Strategic Culture Foundation

1. Empire managers say Russia, China and Iran are tricking students into opposing genocide

By Caitlin Johnstone

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Empire managers and propagandists are losing their minds about student protests against the genocide in Gaza on university campuses, so naturally we're seeing a mad push to frame this as the result of interference by Russia, China, Iran and Hamas. These demented conspiracies of foreign influence come even as Israel's prime minister openly calls for the US government to quash the university protests by any means necessary.

In a speech supporting the ban of TikTok this past Tuesday, Senator Pete Ricketts said the protests are an example of "the Chinese Communist Party using TikTok to skew public opinion on foreign events."

"Look what's happening in our college campuses right now around this country," Ricketts said. "Pro-Hamas activists are taking over public spaces and making it impossible for campuses to operate."

"Why is this happening?" Ricketts continued. "Well, let's look at where young people are getting their news. Nearly a third of adults 18 to 29, these young people in the US are regularly getting their news exclusively from TikTok. Pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas hashtags are generating 50 times the views on TikTok right now despite the fact that polling shows Americans overwhelmingly support Israel over Hamas. These videos have more reach than the top 10 news websites combined. This is not coincidence. The Chinese Communist Party is doing this on purpose. They are pushing this racist agenda with the intention of undermining our democratic values. And if you look at what's happening at Columbia University and other campuses across the country right now, they're winning."

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) comes right out and admits it: they're about to ban TikTok because "young people are getting their news" from the app, and "pro-Palestinian" hashtags generate lots of views. He says Chinese Communists are "pushing this racist agenda" to undermine America pic.twitter.com/ahcRcnXXfU

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) April 23, 2024

These comments from Ricketts are repugnant and deceitful in a whole host of ways, but let's touch on the big ones.

The senator's claim that TikTok is being manipulated to artificially amplify pro-Palestine content is false, as evidenced by the fact that TikTok's US-based rivals Facebook and Instagram have been showing the same massive gaps between the popularity of pro-Palestine content and the popularity of pro-Israel content. His argument is as logically fallacious as claiming that flat earth content is being artificially suppressed because it's not as popular as round earth content. Pro-Israel content is just less popular, because it sucks and people don't like it.

Ricketts' assertion that "polling shows Americans overwhelmingly support Israel over Hamas" is deceitful; polling shows a majority of Americans oppose Israel's actions in Gaza, regardless of whether they "support" the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

Also noteworthy is the way Ricketts just comes right out and acknowledges that TikTok is presenting a problem because its pro-Palestine content has been going viral among young people in ways the legacy media can't compete with. This amounts to an admission that empire managers like Pete Ricketts really just want TikTok to be banned because young people are using it to share unauthorized ideas and information with each other, and would support its elimination even if they couldn't justify it under the pretense of fighting China.

It's probably also worth noting that Rickets has received at least $159,000 from the Israel lobby.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggests some pro-Palestinian protests, especially those against President Biden, have "a Russian tinge to it."

"It's in Putin's interest for 'What's His Name' to win, and therefore I see some encouragement on the part of the Russians." pic.twitter.com/WgDByTwkGZ

— The Recount (@therecount) April 24, 2024

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated the fartbrained opinion she's been voicing for months that anti-genocide demonstrations can be attributed to Russia, telling RTÉ News this past Wednesday that opposition to President Biden's backing of an active genocide has "a Russian tinge to it".

"It's in Putin's interest for 'What's His Name' to win, and therefore I see some encouragement on the part of the Russians," said the longtime Democratic Party leader in reference to Donald Trump.

Anti-Defamation League president Jonathan Greenblatt says it's actually Iran who's tricking all these university students into thinking genocide is bad, telling MSNBC that the two main organizations behind the demonstrations — the Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace — are actually "campus proxies" of Iran.

"Iran has their military proxies like Hezbollah, and Iran has their campus proxies like these groups like SJP and JVP," Greenblatt proclaimed on literally no basis whatsoever.

They're getting desperate. pic.twitter.com/G0HYjpUA7g

— روني الدنماركي (@Aldanmarki) April 23, 2024

The Wall Street Journal tells us that rather than China, Russia or Iran, it's actually Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis who are behind the university campus protests.

In an article titled "Who's Behind the Anti-Israel Protests," subtitled "Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others are grooming activists in the U.S. and across the West," The Wall Street Journal's Steven Stalinsky makes another one of his signature chowderheaded arguments based entirely on vague insinuations, shoulder-socket-jeopardizing reach, Gish gallop fallacy, and no real evidence of any kind.

"Six months after the attack on Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others aren't merely cheering those protesting in the streets," writes Stalinsky. "They are working with and grooming activists in the U.S. and the West, through meetings, online interviews and podcasts."

No no, not meetings, online interviews and podcasts! No wonder they were able to hypnotize university students into opposing daily massacres against a walled-in population driven by ethnically motivated hatred.

Stalinsky runs a think tank called the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which was literally founded by a former Israeli intelligence officer. Pro-Palestine activist and academic Norman Finkelstein has accused MEMRI of using "the same sort of propaganda techniques as the Nazis," and even brazenly unprincipled empire propagandist Brian Whitaker has written that MEMRI "poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation."

All this drooling imbecility about completely fictional foreign interference being responsible for these campus protests looks even more ridiculous as the Israeli prime minister unabashedly flexes his nation's extensive influence over US politics to call for a crackdown on campus demonstrations.

"What's happening in America's college campuses is horrific. Antisemitic mobs have taken over leading universities," Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement, addressing the American public in his perfect American English.

"It has to be stopped," Netanyahu continued. "It has to be condemned and condemned unequivocally. But that's not what happened. The response of several university presidents was shameful. Now, fortunately, state, local, federal officials, many of them have responded differently but there has to be more. More has to be done."

"Iran has their military proxies like Hezbollah, and Iran has their campus proxies like these groups, like Students for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace." -Jonathan Greenblatt, Anti-Defamation League pic.twitter.com/JOMBeDZCSu

— Waleed Shahid  (@_waleedshahid) April 25, 2024

It is a very dark kind of hilarious to see imperial spinmeisters falling all over themselves trying to spin the campus protests as a product of imaginary foreign interference even as police launch violent crackdowns on those very same protesters across the United States to advance the interests of a foreign government.

It's also a big loogie in the eye of any self-respecting free thinker. Unless your brain has been turned into bean curd by empire propaganda, the idea that young people would need to be manipulated into opposing the incomprehensible horrors that are being inflicted upon human beings in Gaza is an appalling insult to your intelligence.

But that just shows how desperate these freaks are getting. More and more people are waking up from the lies they've been fed about their government, their nation and their world as western institution after western institution completely discredits itself in the eyes of the mainstream public trying to defend the most indefensible things imaginable.

They're frantically scrambling to try to remedy this PR crisis they've created for themselves, but everything they've tried so far has been a pathetic failure that has only made things worse for them, turning an entire generation into wide awake radicals whose bright young eyes will never, ever unsee what they have seen.

Original article: caitlinjohnstone.com.au

2. Ukraine: U.S. doubles down, Russia is cool

U.S. to transfer ATACMS system to Ukraine with 300 km range

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Russia's free running in the Ukraine war in the most recent months is about to end as the Biden Administration has met with success, finally, in the US Congress on the long-stalled Ukraine aid bill. The aid approved by the House on Saturday would send $60.8 billion to Ukraine.

Senate approval is expected as soon as Tuesday. President Biden has promised, "I will immediately sign this law to send a signal to the whole world: we support our friends and will not allow Iran or Russia to succeed," 

To be sure, the US is doubling down to frustrate Russia's perceived plans for an outright Russian military victory in Ukraine through this year. Unsurprisingly, Washington's transatlantic allies are also rallying, which is the message coming out of the virtual meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council at the level of Allied Defence Ministers chaired by Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg at Brussels on Saturday. 

The sense of relief in Kiev is palpable with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy telling NBC, "I think this support will really strengthen the armed forces of Ukraine, and we will have a chance for victory." He said the US lawmakers moved to keep "history on the right track." 

On the other hand, the Russian foreign ministry reaction has been rather polemical — as if Moscow was anticipating the development. What seems to perturb Moscow most in the US aid bill is the thinking favouring the confiscation of frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine, which, the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov singled out "because this is essentially the destruction of all the foundations of the economic system. This is an encroachment on state property, on state assets and on private property. By no means should this be perceived as legal action — it is illegal. And accordingly, it will be subject to retaliatory actions and legal proceedings."

Moscow would sense that the American intention is, first, to force the EU too onto a similar trajectory and thereby destroy whatever residual prospects remain for reconciliation between Russia and Europe for a long time to come; second, provide the wherewithal to ultimately utilise the Russian frozen assets to generate business for the US military-industrial complex; and, three, in geopolitical terms, create a precedent in any future showdown between the West and China.

Suffice to say, Moscow is right in estimating that in a longer term perspective, the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act, which was also passed by the US House of Representatives with a bipartisan vote of 360-58 on Saturday empowering empowering the US executive branch to seize and transfer frozen Russian assets held in the US to Ukraine is fraught with consequences far more devastating than the $60 billion financial aid for Ukraine. Curiously, they complement each other too.

Make no mistake about the bipartisan consensus in the Congress in this regard. This is important to know as Donald Trump has apparently shed his ambivalence and decided to be supportive of the Ukraine aid bill. The meeting between Trump and the Republican House speaker Mike Johnson in the run-up to the vote in the House on Saturday would suggest that Johnson might not be ousted, after all, by his far-right House Republican colleagues.

Beijing understands the diabolical play perfectly well. A commentary in the Global Times on Sunday said, "If the bill [on Russian assets] ultimately becomes law and goes into effect, it will set a disastrous precedent against the existing international financial order."

Of course, the Russian military moves going forward will be keenly watched. For, in such fluid circumstances, actions will speak better than words. At any rate, an inflection point has come since, evidently with an eye on Russian President Vladimir Putin's forthcoming visit to Beijing, the Biden Administration is also shifting gear to explicitly threaten China for allegedly supporting the Russian defence industry. The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is paying a 3-day visit to China on Wednesday.  

Taken together, what emerges is that the Biden Administration is doubling down on the Ukraine war, contrary to earlier prognosis that war fatigue is setting in. Meanwhile, Pentagon spokesperson Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder has disclosed to Politico in a statement that the Biden Administration is considering sending additional military advisers to Ukraine, since "security conditions have evolved." 

These additional personnel "would not be in a combat role, but rather would advise and support the Ukrainian government and military." The specific numbers of personnel remain confidential "for operational security and force protection reasons." They will support logistics and oversight efforts for the weapons the US is sending Ukraine and "new contingent will also help the Ukrainian military with weapons maintenance." 

Indeed, the sophistry of non-combat role apart, what is in the cards is an incremental expansion of the US military presence in Ukraine, notwithstanding Biden's repeated assertions that US troops wouldn't participate in the war on Ukraine's behalf, as doing so would increase the risk of a direct Russian-American military confrontation. 

Citing sources, Politico further reported that "One of the tasks the advisers will tackle is helping the Ukrainians plan sustainment of complex equipment donated by the US as the summer fighting is expected to ramp up." 

How does the new US $60.75 billion aid package add up? It includes $23.2 billion intended to replenish US weapons stocks; $13.8 billion for the purchase of advanced weapons systems for Ukraine; and another $11.3 billion for "ongoing US military operations in the region." 

That is to say, in effect, the direct military assistance to Ukraine will actually amount to about $13.8 billion till end-2024. The Russian experts estimate that this allocation rules out another Ukrainian "counteroffensive." But that is small comfort, since the increased flow of US weaponry will beef up the Ukrainian military capability to withstand the Russian offensive, which cannot but impact the present balance of forces at the front. 

From a military angle, in immediate terms, the cutting edge of the aid bill lies in the fact that it opens the gateway for the transfer to Ukraine of tactical missile systems [ATACMS] capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 300 km, which brings Crimea within its range. Reportedly, French troops are already on the ground in Odessa numbering 1000 and another contingent is expected shortly. This was  of course forecast a few weeks ago by the Russian foreign intelligence but Paris had flatly denied it. (here and here).

The bottom line here is that the aid package aims on the one hand to avoid a catastrophic military situation arising at the front in the coming months, which could be politically damaging for Biden's re-election bid, while on the other hand, the bulk of funds actually goes to the US arms manufacturers in some key "swing states" and gratifies the influential military-industrial complex and the Deep State. 

Biden told Wall Street Journal, "We will send military equipment from our own stocks, and then use the money authorised by Congress to replenish these stocks by buying them from American suppliers. This includes Patriot missiles made in Arizona, Javelin missiles made in Alabama, and artillery shells made in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas." 

To be sure, the triumphalist narrative of the Ukraine war by the US state department is on a comeback trail.

Original article: indianpunchline.com

3. Lukashenko is right: In Ukraine lies the future of global geopolitics

According to Belarussian President Aleksandr Lukashenko, the future of the world is being decided in Ukraine.

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

During his speech at the All-Belarusian People's Assembly, the President of the Republic of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko, showed deep geopolitical knowledge when he said that the future of the world is being decided in Ukraine. In fact, Russia's special military operation is proving to be the main global event of recent decades, being a central point for changes in the international scenario.

The Belarusian leader stated that the future of world order lies in Ukraine, confirming the analysis that has been carried out by several experts on how the current conflict is reshaping global geopolitics. He described the current war as a clash "between the West and the East."

According to Lukashenko, the major nuclear powers are facing each other in Ukraine – for now, indirectly, but with risks of escalation into an open phase. He also regrets the fact that, in this process, Ukraine decided to be absolutely subservient to the West, exchanging the lives of its people for useless weapons in an unwinnable war.

"Everyone understands that today's Ukraine is a military range, where the future of the world order is partially decided. The largest nuclear powers indirectly, and now even directly, are waging a war on its territory (…) Meanwhile its authorities have sunk to the level of striking a bargain with the West to exchange weapons for the lives of Ukrainians. Watching this is painful," he said.

Not only that, but Lukashenko also agreed with the world's main military analysts by stating that the final outcome of the conflict will inevitably be a radical change in the world order. He called on the U.S. and the entire Collective West to accept the new geopolitical reality as soon as possible, understanding once and for all that the Western civilization will no longer be the only decision-maker on global affairs. Only by admitting this new reality, the West can coexist peacefully with the multiple "poles" of the multipolar world.

Another interesting point in Lukashenko's speech was the comparison he made between Belarus and Ukraine. He claims that Kiev chose political guidelines completely opposite to those of Minsk. While Belarus chose to preserve its independence through respect for the past and traditions and friendship with its neighbors, Ukraine chose hostility towards Russia, hatred of its own history and subservience to foreign powers. According to Lukashenko, Kiev has miscalculated, because "whoever is willing to serve a master for scraps will sooner or later lose."

The Belarusian leader's words show great geopolitical knowledge and strong analytical precision – abilities that should be common to all heads of state in the world, but which are unfortunately increasingly rare, especially in the Western hemisphere, where politicians seem to act irrationally. Lukashenko expressed in his speech an opinion based on an actual scientific analysis of the current global crisis, showing great strategic perception.

The future of the world is really being decided in Ukraine. As relevant as other conflicts, such as the Palestinian-Israeli War, are, it is in Ukraine that hostilities between the Collective West and the emerging world are reaching a more direct level. Many analysts see the crisis in Ukraine as being the Third World War itself, as there is a coalition of more than thirty countries attacking the Russian Federation through the Kiev regime.

The most interesting thing is to see that, no matter how high Western war efforts are, Russian victory is already certain, with Kiev's final surrender being a mere matter of time. In two years, the NATO's proxy regime proved incapable not only of winning, but even of causing significant damage to Russia, with Ukraine being now very close to its absolute collapse. Faced with this scenario, Western leaders will be left with only two options: recognize the Russian victory and negotiate the reconfiguration of the global geopolitics peacefully; or enter a direct phase in the conflict.

Every day rumors increase about a possible direct entry of NATO troops into Ukraine. Most of such rumors, however, are related to possible maneuvers for Western countries to send soldiers without the obligation of a formal declaration of war on Russia. It is said that Western units will fight in Ukraine under a neutral flag, or that there will simply be no invocation of NATO's collective defense. In the end, it all seems like a bluff and a PR stunt, in a frustrated attempt to intimidate Russia and delay the inevitable result of the conflict.

There is a clear difference in the quality of speeches between Western and non-Western leaders. Politicians from the "multipolar side" express analytical precision, geopolitical knowledge, and decision-making capacity, while leaders on the "unipolar side" have increasingly acted based on emotions, resentments and selfish interests that are absolutely anti-strategic and irrational. The serious tensions the world sees today are largely due to non-reality-based decisions made by Western leaders.

At some point, however, if they truly want to avoid a global catastrophe, Western leaders will have to recognize their defeat and agree to negotiate with their multipolar counterparts. The faster this happens, the less will be the suffering of ordinary people in pointless wars.

4. Os 61 mil milhões de dólares de Biden e o recrutamento coercitivo do regime de Kiev

– Os ucranianos estão a fugir do banho de sangue da NATO, não da Rússia

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter  e VK .

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Esta semana, o presidente dos EUA, Joe Biden, proclamou a aprovação pelo Congresso de 61 mil milhões de dólares em ajuda militar adicional à Ucrânia como "um bom dia para a paz mundial". A exaltação de Biden é macabra. A obscenidade é que mais ucranianos serão sacrificados pelo imperialismo ocidental e pelo seu brutal regime neonazi em Kiev.

A narrativa sem noção e cínica dos meios de comunicação ocidentais é que uma Ucrânia democrática e amante da liberdade está a lutar corajosamente contra a agressão russa. Os homens ucranianos estão, segundo este conto de fadas, a lutar corajosamente para defender o seu país e para salvar o resto da Europa da invasão russa.

É por isso que o Congresso dos Estados Unidos aprovou esta semana um projeto de lei para enviar mais 61 mil milhões de dólares de ajuda militar à Ucrânia. O Presidente Biden estava a apelar desesperadamente ao Congresso para que tomasse uma posição com a Ucrânia para derrotar a agressão russa. Os aliados americanos da NATO têm igualmente reiterado o mesmo mantra sem sentido. A maioria das pessoas que vivem fora da câmara de eco dos meios de comunicação ocidentais sabe que esta descrição é uma total treta, para usar um dos bordões favoritos de Biden.

O conflito na Ucrânia é uma guerra por procuração da NATO liderada pelos EUA para derrotar estrategicamente a Rússia. O grande esquema começou a funcionar depois do golpe de Estado patrocinado pela CIA em Kiev, em 2014. O regime de Kiev, liderado por um presidente fantoche judeu vigarista, Vladimir Zelensky, é uma ditadura neonazi. É uma junta corrupta onde a elite, como Zelensky, desviou milhares de milhões de dólares e euros doados pelos governos ocidentais, cortesia dos seus contribuintes involuntários.

Esta semana, vimos a prova de que o reich de Kiev está em ação quando anunciou que iria cortar os serviços consulares para todos os homens ucranianos com idades compreendidas entre os 18 e os 60 anos que residem atualmente no estrangeiro.

Estima-se que, desde a escalada do conflito na Ucrânia, em fevereiro de 2022, cerca de cinco milhões de cidadãos ucranianos tenham fugido para países da União Europeia. Destes, cerca de 20 por cento – um milhão – são homens adultos.

O corte dos serviços consulares a qualquer cidadão pelo seu governo é uma ação drástica sem precedentes. Só isso já deveria alertar os observadores para o facto de o "governo" em questão estar longe de ser normal. Risivelmente, os meios de comunicação ocidentais noticiaram o banimento dos serviços consulares pelo regime de Zelensky como se fosse algo banal. Por outras palavras, encobriram convenientemente o que é uma violação vergonhosa das normas internacionais.

A razão pela qual as embaixadas ucranianas tomaram esta medida foi a de forçar os homens ucranianos no estrangeiro a declarar os seus dados e a registarem-se para uma nova campanha de recrutamento do regime de Kiev.

No início deste mês, o regime de Zelensky aprovou uma lei que confere poderes de mobilização muito mais rigorosos para obrigar os homens ucranianos a alistarem-se nas forças armadas.

A nova lei é profundamente impopular entre o povo ucraniano por boas razões. Os ucranianos estão a ser enviados para a linha da frente para serem massacrados por forças russas muito superiores, numa guerra fútil do lado da NATO.

Calcula-se que 500 000 a 600 000 soldados ucranianos tenham sido mortos em mais de dois anos de combates. Outros milhões ficaram feridos e mutilados. Toda uma geração de homens ucranianos foi destruída a um ritmo semelhante ao de uma carnificina do tipo da Primeira Guerra Mundial.

De acordo com as Nações Unidas, o número de civis mortos no conflito ronda os 10 000. Todas as mortes são lamentáveis, mas o número relativamente baixo de vítimas colaterais é uma prova dos esforços da Rússia para evitar alvos civis. Podemos perguntar-nos, portanto, por que razão milhões de ucranianos saltaram para os seus carros e 4×4 para se estabelecerem na Europa, se não estavam a ser alvo das forças russas. É também notável o facto de a maioria dos ucranianos ter ido procurar segurança na Rússia, mais do que em qualquer outro país da Europa. Lá se vai o facto de a Rússia ser um agressor maléfico.

Zelensky e o seu regime fantoche da NATO afirmam, de forma absurda, que o número de mortos entre os militares ucranianos ronda os 31 000. É claro que o número real, 16 vezes superior, tem de ser negado, caso contrário a propaganda ocidental seria envergonhada pelo banho de sangue que a NATO e o seu regime instigaram.

Se, por uma questão de argumentação, o número impossivelmente mais baixo pudesse ser acreditado, então a questão é saber porque é que o regime de Kiev está tão desesperado para lançar o seu recente recrutamento draconiano. Zelensky falou da necessidade de recrutar até 500 000 novos soldados. Isto é uma admissão implícita de que o número mais elevado de mortos, entre 500 e 600 mil, é de facto exato se for necessário encontrar tantos substitutos.

Quando o regime de Kiev anunciou a sua nova campanha de recrutamento no início deste mês, seguiu-se imediatamente uma corrida de ucranianos às embaixadas em toda a Europa para renovar os seus documentos, como passaportes e cartas de condução. A pressa deveu-se ao facto de não quererem ter de regressar à Ucrânia para renovar os seus documentos, sob pena de serem sujeitos a um recrutamento forçado.

Já há uma miríade de relatos e vídeos (não cobertos pelos meios de comunicação ocidentais, com certeza) de homens ucranianos a serem apanhados nas ruas por rufias do regime de Kiev para o serviço militar. Muitos outros esconderam-se no interior do país. Houve escândalos sobre famílias ucranianas que foram extorquidas por agentes de recrutamento, que lhes pediram milhares de dólares para poupar pais e filhos. Milhares de outros arriscaram as suas vidas tentando atravessar rios a nado para países vizinhos.

O facto de o regime de Kiev estar a tomar a medida extrema de recusar agora os serviços consulares aos seus cidadãos masculinos no estrangeiro é uma prova de quão vingativo e insensível é o regime de Kiev. O objetivo é conseguir até um milhão de recrutas para os campos de extermínio ao longo dos 1 000 quilómetros da linha da frente com a Rússia, no leste do país.

É aqui que a história da propaganda ocidental se torna absurda. Para evitar ser arrastado de volta para a Ucrânia, espera-se que muitos dos que vivem no estrangeiro renunciem à cidadania. Se não tiverem passaportes válidos e não puderem renovar os seus documentos, tornam-se apátridas e ilegais. Isto significa que centenas de milhares de ucranianos terão, necessariamente, de pedir asilo político nos países da União Europeia. Em suma, a sua situação é a de não poderem regressar ao seu país de origem por receio de serem perseguidos.

Não é ridículo? Os Estados Unidos e os seus vassalos europeus doaram até 300 mil milhões de dólares em dinheiro público para apoiar um regime de que fogem os próprios cidadãos, com medo.

O último esbanjamento de 61 mil milhões de dólares por parte dos Estados Unidos não ajudará a Ucrânia a vencer a guerra por procuração orquestrada pela NATO contra a Rússia. A generosidade irá apenas prolongar a agonia da Ucrânia e apoiar o corrupto regime neonazi. Já foram abatidos cerca de meio milhão de soldados ucranianos numa guerra criminosa e fútil em nome dos interesses imperialistas ocidentais. Muitos analistas militares independentes concordam que a falta crítica é de mão-de-obra ucraniana.

Zelensky e os seus capangas estão a tentar extorquir mais corpos para o matadouro. Washington e os seus lacaios europeus estão a alimentar a máquina de matar dos militares que lucram com a caça ao homem do regime de Kiev em busca de nova carne para canhão.

É hediondo e diabólico. É também chocantemente flagrante – a menos que se confie nos media ocidentais para a sua "informação".

A verdade é que o público ocidental está a apoiar um regime que até os seus cidadãos temem. É um duplo golpe. O Ocidente está a subsidiar um regime que está a matar desnecessariamente o seu povo em vez de se envolver numa diplomacia pacífica com a Rússia para pôr fim a esta guerra.

Além disso, milhões de ucranianos estão a viver em países europeus sem pagar renda, o que coloca uma enorme pressão sobre a habitação e os serviços para os cidadãos europeus. Tudo isto porque o Tio Sam e os cães de guarda europeus estão a promover uma guerra criminosa por procuração.

Os ucranianos não estão a fugir da agressão russa. Estão a fugir do horrível regime parasitário ucraniano e do banho de sangue desencadeado pela NATO.

Tradução: resistir.info

5. Javier Milei y la rendición de Argentina al proyecto globalista

Milei está llevando a cabo la liquidación de Argentina como Estado soberano y líder sudamericano a un ritmo vertiginoso.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

Argentina siempre ha sido un elemento clave en la geopolítica de América del Sur y, al mismo tiempo, uno de sus eslabones débiles. Su posición geográfica le otorga, al sur, un acceso preferente a la Antártida, así como un fácil acceso al Estrecho de Magallanes (controlado por Chile), uno de los principales pasos del Océano Atlántico al Pacífico. Al norte, Argentina se extiende hasta el Chaco, que forma el núcleo del Corazón de América del Sur.

También es importante señalar que a lo largo del proceso de construcción de Argentina, a pesar de los numerosos conflictos armados internos y externos, el país platino apareció en el continente americano como uno de los países más desarrollados económica y militarmente, con una población bien educada y comprometida políticamente.

Pero al mismo tiempo, Argentina siempre ha tenido que lidiar con ciertas debilidades, como una élite claramente filobritánica, que siempre se ha alzado cuando el Estado estaba dirigido por alguna figura soberanista. Además, los argentinos nunca consiguieron resolver el problema de la excesiva concentración demográfica en torno a Buenos Aires, con la mitad sur del país prácticamente deshabitada, una región fértil y rica en recursos naturales, pero vacía.

La pujanza de Argentina ha llevado al país a colisionar con Brasil varias veces a lo largo de la historia, especialmente durante el siglo XIX, pero en el siglo XX, con Perón y Vargas respectivamente, ambos países se dieron cuenta de que el destino del continente estaba ligado al rumbo de estos estados. Dotados de una conciencia geopolítica extemporánea, diseñaron una alianza continental que podría ser la pieza central de un proyecto de Estados soberanistas no alineados.

No debe sorprendernos, por tanto, que ambos fueran derrocados por movimientos golpistas cívico-militares, gestados por élites oligárquicas compradoras cuyos intereses económicos estaban ligados a la hegemonía atlantista.

El caso de Argentina y los intereses atlantistas sobre ella tiene sus peculiaridades.

Es de público conocimiento que cuando Theodor Herzl escribió El Estado Judío, obra seminal del movimiento sionista organizado, se especulaba sobre "patrias" judías alternativas si no se lograba adquirir Palestina para su asentamiento. El papel desempeñado por el barón Edmond de Rothschild en la adquisición de tierras palestinas y la financiación de los asentamientos es bien conocido. Menos conocido es el papel del barón Maurice de Hirsch en la financiación de los asentamientos coloniales judíos en Argentina, de modo que el país tiene hoy la mayor proporción de judíos de América Latina.

Esta inmigración, sin embargo, no condujo a la división territorial, ni hubo problemas inmediatos en cuanto a la integración de los inmigrantes. Aun así, se mantuvieron las sospechas sobre posibles proyectos a largo plazo, dando lugar a la narrativa del "Plan Andinia".

Según comentarios de patriotas argentinos desde la época de Perón, existía un plan para separar el sur de Argentina, transformándolo en una nueva nación que serviría como una especie de "segundo Israel", un proyecto muy recordado en los últimos años por el periodista y geopolitólogo francés Thierry Meyssan. Históricamente, sin embargo, hasta hace pocos años, no se encontraban pruebas suficientes que indicaran la realidad de este plan.

Sin embargo, a medida que el movimiento indigenista mapuche comenzó a recibir la atención de los medios de comunicación occidentales, así como financiación extranjera y una especie de "patrocinio" de la Corona británica, la idea de que la fragmentación de Argentina constituía un riesgo real volvió a primer plano, independientemente de la excusa utilizada para ello.

A esto se suma el hecho de que casi el 6% del territorio argentino está controlado por grandes conglomerados extranjeros, como el Grupo Benetton, lo que llevó a Cristina Kirchner a intentar limitar la cantidad de tierras en manos de extranjeros en el país, con un límite de 1.000 hectáreas por propietario, que fue aprobado pero ahora revocado por el gobierno de Javier Milei.

En otras palabras, bajo el gobierno de Milei ya no hay límites sobre cuánta tierra puede poseer un extranjero en Argentina, o cuánta tierra en cada provincia puede estar en manos de extranjeros (algo que antes estaba regulado).

Justo antes de las elecciones presidenciales argentinas se produjo otra polémica relacionada con la propiedad de tierras por extranjeros en Argentina.

Se trataba concretamente de Joe Lewis, propietario del Tottenham a través de su empresa ENIC Sport. Lewis, un multimillonario judío con predilecciones sionistas que se enriqueció principalmente en los años 90 gracias a sus ataques especulativos emprendidos en asociación con George Soros, posee 30.000 hectáreas de tierra en la Patagonia argentina.

De estas 30.000 hectáreas, 15.000 hectáreas estarían alrededor del Lago Escondido (lo que en la práctica supuso la privatización del lago) y 15.000 hectáreas estarían en Playas Doradas, donde Lewis dispondría de un aeropuerto privado que no estaría bajo el control de la aduana ni de la policía argentinas.

El caso Lewis llamó la atención porque semanas antes de las elecciones argentinas, una fiscalía argentina abrió una investigación por fraude en la adquisición de tierras por parte de Joe Lewis. No se ha vuelto a hablar de este caso desde que Milei asumió el cargo.

Muy cerca de Milei están también Eduardo Elzstein y Marcelo Mindlin, también antiguos socios de George Soros y propietarios de cientos de miles de hectáreas en el país, a través de Cresud, centrada en la agricultura, e IRSA, dedicada a la promoción inmobiliaria. Ambos poseen en conjunto unas 500.000 hectáreas de tierra en Argentina, una parte considerable de las cuales se encuentra en la Patagonia.

En 2019, MintPress News abordó precisamente esta polémica sobre la adquisición de tierras patagónicas por parte de multimillonarios con vínculos directos o indirectos con Israel y el sionismo, exponiendo tanto el carácter ilegal de esta acumulación de tierras como los vínculos políticos de Joe Lewis, por ejemplo, con figuras como el expresidente argentino Mauricio Macri.

El artículo también menciona otro, más antiguo, de Thierry Meyssan, que de hecho suscita preocupación y lanza una advertencia a todo el continente: que en las tierras de Joe Lewis se recibían cada año cientos o incluso miles de soldados de las FDI disfrazados de "turistas", no se sabe con qué propósito.

De ser cierta esta información, se reavivaría el debate sobre la posibilidad de supervivencia de intereses sionistas en la Patagonia argentina, aunque estos intereses sean secundarios o terciarios. De hecho, de existir algún interés de este tipo, la presidencia de Milei constituye la condición ideal para que los proyectos vinculados a este interés sigan adelante.

Sin vínculos étnicos conocidos con Israel, Milei se ha esforzado sin embargo por ocultar su amor por Israel desde antes de llegar a la presidencia. Entre el estudio de la Cábala y la visita a la tumba del Rebe Schneerson (el "padrino" espiritual de Benjamin Netanyahu), Milei ha ofrecido un nivel de apoyo sin precedentes al Estado de Israel, visitando el país, prometiendo trasladar la embajada argentina a Jerusalén y, esta semana, pidiendo la detención del Ministro del Interior iraní por las explosiones en la Embajada de Israel en Argentina y en la AMIA (Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina) a principios de la década de 1990, a pesar de que las investigaciones sobre el caso están envueltas en la polémica, la incertidumbre y las influencias políticas.

Si el acercamiento a Israel corresponde a la confluencia de las tendencias sionistas del propio Milei con posibles proyectos de acumulación de tierras vinculados a intereses oligárquicos directa o indirectamente ligados a Israel, el acercamiento a EE.UU. se vincula al "occidentalismo libertario" de Milei, que ve a EE.UU. como un "bastión de la civilización", y que ve a Argentina como un país condenado a la subalternidad en relación al hegemón unipolar.

Por eso no sorprendió la visita de Laura Richardson, Comandante del Comando Sur, a Argentina a principios de abril. No en vano, Richardson no ha dejado de recorrer todos los países de la región desde que asumió el cargo, con el objetivo de estrechar lazos y distanciarlos de las potencias contrahegemónicas.

Sorprendió, sin embargo, el repentino anuncio de que Ushuaia recibiría una base naval integrada estadounidense (que, sin embargo, aún depende de la aprobación del Congreso de EEUU), y sigue a la decisión de Argentina de adquirir F-16 (y suspender las negociaciones por los JF-17 chinos), así como de cancelar el acuerdo nuclear con China, que habría garantizado un reactor chino para la central nuclear Atucha III. Esto se suma a la sorpresiva petición de Argentina de ingresar en la OTAN como "socio global".

El creciente interés estadounidense en Argentina, especialmente en su región austral, se atribuye a la búsqueda de librar una "guerra secreta" contra la presencia china en la región (de ahí el esfuerzo por boicotear la base espacial china de Neuquén, en la Patagonia argentina. Naturalmente, esta embestida estadounidense también apunta a la Antártida como futuro escenario de conflictos geopolíticos (como ya vemos en el Polo Norte).

La visita de Laura Richardson fue precedida por una visita de William Burns, director de la CIA, quien estuvo en Buenos Aires para hacer lobby contra las relaciones con China y Rusia (la misma razón por la que estuvo en Brasil al mismo tiempo).

Naturalmente, todos estos cambios radicales en la política exterior argentina descartan cualquier esperanza de recuperar las Malvinas en términos satisfactorios que respeten la soberanía argentina. Una Argentina atlantista, alineada con la OTAN y bajo tutela estadounidense, no tiene forma de recuperar las Malvinas, ocupadas por Gran Bretaña, también miembro de la OTAN y aliado histórico de Estados Unidos (desde hace 200 años).

Así, entre la compra de tierras argentinas por extranjeros, el interés sionista en un pedazo de Argentina, el alineamiento con la OTAN y la construcción de bases estadounidenses, Milei está llevando a cabo la liquidación de Argentina como Estado soberano y líder sudamericano a un ritmo vertiginoso.

6. Which path to Palestine? Options for a new strategy towards NATO

NATO's path to Persia is starting to resemble Hitler's path to Moscow, a city Napoleon Bonaparte visited once. The path both Hitler and Napoleon trod have their noteworthy points.

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Although it is now 13 years, roughly the same amount of time Hitler's 1000 year Reich lasted, since NATO's Brookings Institute published their notorious Which path to Persia: Options for a new American strategy towards Iran, the Yanks, it seems, are still on that same road to nowhere. However, given that all paths are two way streets, this article looks at the traffic going in the opposite direction, at how the Iranian, Russian and allied forces are ensuring NATO's all-conquering conquest is no walk in the park.

The first concrete thing to note about the Brookings paper is that it was written in the wake of the 2003-2011 Iraqi War, when the United States and its vassals believed, not without very good reason, that they had carte blanche to set the world on fire and to march over the ashes of dead Syrian, Palestinian and Iraqi children into downtown Tehran.

At the time of writing, NATO have still not reached Tehran, which now feels emboldened enough to retaliate against Israel's endless provocations and to tell the Americans that their own never ending crimes can and will have very serious consequences.

NATO's path to Persia, it seems, has many bumpy patches along the way, some of NATO's making, and some made by Iran and Russia, countries NATO wish to pillage, as their fathers did in times gone by.

Fair enough says you but Iran, by NATO's own accounts, are world leaders in drone production and the Russians, in their war against NATO in Ukraine, have shown they are no slouches either. Importantly, Russia's proven prowess in drone production and deployment directly contradicts this recent article in The Economist, which has now surpassed the New York Times as NATO's main high bow propaganda sheet, which bleats how the Soviet Union's Teletank was a disaster in the 1939 Winter War against Finland.

Given that the teletank is now only of interest to history's most obsessive buffs, the only reason for The Economist to dwell on it is to continue NATO's misinformation that the drones Russian forces are fighting with have the same level of technical sophistication as Tsar Alexander 11's standard issue shovels, which were first designed in 1869. Were the Economist to check out Russia's blackballed media, they would hear the other side of the story, the important and very cautionary one their NATO bosses recklessly and criminally suppress.

And that brings us to NATO's flag waving media, which has lost its focus since Lord Beaverbrook rallied the British during the Battle of Britain. Social media and VPNs to access Russian media have shown millions that The Economist and similar NATO rags are hooked on telling porkies. Not a good tactic, as the truth eventually outs. And, though the truth might not set you free, it would, at a minimum, help NATO prepare for the overwhelming Russian, Chinese and Iranian flak coming their way.

This is certainly the case with Iran's drones, which can bomb Jerusalem anytime they like. While NATO have been investing in systems little better than the teletank or Tsar Alexander 11's 1869 shovel, Iran, it seems, has come up with a few fancy drones of their own making.

The Economist is not allowed to admit that. Instead, it must spin this rubbish that Ukraine's home made drones have the capacity to bomb not only Moscow but also Siberia, that all of Russia, in other words, is at the mercy of these wunderwaffe which have resulted from the fact that Clown Prince Zelensky's regime "has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into long-range drones, capable of searching out and striking distant targets", the best of which "has a range of 3,000km, able to reach Siberia".

Let's leave aside, for the sake of the narrative, that the same Economist magazine also tells us that two years of war have impoverished many Ukrainians, that "the war has left millions [of Ukrainians] struggling economically, but two years after the beginning of the full-scale invasion some are suffering much more than others". Although the article tells us that Ukraine's corrupt rich are getting richer and its legions of poor are barely getting enough food to keep body and soul together, there is the bigger question as to where the gangster Zelensky is getting his "hundreds of millions of dollars" to bomb Siberia's reindeers.

The answer, despite the Economist's misinformation, is he is not and any serious ordnance he acquires to take down Crimea's Kerch Bridge, which is the Nazis' real proximate target, will be funded, financed, engineered and deployed from the American, British, German, French and allied governments.

Although The Economist, as befitting its amoral track record, is delighted the Biden regime is ponying up another $100 bn, give or take some loose change, to Zelensky and his shopaholic wife, even it has to acknowledge the internal American strains that Zelensky's pan handling is giving rise to.

Leaving aside that large swathes of the United States resemble third world sewers, history and basic economics both urge caution. While the 1940 Battle of Britain raged, two of the many excellent initiatives King George V1's government instituted were to produce the Sten gun and to issue consols. Although the Sten Gun was cheap and cheerful simplicity personified, its mass production and dissemination to European resistance groups was a very considerable irritant to Bandera's German allies, who were too fixated for their own good on wonderwaffe,which they thought would stop their inevitable defeat.

The British issuance of consols, perpetual bonds, allowed them to raise much needed funds from the City in 1940 when their backs were really against the wall. The importance of that was, when the chips were down, the British stood together and they put their money where Churchill's mouth was.

The flag waving Economist tells us that, today, things are different, that predatory hedge funds like BlackRock must take their shareholders into account, that they must, in other words, see which way the drones are flying and, if Ukraine or Israel are lost causes, the likes of BlackRock must cut their losses, abandon ship and, perhaps, even Zelensky and Netanyahu too.

And the key thing here is it is the hedge funds like BlackRock that are in charge of the NATO ship. Such outfits, at heart, are short term focused pirates, who believe they deserve the fruits of another man's labour. Not for them the long economic slog of today's China or Vietnam. Much better to sweep in, make a quick killing and to hell with the considerable collateral damage.

Take the case of Britain, America's junior partner in the Axis of NATO evil. And take Liz Truss, their much maligned former Prime Minister, who crashed her short lived government by trying to pass a disastrous budget that was crafted by vulture funds she and her inner circle were in hock to.

The relevance of Truss, or indeed current Prime Minister Sunak, is to show how the motto of what is good for General Motors is good for America is now, like the Teletank, only for historical buffs. If we look at the history of the Financial Times (FT) 30 index or the more recent FT100 index, we see a move away from true blue British companies to fly by night multinationals and hedge fund companies, whose primary loyalties lie far beyond England's green & pleasant land.

This can even be seen in English football, whose largely foreign owned Premier League clubs have decreed that there will no longer be replays in the FA Cup against teams from the lower divisions. Though this might seem marginal, it is divorcing the vast majority of England's football divisions and their supporters from the money pot which is the English Premier League, just as Prime Ministers from Margaret Thatcher to Liz Truss divorced the City of London from the economic wasteland of the rest of England.

The effect of this is that the politicians, who are in the pocket of the City of London lot, decide when and where King Charles' armies are supposed to fight. But, outside of rural Yorkshire and Cornwall, there is a major problem with recruiting, not least because most English people feel divorced from the likes of self-serving charlatans like Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak.

Although Zanny Minton Beddoes and her fellow toffs of The Economist have suggestions as "how to get more people into military uniforms", that can only work by re-establishing the social cohesion the English once had and which their more recent predatory economic policies have wrecked. Although enrolling more Ukrainians and Brazilians into His Majesty's forces might suffice over the short term, over the long term dying for King Charles and his vision of a greener and more environmentally friendly Buckingham Palace does not cut it.

NATO's path to Persia, it seems, is starting to resemble Hitler's path to Moscow, a city myself and Napoleon Bonaparte both visited once. Whereas my own visit was interesting in its own right, the path both Hitler and Napoleon trod have their noteworthy points too. Though Napoleon got there quicker than Hitler, whose troops just fell short within sight of Moscow, Tsar Alexander returned Napoleon's favour by triumphantly entering Paris in March 1814 and the Soviet Red Army overran Hitler's Berlin in April 1945.

Their paths to Moscow, then, tell a cautionary tale for those NATO vultures who see themselves sampling Iranian cuisine in Tehran or taking selfies of themselves by the Moskva River any time soon. The governments of Iran and Russia and, more importantly, their united militaries and civil societies have made it known that will not happen and that NATO, along with the Economist, the Brookings Institute and their affiliated vulture funds, should, as the English say, jog on before they become as obsolete as the teletank and Tsar Alexander's shovels they are so obsessed with.