recurring crises managed through unilateral signals and ambiguous thresholds. A minimal restoration (about 30 percent) would establish crisis communication channels, launch notifications, and commitments to human control over nuclear decisions, following the statements made by the United States and China in Lima in November 2024; the indicators would be the resumption of Russian-American consultations and a negotiated formula for the Strait of Hormuz. Breaking the taboo (about 15 percent) – limited use against a non-nuclear state – would be preceded by deployments of low-yield warheads, rhetoric normalizing tactical use, or the depletion of interceptor stockpiles. Everything hinges on one assumption: that no power considers the stakes in peripheral theaters to be existential. A crisis over Taiwan superimposed on the Gulf crisis would bring this assumption crashing down.

Rebuilding crisis communication channels, limiting the integration of AI and nuclear weapons, and giving a voice to the Global South: these are necessary measures, but they are insufficient. Bipolar deterrence was stable because it protected an order that the superpowers – while ideologically opposing it – recognized in practice. Multipolar deterrence requires something analogous: namely, the mutual recognition of security spaces among poles that do not share the same conception of order.

This is not a moral concession but a technical necessity: without a recognized framework, deterrence does not know what to protect. A new map is drawn starting from the territory, and today’s territory consists of three poles: mining supply chains, desalination plants, algorithms, and rules applied intermittently. Understanding this is the minimum requirement – and I emphasize minimum! – for clear-headed thinking to prevail over reassuring formulas.