Strategic Culture Foundation

1. La incertidumbre del imperio

Estados Unidos pasa por un momento complejo en aspectos políticos, económicos y de relacionamiento internacional

Kenneth COATES

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

En su mayoría, los indicadores económicos son positivos, pero la gente no parece compartir las expresiones de conformidad que llegan desde las altas esferas de gobierno. Persiste la incertidumbre y una vaga sensación de desconcierto que quizás se deban a la percepción de que todo puede deteriorarse rápidamente.

El efecto Kennedy

En el terreno político electoral, por ejemplo, no se recuerdan épocas modernas de enfrentamiento tan radicalizado como la presente. En ambos partidos tradicionales, el republicano y el demócrata, priman posiciones extremas que buscan descalificar al adversario y desacreditar su gobierno. Solo en circunstancias límite –como la necesidad de autorizar incrementos presupuestales para evitar el cierre de actividades esenciales de gobierno– las partes acuerdan sobre la hora una extensión transitoria.

Las campañas electorales internas (primarias) de cada partido, a todos los efectos prácticos, han concluido, resultando en la confirmación de una revancha entre Biden y Trump. Una parte importante del electorado rechaza esta opción, preguntándose cómo es posible que en un país de 340 millones de habitantes la única alternativa sea entre dos expresidentes de avanzada edad cuya lucidez y equilibrio son cuestionados.

Ante esta disconformidad, ha comenzado a ganar terreno la candidatura independiente de Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) Jr., hijo del senador Bobby Kennedy y sobrino del expresidente Jack Kennedy, ambos asesinados en la década de los años sesenta. Aun cuando encuestas preliminares sugieren que RFK Jr. difícilmente pueda superar el umbral del veinte por ciento de las preferencias, la pregunta que hoy surge es a cuál de los dos candidatos mayores podrá perjudicar en mayor grado. Los indicios preliminares sugieren una leve desventaja para Biden.

En resumen, a pesar de sus frecuentes encuentros con el sistema judicial, no habrá impedimentos a la candidatura de Trump. De ser así, las consecuencias podrían ser desestabilizantes. Pero está lejos de tener la victoria asegurada: ya perdió una vez contra Biden y su comportamiento posterior le ha costado adhesiones. Falta mucho aún para las elecciones de noviembre, que por el momento parece que serán de alquilar balcones.

Las pausas de la FED

Con un crecimiento del 2,5 por ciento del PBI durante 2023, Estados Unidos se destacó como una de las economías más dinámicas entre las avanzadas. Máxime que las expectativas comenzaron dicho año con sesgo negativo en vista de la seguidilla de aumentos en la tasa de interés hasta el mes de julio, que desde entonces se ha mantenido.

No solo no se produjo el temido aterrizaje forzoso, sino que la economía continuó creando empleos a un ritmo sostenido. El desempleo se mantuvo en niveles históricamente bajos y los salarios comenzaron a repuntar. En términos interanuales, los sueldos del último trimestre de 2023 aumentaron en 5,4 por ciento. El salario mensual promedio se ubica cerca de los cinco mil dólares.

Los mercados financieros han acompañado el repunte con niveles récord en los índices bursátiles, aunque con marcada volatilidad en función de las expectativas en torno al camino de las tasas de interés. Ello a su vez se relaciona con el progreso en abatir la tasa de inflación. Luego de un marcado descenso en el año el IPC se estabilizó en torno al cuatro por ciento en su versión subyacente (excluyendo componentes de alimentación y energía).

Ante dicho comportamiento, la FED ha interrumpido el descenso de su tasa de política monetaria, señalando que retomará dicha senda en la segunda mitad del año con tres rebajas del 0,25 por ciento si las circunstancias lo ameritan. Ello coincidirá con los últimos meses de la campaña política. Los mercados financieros suelen ingresar en etapas eufóricas cuando bajan las tasas, ya que ello abarata el costo de su materia prima, el dinero.

El gasto fiscal y el escenario mundial

Dentro de este panorama relativamente favorable, deben tomarse en cuenta dos riesgos importantes, el fiscal y el global. El déficit del año fiscal 2023 fue de 1,7 billones de dólares, equivalentes al 6,7 por ciento del PBI. Es un nivel excesivo y solamente accesible merced al rol del dólar como moneda de reserva internacional. La deuda pública de Estados Unidos hoy alcanza un cociente del 123 por ciento del PBI, con visos de seguir creciendo con base en el desequilibrio fiscal imperante. Dichos niveles representan un riesgo a la estabilidad del dólar.

Este nivel de gasto responde a varias causas, tanto internas como internacionales. El 62 por ciento del gasto responde a programas sociales (seguridad social, salud, desempleo), el once por ciento a intereses y el veintisiete por ciento a gastos discrecionales (defensa y otros). Este último componente se divide en partes iguales tanto en aspectos directamente militares como en programas destinados a reforzar la industria nacional en áreas de producción de energía, cuidado ambiental y fortalecimiento de las cadenas de aprovisionamiento de insumos críticos. Autonomía estratégica, al decir de Macron.

La dirección general del gasto sugiere un cambio de prioridades que confirma no solo una tendencia de desglobalización del comercio, sino también el advenimiento de un mundo menos hospitalario que en décadas recientes. Las tensiones se van agravando, como vemos en Europa central y el Medio Oriente, y los grandes serán llamados a actuar.

Por ello, a pesar de los resultados económicos, la tónica general es de cautela. Las bases del gasto son la política monetaria, la fiscal y el endeudamiento, que pueden proporcionar dividendos pasajeros, pero eventualmente deberán rendir cuentas.

Publicado originalmente por La incertidumbre del imperio | La Mañana (xn--lamaana-7za.uy)

2. Geopolítica do tráfico humano: Como as operações ocidentais de mudança de regime permitem atividades criminosas?

De acordo com uma investigação recente, o regime de Kiev está à frente de um grande esquema internacional de comércio de escravos.

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

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Você pode seguir Lucas no X (ex-Twitter) e Telegram.

O comércio de escravos na Ucrânia tornou-se um dos problemas mais graves de nossos tempos. Desde o golpe de Estado de 2014, Kiev tem sido um ator fundamental na escravatura moderna, especialmente nas redes de tráfico de seres humanos e de exploração sexual. A instabilidade política e social que tem afetado o país desde a operação de mudança de regime liderada pelo Ocidente é um dos principais fatores para o crescimento de tais violações dos direitos humanos.

Um recente relatório de investigação publicado pela Foundation to Battle Injustice mostrou em detalhes a gravidade do comércio de escravos na Ucrânia. Segundo a organização, Kiev tornou-se um dos principais polos globais do mercado de tráfico de pessoas, com livre exploração e circulação de trabalhadores irregulares – além do conhecido tráfico de mulheres e crianças no predatório mercado sexual.

O estudo aponta que mais de 300 mil ucranianos foram vítimas do mercado de escravos entre 1991 e 2021. Esta situação, no entanto, deteriorou-se ainda mais desde que Vladimir Zelensky chegou ao poder. Estima-se que desde o início do governo de Zelensky, mais de 550 mil ucranianos tenham sido escravizados. Estes números são alarmantes e colocam a Ucrânia como um dos principais agentes do tráfico de seres humanos em todo o mundo.

No seu relatório, citando fontes familiarizadas com o tema e vários especialistas, a Fundação expôs como o comércio de escravos na Ucrânia não se limita à exploração de cidadãos ucranianos. Desde 2021, dois centros de acolhimento para refugiados da África funcionam em Ternopil. Estas instalações foram utilizadas não só para receber migrantes, mas também para os vender no mercado negro europeu. Um suposto membro do Gabinete Presidencial Ucraniano, sob condição de anonimato, relatou aos investigadores que o organizador da rede ucraniana de tráfico de pessoas é Ruslan Stefanchuk, atual presidente da Verkhovna Rada.

Diz-se que Stefanchuk é o principal beneficiário e coordenador das redes de tráfico de seres humanos na Ucrânia, trabalhando tanto na venda de cidadãos ucranianos no mercado negro internacional como na exploração de estrangeiros que chegam através de fluxos migratórios e são entregues a redes criminosas na Europa. Parentes do parlamentar ucraniano também parecem estar envolvidos em tais atividades, já que uma grande rede de empresas privadas está legalmente registrada em nome de pessoas próximas a ele, como seu irmão, Mykola Stefanchuck, e sua esposa, Marina Stefanchuk.

Stefanchuk e as empresas de seus parentes têm a função de disfarçar o tráfico de escravos, fazendo-o parecer um negócio legal. Os anúncios são feitos para "ajudar" as pessoas de diversas maneiras, como oferecendo emprego ou assistência financeira. Assim, migrantes, refugiados e ucranianos vulneráveis são atraídos para reuniões e entrevistas por empresas supostamente legais e responsáveis, mas logo após as reuniões os seus documentos são confiscados, e estas pessoas são capturadas e entregues a redes criminosas.

"Tudo é construído para parecer o mais legal possível. Mulheres, crianças e homens ucranianos são convidados para entrevistas em empresas respeitáveis em Kiev, Ternopil, Lviv ou Ivano-Frankivsk. São feitas ofertas financeiras tentadoras e condições de trabalho paradisíacas. Depois, sob um pretexto plausível, os seus cartões de identidade são confiscados. Depois disso, [os criminosos] podem fazer absolutamente o que quiserem com eles", disse a fonte aos investigadores.

Este tipo de situação não é surpreendente. Na Ucrânia, vários crimes são cometidos impunemente por altos funcionários do Estado. O trabalho ilegal, a exploração sexual de mulheres e crianças, o alistamento militar de crianças e até o tráfico de órgãos têm sido frequentemente relatados no país. Vale lembrar o caso de Vasily Prozorov, um ex-agente do serviço secreto ucraniano que emigrou para a Rússia e fez um importante trabalho expondo os crimes de Kiev. Segundo ele, existe uma rede criminosa de tráfico e exploração de crianças ucranianas em esquemas de pedofilia nos quais as autoridades ocidentais estão profundamente envolvidas.

Prozorov afirma que crianças ucranianas são vendidas pela SBU a predadores sexuais britânicos com a ajuda do serviço secreto de Londres. A escravidão sexual é o destino da maioria das crianças que misteriosamente "desaparecem" na Ucrânia – muitas das quais são de etnia russa capturadas em regiões próximas das linhas da frente pelos chamados "Anjos Brancos", que são agentes ucranianos que trabalham para redes de pedofilia, mas disfarçados de "resgatadores". Também vale a pena lembrar que Prozorov sofreu recentemente uma tentativa de assassinato por parte do serviço de inteligência ucraniano, o que mostra que o seu trabalho tem preocupado Kiev.

É fácil compreender por que a Ucrânia se tornou um centro de tráfico internacional de seres humanos. Kiev sofreu uma mudança de regime em 2014 e, desde então, todos os cidadãos ucranianos têm sido submetidos a um regime repressivo sem lei. O aumento do extremismo, do terrorismo e dos crimes contra os direitos humanos são consequências diretas do caos político e institucional na Ucrânia pós-2014. E esta não é uma característica exclusiva da Ucrânia.

Anteriormente, a Líbia passou por uma experiência semelhante, com uma operação de mudança de regime liderada pelo Ocidente a ser bem sucedida e a levar o país à mais absoluta crise política e social. Desde então, o território líbio tem sido amplamente reconhecido por investigadores e observadores internacionais como o principal centro do comércio de escravos no continente africano. A ausência de um governo forte e eficaz na garantia da lei e da ordem tem sido um fator-chave para que os grupos criminosos operem com impunidade.

As redes de inteligência ocidentais cooperam com organizações criminosas envolvidas no tráfico de seres humanos porque esta é uma forma fácil de gerar dinheiro ilegal e não rastreável. Como é sabido, as agências de inteligência ocidentais estão envolvidas em atividades terroristas, assassinatos políticos e financiamento de revoluções coloridas. Estas atividades não podem ser declaradas publicamente porque envolvem atos de natureza criminosa, pelo que obviamente as agências estatais ocidentais não podem usar dinheiro público nestas ações. Assim, utiliza-se "caixa negro", proveniente de fontes ilegais como esses esquemas lucrativos e imorais de tráfico de pessoas, exploração sexual e comércio de escravos – além de atividades como tráfico de drogas, comércio irregular de armas e outras. Por outras palavras, os crimes cometidos em países controlados pelo Ocidente Coletivo geram fundos que a inteligência ocidental é capaz de utilizar fora dos olhos da contabilidade pública.

É possível dizer que existe uma espécie de geopolítica do tráfico de seres humanos, na qual o intervencionismo ocidental desempenha um papel vital na viabilização de crimes que fornecem dinheiro ilegal às agências de inteligência ocidentais. A Ucrânia e a Líbia são talvez a maior prova disso.

3. Invasión de la Embajada de México en Ecuador: Colapso del derecho internacional

EEUU tenga que enterrar el derecho internacional y sumir al continente en el caos.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

El mundo contempló atónito cómo la Policía ecuatoriana allanaba en Quito la Embajada de México en el país para cumplir una orden de detención contra el exvicepresidente Jorge Glas, acusado de corrupción en un caso que levanta numerosas sospechas.

Jorge Glas fue vicepresidente de Ecuador entre 2013 y 2017, periodo que correspondió a las presidencias de Rafael Correa y Lenín Moreno, hasta que en diciembre de 2017 fue condenado a seis años de prisión por presunta corrupción en licitaciones de obras que habrían sido entregadas a cambio de pagos a la empresa brasileña Odebrecht.

El caso tuvo lugar en el contexto de la Operación Autolavado, que en su día llevó a la cárcel al presidente brasileño Lula, así como incalculables daños en empleos, inversiones y obras que afectaron principalmente a Petrobras y Odebrecht. En Brasil, muchas decisiones relacionadas con la Operación Autolavado han sido revocadas y anuladas en los últimos años -naturalmente, debido principalmente a las nuevas relaciones de poder entre las élites políticas y económicas de Brasil-, pero no se puede ignorar que las pruebas utilizadas para garantizar las condenas durante los casos de corrupción relacionados con la Operación Autolavado eran extremadamente endebles.

De hecho, la mayoría de las condenas se basaron en "acuerdos de culpabilidad", es decir, cuando un investigado afirma tener información sobre otros acusados y la entrega a las autoridades a cambio de una serie de beneficios, entre ellos la inmunidad judicial. Este mecanismo, inexistente hasta ahora en la mayoría de los ordenamientos jurídicos iberoamericanos, es una evidente importación estadounidense.

La Operación Autolavado fue reconocida desde el principio — basta con echar un vistazo a los escritos de Andrew Korybko — como parte de un esquema de lawfare dirigido desde EE.UU. contra importantes empresas brasileñas, con EE.UU. reclamando jurisdicción universal a su Departamento de Justicia a través de una disposición que le autorizaba a investigar y perseguir cualquier caso de corrupción, en cualquier parte del mundo, siempre y cuando cualquier ciudadano o empresa estadounidense estuviera involucrado en cualquier parte del supuesto esquema.

Como lawfare, este tipo de estrategia "anticorrupción" llevada a cabo por jueces y fiscales previamente educados en EE.UU. se reveló como parte del arsenal de armas de la guerra híbrida permanente del Occidente atlantista.

En el caso de Jorge Glas, encontramos los mismos indicios y elementos peculiares, y llama la atención que la condena de Glas también se produjo únicamente por un "acuerdo de culpabilidad". Por lo tanto, es plausible un carácter político en su caso.

Por lo tanto, el caso debe situarse en el contexto de la victimización de Ecuador en las tácticas de guerra híbrida del Occidente atlantista. Este contexto incluye también el giro occidental de Lenín Moreno, sucesor de Rafael Correa, responsable de la entrega de Julian Assange a las autoridades británicas, así como el descenso de Ecuador a una crisis narcoterrorista (que, a su vez, requiere medidas de "estado de excepción" como respuesta) que culminó con los atentados generalizados de Quito en 2023.

Lo sorprendente, sin embargo, es que se haya llegado al extremo de violar principios básicos del derecho internacional en la "lucha contra la corrupción".

La inmunidad diplomática y la inviolabilidad de las embajadas es un principio tan antiguo que prácticamente puede considerarse una ley natural aplicada a las civilizaciones humanas. Esta inmunidad, es decir, el respeto a la persona y a los bienes de un emisario extranjero portador de documentación oficial (posteriormente extendida a los establecimientos físicos en los que estos emisarios desempeñan sus funciones, cuando las embajadas se hicieron permanentes ya en la Edad Moderna) es algo ya descrito por el historiador griego Heródoto, y también está presente en el Corán y entre los reinos del subcontinente indio.

De hecho, a lo largo de la historia se han desencadenado innumerables guerras específicamente por ofensas a la integridad de los diplomáticos, como la invasión mongola del Imperio Caspio. Incluso durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, una de las más duras y destructivas jamás libradas sobre la faz de la tierra, las naciones beligerantes respetaron las embajadas, garantizando la evacuación de los funcionarios de los países enemigos a través de los países neutrales.

Sin embargo, Ecuador no tiene la culpa de la violación más grotesca de la inmunidad diplomática y del carácter sagrado de las embajadas en los últimos años. Ese deshonor corresponde en realidad a Israel, que días antes de que la policía ecuatoriana asaltara la embajada mexicana, bombardeó los locales utilizados por la misión diplomática iraní en Damasco.

En ese bombardeo, que fue de hecho un crimen según el derecho internacional (razón por la cual la moderada reacción iraní dos semanas después puede considerarse legítima), Israel asesinó a 16 personas, entre ellas civiles. Como canto fúnebre por la muerte del derecho internacional, la llamada "comunidad internacional" (es decir, Estados Unidos y sus aliados) no condenó en su mayoría el ataque terrorista israelí.

No es posible señalar directamente que la invasión de la embajada mexicana no se habría producido sin el bombardeo israelí, pero es obvio que cada violación del derecho internacional que se tolera sin un castigo claro debilita aún más la estructura general de las normas internacionales.

Así, lo que está quedando claro es que el colapso del momento unipolar (ese intento de EEUU de imponer su orden como norma universal) va acompañado también de un debilitamiento generalizado de cualquier sentido del orden, especialmente a manos de las potencias que se sienten en desventaja en esta fase de transición internacional. Como resultado, nos acercamos a una especie de "estado de naturaleza" internacional hobbesiano, en el que cada Estado actúa exclusivamente en función de sus intereses inmediatos, sin tener en cuenta la preservación de la armonía y el equilibrio internacionales.

Pero volviendo a la incursión en la embajada, resulta curioso que se produjera pocos meses después de la firma de acuerdos de cooperación militar entre Ecuador y EEUU, en el contexto de los atentados narcoterroristas que tuvieron lugar en Quito el año pasado (atentados que despertaron muchas sospechas, gracias a los notorios vínculos históricos entre los cárteles de la droga y el Estado Profundo estadounidense) y que supusieron un incremento de la presencia norteamericana en el continente.

Por si quedaba alguna duda sobre el servilismo del nuevo gobierno ecuatoriano a EE.UU., hace unos días The Intercept demostró que Ecuador estaba actuando como apoderado de EE.UU. para presionar internacionalmente en la ONU contra el reconocimiento de la condición de Estado de Palestina.

En la práctica, de hecho, todo esto confirma la lectura que apunta a un aumento de la presión estadounidense sobre Iberoamérica, en una estrategia que combina elementos militares, jurídicos, culturales y policiales, en una especie de actualización de la Doctrina Monroe, con el objetivo de garantizar la hegemonía sobre las Américas frente a sus derrotas geopolíticas en otras partes del mundo.

Aunque, para ello, EEUU tenga que enterrar el derecho internacional y sumir al continente en el caos.

4. NBC’s Cultural Revolution (Ronna McDaniel)

Peter Van Buren

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

For all the talk of a Civil Cold War now underway in America, Red vs. Blue, it is the wrong historical example. The professional death of Ronna McDaniel at NBC earlier this month was an event right out of Mao's time, not Robert E. Lee's. McDaniel was fired by the masses at NBC because she wrongthought, because she held political views associated with the right and not the leftist road NBC and its running dog networks follow. The decision comes less than a week after NBC News announced her hiring, prompting an extraordinary public protest from the former host of its flagship Sunday morning show, as well as from popular MSNBC hosts. They fired her, but a public flogging would not have been out of the question if Chuck Todd thought he might get away with it, and he might have.

Fans of the new Netflix series "3 Body Problem" saw it in action: the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Beginning in May 1966, this was a decade-long period of political and social chaos caused by Mao Zedong's bid to use the Chinese masses to reassert his control over the Communist party. It was almost unfathomable in its brutality, killing as many as two million people for wrongthinking, thoughts that fail the ideological purity test. Wrongthink is an Orwellian word that preceeded the Revolution by decades but described its core spot-on. The word is equally useful today.

"3 Body Problem" opens with a fictionalization of just one death, a university professor who refused to change his beliefs about physics to match Mao-thought, as contained in his so-called Little Red Book. For its complexity, the Cultural Revolution boiled down to one thing: believe what the majority says is right or suffer, to the pain of death, at the hands of the powerful. "Mean Girls" this is not.

McDaniel, who is the niece of Republican Senator Mitt Romney, was first hired to lead the Republican National Committee (RNC) by Trump in 2017 after she served as chair of the Michigan Republican Party. She was then hired by NBC presumably to bring a dot of balance to NBC's news coverage after her recent Trump-led ouster at the RNC. She was stricken from the news network after only four days on the job because as head of the RNC she in the past voiced support for claims by Trump about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The gist of the burn at NBC was that was a lie, McDaniel thus a liar, and as an NBC analyst she could not be trusted to not lie more.

"Hold my beer" said dozens of people who came from the Democratic National Committee and the Biden White House to work as NBC analysts, chief among them Jen Psaki, who, as the official spokesperson for the Biden White House, lied as a profession to defend Joe Biden (here's a compendium of her lies.) She jumped from liar-for-hire to hosting a show and constantly being on MSNBC, including "Meet the Press." NBC frequently calls on the former spooks John Brennan, James Clapper, and once-senior FBI official and associate director Frank Figliuzzi. These are trained liars of the Deep State, men who helped promote Russiagate and sought the overthrow of Trump on fake accusations. Previously Neo-Cons were given hours of airtime on NBC to defend the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses and to later defend torture as a righteous response of a democracy to terrorism. How are they different from McDaniel? Rightthink versus wrongthink. If you are going to tell a lie it had better be in line with what the masses want to believe at NBC.

Truth? In a cultural revolution as we are undergoing now the truth is what the Party tells the masses it is. Remember how vehement Rachael Maddow was about the truth of Russiagate even after it was shown to be an elaborate hoax of the Deep State? No matter; there was no one like Ronna McDaniel around to tell her she was wrong and we now know there never will be.

Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski — hosts of Morning Joe, a morning show watched daily by President Biden — said they were being inundated with calls over the decision to hire McDaniel. They vowed never to have her on their show in any capacity. Nicolle Wallace, a former White House communications director for President George W. Bush who is now a host on MSNBC, said on her show Monday having McDaniel on the network would embolden "election deniers." Rachel Maddow, continuing the group therapy session, likened it all to hiring "a mobster to work at a D.A.'s office." Chuck Todd, who emerged alongside Maddow as the spokesperson for the masses in the NBC news division, worried especially about "giving Ronna NBC News' credibility."

Credibility? Only 32 percent of the population reports having "a great deal" or even "a fair amount" of confidence the media reports the news in a full, fair, and accurate way. The only other time in recent history that trust has fallen to 32 percent was in 2016, with the election. A record-high number of Americans — 39 percent — say they don't trust the media at all. That number has steadily increased since 2018. Much of the change is driven by Democrats and Independents, presumably NBC's target audience, whose collective trust in media plummeted 18 and 13 percentage points, respectively, from their 2018 peaks. What could you expect when the people who create the news are such blatant hypocrites? NBC news should not worry too much; its reputation for honestly ranks somewhere near "American Idol" anyway. The latest partisan jousting is just one of the many reasons why so many Americans roll their eyes when asked about the media.

This is in no way to grant Ronna McDaniel status as some magnificent journalist, someone who can be seen as speaking for a generation of Republicans. Nor is it to say she would have spoken much truth to power at NBC anyway; chances are she would have barked out what those who fed her wanted to hear, perhaps as a Washington Generals-like foil to some hero like Chuck Todd. And what happened at NBC could have just as easily taken place at CBS, CNN or NPR. As my colleague writes "greater injustices have been perpetrated in the media world than the premature conclusion to Ronna McDaniel's punditry career at NBC News."

The news is not there to make anyone feel safe. It exists so we can learn from it, and for us to learn from it we have to at times be offended and uncomfortable with it, to bathe in it, to taste it bitter or sweet. When you wash your hands of an idea you also lose all the ideas which grew to challenge it. Think antibodies fighting a disease. What happens when a body forgets how to fight an illness? What happens when places like NBC forget how to challenge a safe idea with an opposing one?

Original article: wemeantwell.com

5. From the ‘Battle of Dignity’ to the shield of shame: How Jordan has fallen

Amman's collaboration with Tel Aviv peaked last Saturday with its shocking defense of Israeli territory from Iranian drones and missiles, a move that may prove fateful for the future of the Hashemite Kingdom.

By Khalil HARB

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The most dangerous development during Iran's massive 13 April retaliatory strike against Israel last weekend was the defensive military alliance – comprising the US, Britain, Jordan, and France – that coalesced to defend the occupation state.

Jordan has jumped to Israel's full defense at a time when Arabs have never been more collectively outraged by its crimes.

Particularly notable was Jordan's role in thwarting Iran's incoming drones and missiles. The Hashemite Kingdom was the only Arab or Muslim state to act as Israel's "firewall," providing direct military protection for Tel Aviv within a multilateral, regional military framework.

Despite Amman's long-standing pro-Israel stance, this sudden reassertion of its position is indicative of some broader shifts in military strategies across West Asia.

Patterns and calculations of confrontations across West Asia will be readjusted to adapt to this new equation and others that have emerged in the region as alliances shift to and away from the west.

That includes the Axis of Resistance, which will likely reassess the expected range of responses in a future confrontation, given that western anti-missile capabilities are well spread throughout strategic locations – strategic sites from the Ain al-Assad base in Anbar, Iraq, to the Al-Tanf base at the Syrian–Jordanian–Iraqi border and from the Mashabim base in the Negev desert to the King Faisal base in northwestern Jordan.

Strategic shifts

Over the years, the Jordanian government has dramatically shrunk its commitments to the Palestinian cause and "Arabism."

This can be traced from its 1968 "Battle of Dignity" against Israel to 5 November, when King Abdullah II boasted of his country's "success" in airdropping medical aid to the Jordanian field hospital in the Gaza Strip, and now, quite stunningly, employing its air force to protect Israel's security from retaliatory Iranian strikes.

This shift is not merely a reactionary measure but the culmination of years of extensive security and military coordination with the occupation state, as highlighted by a Jordanian opposition activist speaking to The Cradle. This deep-seated integration into anti-missile and drone operations reflects a strategic evolution rather than a spontaneous response.

Eyewitness reports from multiple sources to The Cradle describe the audible presence of warplanes over the Amman region, followed by the sound of explosions hours later when overhead projectiles were intercepted and downed.

One Jordanian witness relays that the suburb of Marj al-Hamam saw the most interceptions against Iranian drones and missiles, with debris reported across the area.

Jordanian writer and journalist Rania Jabari informs The Cradle that "citizens in Jordan have felt jammed on the GPS for about two weeks," that is, since after the Israeli airstrike on Iran's consulate in Damascus.

Amid rising concerns about a swift Iranian counterattack through drone incursions, Israel reportedly initiated GPS jamming operations across several regional countries, including Jordan.

Jabari suggests that this electronic interference might have precipitated the Jordanian Air Force's readiness to intercept any unauthorized aerial objects in its airspace, given the potential risks to national security from mistakenly guiding Iranian drones into Jordanian territory.

However, the Jordanian opposition activist casts doubt on the capability of Jordan's Air Force – equipped with only about 60 older F-16 and F-5 aircraft – to single-handedly manage the response against hundreds of Iranian drones and missiles destined for Israel.

Regional repercussions

Supporting these suspicions, Israeli Channel 12 reported that Israeli fighter jets had intercepted drones launched by Iran in the airspace of Jordan and Syria.

The day after the Iranian Operation True Promise, the Jordanian government issued a vague statement, only saying that "some unidentified flying objects that entered our airspace last night were dealt with and intercepted to prevent endangering the safety of our citizens and inhabited areas."

The statement conspicuously omitted any mention of the scale of involvement of the Israeli Air Force or the nature and role of US fighter jets participating in the operation.

Given the limitations of Jordan's aerial fleet and the extensive geographic area these planes need to cover – a "firewall" stretching approximately 1,500 kilometers from western Iran to the occupied territories of Palestine – the involvement of international forces seems credible.

Additionally, Iraqi sources inform The Cradle that coalition forces had shot down about 30 drones and missiles over Iraq, with explosions heard in regions like Erbil, Najaf, Wasit, and Anbar. This indicates that a significant number of the drones and missiles traversed Jordanian skies, where they were intercepted before reaching their intended targets in Israel.

The role of the Jordanian Air Force is so significant that the Iranian Mehr news agency quoted an Iranian military source as saying, "Iran will monitor Jordanian movements, and if they cooperate with Israel, Jordan will be our next target."

The source is said to have "warned Jordan and other countries in the region before the start of the attack against cooperating with the occupying entity."

This statement seems to have aroused the ire of the Jordanian government. On Sunday, authorities summoned the Iranian ambassador in Amman to warn against Tehran's "questioning of Jordan's position."

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi also issued a statement saying that his government would "intercept any drone or missile that breaches our airspace, whether Iranian or Israeli."

However, the Jordanian oppositionist questions the accuracy of Safadi's statement, especially about his country's readiness to confront a similar threat coming from Tel Aviv, noting numerous occasions when Israeli fighter jets infiltrated Jordanian airspace to carry out raids on Syria.

A history of betraying Palestine 

Jordan's historical antagonism towards Palestinian resistance dates back to the "Black September" massacres of 1970, aimed at expelling the PLO from the country – allegedly with the support of former King Hussein bin Talal, who reportedly received backing from Israel and the US.

During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel's Air Force shot down and destroyed dozens of Jordanian aircraft. Following the 1994 Amman–Tel Aviv peace agreement, the two states have struck multiple defense deals, including Israel supplying Jordan with F-16 jets and Cobra helicopters.

Since the 1970s, when Israel supported Jordan during the Palestinian revolt against King Hussein, the two air forces have not engaged in combat. Israeli belligerence persists despite this. On the eve of the 1991 Gulf War, when asked about potential opposition from the Jordanian Air Force should Israel strike Iraq, then-retired Air Force Commander Avihu Ben-Nun boldly stated, "There would be no more Jordanian Air Force."

It is very likely, moreover, that the western militaries involved in Israel's defense last weekend utilized Jordanian bases. For example, US troops are stationed at the Mashabim air base in the Negev desert, supporting operations like the Iron Dome system.

Similarly, UK and French military forces are present at multiple strategic locations within Jordan, including the King Faisal Air Base in Al-Jafr and the Humaymah base near Aqaba, where they play roles in regional defense and run intelligence operations.

There are also French troops at King Faisal Air Base, known as Al-Ruwaished Base, which is close to Al-Tanf. From this base, activities involving espionage operations in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran are carried out through a state-of-the-art reconnaissance center, and its airport is believed to be used by both Israeli and US drones.

Sacrificing Jordan's stability for Israel's security 

But Jordan's relations and collaboration with Tel Aviv remain deeply unpopular among the country's citizenry, with protestors amassing for weeks near the Israeli embassy in Amman – many of them subsequently subjected to repression and tight security restrictions by Jordanian authorities.

Adding to the pressure on Amman, the Iraqi resistance faction, Kataib Hezbollah, announced earlier this month its readiness to arm "12,000 fighters with light and medium weapons, anti-armor launchers, tactical missiles, millions of bullets and tons of explosives, so that we can be united to defend our Palestinian brothers," adding that it would seek to "cut off the [Jordan] land route that reaches the Zionist entity."

By participating in the interception of Iranian drones, Jordan has made a significant contribution to alleviating some pressure off Israel, but one that comes with a much more significant domestic consequence for the stability of the kingdom.

Will Amman's blatant alignment with Tel Aviv in this context prove to be politically detrimental for its monarch? In years to come, this decision may be viewed as a strategic error of gargantuan proportions. For now, Jordan's political future and its position in regional politics remain uncertain – certainly as Tel Aviv and Tehran gear up for further confrontations.

King Abdallah can jump into the fray as he did last weekend and suffer through further waves of domestic and Arab outrage, or he can resolve to stay neutral and quiet – as many larger, more powerful neighbors chose to do – and let Iranians and Israelis adversaries fight their own battles.

Original article: thecradle.co

6. Will Zionism self-destruct?

Israel's strategy from past decades will continue with its hope of achieving some Chimeric transformative "de-radicalisation" of Palestinians that will make 'Israel safe'.

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

(This paper is the basis of a talk to be given at the 25th Yasin (April) International Academic Event on Economic and Social Development, HSE University, Moscow, April 2024)

In the summer following Israel's 2006 (unsuccessful) war on Hizbullah, Dick Cheney sat in his office loudly bemoaning Hizbullah's continuing strength; and worse still, that it seemed to him that Iran had been the primary beneficiary from the U.S. 2003 Iraq war.

Cheney's guest – the then Saudi Intelligence Chief, Prince Bandar – vigorously concurred (as chronicled by John Hannah, who participated in the meeting) and, to general surprise, Prince Bandar proclaimed that Iran yet could be cut to size: Syria was the 'weak' link between Iran and Hizbullah that could be collapsed via an Islamist insurgency, Bandar proposed. Cheney's initial scepticism turned to elation as Bandar said that U.S. involvement would be unnecessary: He, Prince Bandar, would orchestrate and manage the project. 'Leave it to me', he said.

Bandar separately told John Hannah: "The King knows that other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria".

Thus began a new phase of attrition on Iran. The regional balance of power was to be decisively shifted towards Sunni Islam – and the region's monarchies.

That old balance from the Shah's time in which Persia enjoyed regional primacy was to be ended: conclusively, the U.S., Israel and the Saudi King hoped.

Iran – already badly bruised by the 'imposed' Iran-Iraq war – resolved never again to be so vulnerable. Iran aimed to find a path to strategic deterrence in the context of a region dominated by the overwhelming air dominance enjoyed by its adversaries.

What occurred this Saturday 14 April – some 18 years later – therefore was of utmost importance.

Despite the bruhaha and distraction following Iran's attack, Israel and the U.S. know the truth: Iran's missiles were able to penetrate directly into Israel's two most sensitive and highly defended air bases and sites. Behind the whooping western rhetoric lies Israeli shock and fear. Their bases are no longer 'untouchable'.

Israel also knows – but cannot admit – that the so-called 'assault' was no assault but an Iranian message to assert the new strategic equation: That any Israeli attack on Iran or its personnel will result in retribution from Iran into Israel.

This act of setting the new 'balance of power equation' unites the diverse Fronts against the U.S.' "connivance with Israeli actions in the Middle East, that are at the core of Washington's policy – and in many ways the root-cause of new tragedies" – in the words of Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Ryabkov.

The equation represents a key 'Front' – together with Russia's war against NATO in Ukraine – for persuading the West that its exceptionalist and redemptive myth has proved to be a fatal conceit; that it must be discarded; and that deep cultural change in the West needs to happen.

The roots to this wider cultural conflict are deep – but finally have been made explicit.

Prince Bandar's post-2006 playing of the Sunni 'card' was a flop (in no small part thanks to Russia's intervention in Syria). AndIran, has come in from the cold and is firmly anchored as a primary regional power. It is the strategic partner to Russia and China. And Gulf States today have switched focus instead to money, 'business' and Tech, rather than Salafist jurisprudence.

Syria, then targeted by the West and ostracised, has not only survived all that the West could 'throw at it' but has been warmly embraced by the Arab League and rehabilitated. And Syria is now slowly finding its way to being itself again.

Yet even during the Syrian crisis, unforeseen dynamics to Prince Bandar's playing of Islamist identity versus Arab socialist secular identity were playing out:

I wrote then in 2012:

"Over recent years we have heard the Israelis emphasise their demand for recognition of a specifically Jewish nation-state, rather than for an Israeli State, per se";

– a state that would enshrine Jewish political, legal, and military exceptional rights.

"[At that time] … Muslim nations [were] seeking the 'undoing' of the last remnants of the colonial era. Will we see the struggle increasingly epitomised as a primordial struggle between Jewish and Islamic religious symbols – between al-Aqsa and the Temple Mount?"

To be plain, what was apparent even then – in 2012 – was "that both Israel and its surrounding terrain are marching in step toward language which takes them far away from the underlying, largely secular concepts by which this conflict traditionally has been conceptualised. What [would] be the consequence – as the conflict, by its own logic, becomes a clash of religious poles?"

If, twelve years ago, the protagonists were explicitly moving away from the underlying secular concepts by which the West conceptualised the conflict, we, by contrast, are still trying to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the lens of secular, rationalist concepts – even as Israel quite evidently is seized by an increasingly Apocalyptic frenzy.

And by extension, we are stuck in trying to address the conflict through our habitual utilitarian, rationalist policy tool-set. And we wonder why it is not working. It is not working because all parties have moved beyond mechanical rationalism to a different plane.

The Conflict Becomes Eschatalogical

Last year's election in Israel saw a revolutionary change: The Mizrahim walked into the Prime Minister's office. These Jews coming from the Arab and North African sphere – now possibly the majority – and, with their political allies on the right, embraced a radical agenda: To complete the founding of Israel on the Land of Israel (i.e. no Palestinian State); to build the Third Temple (in place of Al-Aqsa); and to institute Halachic Law (in place of secular law).

None of this is what might be termed 'secular' or liberal. It was intended as the revolutionary overthrow of the Ashkenazi élite. It was Begin who tied the Mizrahi firstly to the Irgun and then to Likud. The Mizrahim now in power have a vision of themselves as the true representatives of Judaism, with the Old Testament as their blueprint. And condescend to the European Ashkenazi liberals.

If we think we can put Biblical myths and injunctions behind us in our secular age – where much of contemporary western thinking makes a point of ignoring such dimensions, dismissing them as either confused, or irrelevant – we would be mistaken.

As one commentator writes:

"At every turn, political figures in Israel now soak their proclamations in Biblical reference and allegory. The foremost of which [is] Netanyahu … You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible, and we do remember – and we are fighting…"Here [Netanyahu] not only invokes the prophecy of Isaiah, but frames the conflict as that of "light" versus "darkness" and good versus evil, painting the Palestinians as the Children of Darkness to be vanquished by the Chosen Ones: The Lord ordered King Saul to destroy the enemy and all his people: "Now go and defeat Amalek and destroy all that he has; and give him no mercy; but put to death both husband and wife; from youth to infant; from ox to sheep; from camel to donkey" (15:3)".

We might term this 'hot eschatology' – a mode that is running wild amongst the young Israeli military cadres, to the point that the Israeli high command is losing control on the ground (lacking any mid-layer NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer) class).

On the other hand –

The uprising launched from Gaza is not called Al-Aqsa Flood for nothing. Al-Aqsa is both a symbol of a storied Islamic civlisation, and it is also the bulwark against the building of the Third Temple, for which preparations are underway. The point here is that Al-Aqsa represents Islam in aggregate — neither Shi'i, nor Sunni, nor ideological Islam.

Then, at another level, we have, as it were, 'dispassionate eschatology': When Yahyah Sinwar writes of 'Victory or Martyrdom'for his people in Gaza; when Hizbullah speaks of sacrifice; and when the Iranian Supreme Leader speaks of Hussain bin Ali (the grandson of the Prophet) and some 70 companions in 680 CE, standing before inexorable slaughter against an 1,000 strong army, in the name of Justice, these sentiments simply are beyond the reach of western Utilitarian comprehension.

We cannot easily rationalise the latter 'way of being' in western modes of thought. However, as Hubert Védrine, France's former Foreign Minister, observes – though titularly secular – the West nonetheless is "consumed by the spirit of proselytism". That Saint Paul's "go and evangelize all nations" has become "go and spread human rights to all the world"… And that this proselytism is extremely deep in [western DNA]: "Even the very least religious, totally atheists, they still have this in mind, [even though] they don't know where it comes from".

We might term this secular eschatology, as it were. It is certainly consequential.

A Military Revolution: We're Ready Now

Iran, through all the West's attrition, has pursued its astute strategy of 'strategic patience' – keeping conflicts away from its borders. A strategy that focused heavily on diplomacy and trade; and soft power to engage positively with near and far neighbors alike.

Behind this quietist front of stage, however, lay the evolution to 'active deterrence' which required long military preparation and the nurturing of allies.

Our understanding of the world became antiquated

Just occasionally, very occasionally, a military revolution can upend the prevailing strategic paradigm. This was Qasem Suleimani's key insight. This is what 'active deterrence' implies. The switch to a strategy that could upend prevailing paradigms.

Both Israel and the U.S. have armies that are conventionally far more powerful than their adversaries which are mostly composed of small non-state rebels or revolutionaries. The latter are treated more as mutineers within the traditionalist colonial framing, and for whom a whiff of firepower generally is considered sufficient.

The West, however, has not fully assimilated the military revolutions now underway. There has been a radical shift in the balance of power between low-tech improvisation and expensive complex (and less robust) weapons platforms.

The Additional Ingredients

What makes Iran's new military approach truly transformative have been two additional factors: One was the appearance of an outstanding military strategist (now assassinated); and secondly, his ability to mix and apply these new tools in a wholly novel matrix. The fusion of these two factors – together with low-tech drones and cruise missiles – completed the revolution.

The philosophy driving this military strategy is clear: the West is over-invested in air dominance and in its carpet fire power. It prioritises 'shock and awe' thrusts, but quickly exhausts itself early in the encounter. This rarely can be sustained for long. The Resistance aim is to exhaust the enemy.

The second key principle driving this new military approach concerns the careful calibration of the intensity of conflict, upping and lowering the flames as appropriate; and, at the same time, keeping escalatory dominance within the Resistance's control.

In Lebanon, in 2006, Hizbullah remained deep underground whilst the Israeli air assault swept across overhead. The physical surface damage was huge, yet their forces were unaffected and emerged from deep tunnels – only afterwards. Then came the 33 days of Hizbullah's missile barrage – until Israel called it quits.

So, is there any strategic point to an Israeli military response to Iran?

Israelis widely believe that without deterrence – without the world fearing them – they cannot survive. October 7 set this existential fear burning through Israeli society. Hezbollah's very presence only exacerbates it – and now Iran has rained missiles down into Israel directly.

The opening of the Iranian front, in a certain way, initially may have benefited Netanyahu: the IDF defeat in the Gaza war; the hostage release impasse; the continuing displacement of Israelis from the north; and even the murder of the World Kitchen aid workers – all are temporarily forgotten. The West has grouped at Israel's – and Netanyahu's – side again. Arab states are again co-operating. And attention has moved from Gaza to Iran.

So far, so good (from Netanyahu's perspective, no doubt). Netanyahu has been angling to draw the U.S. into war with Israel against Iran for two decades (albeit with successive U.S. Presidents declining the dangerous prospect).

But to cut Iran down to size would require U.S. military assistance.

Netanyahu senses Biden's weakness and has the tools and knowhow by which he can manipulate U.S. politics: Indeed, worked in this way, Netanyahu might force Biden to continue to arm Israel, and even to embrace his widening of the war to Hizbullah in Lebanon.

Conclusion

Israel's strategy from past decades will continue with its hope of achieving some Chimeric transformative "de-radicalisation" of Palestinians that will make 'Israel safe'.

A former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. argues that Israel can have no peace without such 'transformative de-radicalisation'. "If we do it right", Ron Dermer insists, "it will make Israel stronger – and the U.S. too". It is in this context that the War Cabinet's insistence on retaliation against Iran should be understood.

Rational argument advocating moderation is read as inviting defeat.

All of which is to say that Israelis are psychologically very far from being able to reconsider the content to the Zionist project of Jewish special rights. For now, they are on a completely different path, trusting to a Biblical reading that many Israelis have come to view as mandatory injunctions under Halachic Law.

Hubert Védrine asks us the supplementary question: "Can we imagine a West that manages to preserve the societies it has birthed – and yet "is not proselytizing, not-interventionist? In other words, a West that can accept alterity, that can live with others – and accept them for who they are".

Védrine says this "is not a problem of the diplomatic machines: it's a question of profound soul-searching, a deep cultural change that needs to happen in western society".

A 'trial of strength' between Israel and the Resistance Fronts ranged against it likely cannot be avoided.

The die has been deliberately cast this way.

Netanyahu is gambling big with Israel's – and America's – future. And he may lose.

If there is a regional war, and Israel suffers defeat, then what?

When exhaustion (and defeat) finally settles in, and the parties 'scrabble in the drawer' for new solutions to their strategic distress, the truly transformative solution would be for an Israeli leader to think the 'unthinkable' – to think of one state between the River and the Sea.

And, for Israel – tasting the bitter herbs of 'things fallen apart' – to talk directly with Iran.

7. Minerva Foods, la empresa que está poniendo a Rusia a comer carne Colombiana

Además de carne, los rusos también se volvieron consumidores de café colombiano y amantes de las rosas y claveles cultivados en Bogotá y Medellín.

Las Dos ORILLAS

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

Los floricultores y cafeteros ya no son los que mandan en las exportaciones a Rusia, ahora los empresarios de la carne de Minerva Foods son los dueños de las exportaciones al país que volvió a elegir a Vladimir Putin como su presidente este domingo y quién gobernará por seis años más, hasta 2030.

En el sector floricultor, entre las 20 empresas que exportan vía Bogotá-Amsterdam-Moscú, principalmente rosas, claveles, anémonas y astromelias a Rusia, las que siempre han estado presentes en este mercado con el país asiático han sido Flores de los Andes, Agrícola El Cactus, Flores de Serrezuela, Alexandra Farms, Geoflora y Flores La Conejera.

A pesar de la pandemia y de la guerra que Rusia sostiene con Ucrania desde hace más de 2 años, la exportación de flores a Rusia se ha mantenido regular en cifras, en 2022, último año consolidado, se exportaron casi 16 millones de dólares.

El café, otro de los tradicionales productos colombianos apetecidos por el gran parte del mundo ahora está en el tercer renglón de exportación al país de Putin. Además de la Federación Nacional de Cafeteros, hoy gerenciada por Germán Alberto Bahamón, hay 21 empresas privadas que envían toneladas de café al país ruso por valor de 11 millones de dólares al año (2022). Entre las grandes empresas que Las que superaron los mil sacos puestos en Rusia fueron Sucden Colombia, Carcafé, Cóndor Specialty Coffee, Olam Agro Colombia, Racafé, Polis Agro Colombia y Compañía Cafetera La Meseta.

Pero la gran jugadora en la exportación hacia el país ruso desde hace 4 años es la carne congelada. En 2019 este producto representaba el 19% de los productos puestos en Rusia y ahora representa el 64%. Un gigante salto en el que la empresa brasilera Minerva Foods que llegó en 2015 al país juega un papel importante, al convertirse en solamente siete años en el mayor exportador de carne del país. Entre Red Cárnica, su frigorífico ubicado en Ciénaga de Oro, Córdoba, que fue el primero que adquirieron en Colombia y el Vijagual de Floridablanca, los brasileños sacrifican al año más de 400.000 cabezas de ganado colombiano al año.

Minerva Foods en Colombia

El plan con el que aterrizó Minerva Foods en Colombia era sencillo, comprar carne para exportar. Para convertirse en el más grande exportador de carne de Colombia su primera movida fue comprar el frigorífico Red Cárnica, por el que pagaron en USD 30 millones. El negocio lo hicieron a través de su filial Athenea Foods. Escogieron al frigorífico que había sido construido cinco años atrás con tecnología brasileña y estaba considerado como el más avanzado en América Latina.

En agosto del 2020, cinco años después, adquirieron la planta de sacrificio y deshuesado del Frigorífico Vijagual ubicado en Floridablanca. Minerva que consolidó a finales del año pasado su marca de Athenea Foods bajo la misma identidad visual de Minerva.

No solo se convirtió en el mandamás de la exportación de carne colombiana sino que también lo es en Minerva Foods América del Sur. Minerva tiene 25 mataderos y deshuesadoras: 10 de ubicadas en Brasil, 5 en Paraguay, 3 en Uruguay, 5 en Argentina, más las 2 que adquirió en Colombia, las cuales tienen una capacidad de sacrificio de casi 30 mil cabezas de ganado por día. Además tienen tres plantas procesadoras, 14 centros de distribución y 15 oficinas comercializadoras en el mundo además de la de Chile.

El cuarto en el ranking es el banano, que según Unibán, a través de diferentes clientes llega a Rusia con 1 millón de cajas y a Ucrania con 2 millones.

Desde el 2019 Juan Valdéz le apostó a Rusia, aun sabiendo que el té es la bebida favorita en ese país. Y entró con su café tostado y liofilizado a través de las tiendas Kuulklever, que tienen 250 puntos de venta en ciudades como Moscú y Nizhni Novgoro.

Aunque se pensó que la guerra contra Ucrania debilitaría las exportaciones con el Kremlin, los negocios con Colombia se han mantenido estables y por el contrario, lo que muestran las estadísticas es que se consolidan y que los rusos cada vez más apetecen los productos colombianos.

Publicado originalmente por las2orillas.co

8. U.S. a hypocritical ‘human rights champion’ as its actions and words don’t match

By Anthony MORETTI

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

It would be foolish to suggest that events taking place on one day can perfectly define human rights and its ally humanitarianism. Nevertheless, we should remember two important events that took place on March 22, 2024.

That Friday began with a US-led effort to get the United Nations approval for a cease-fire to calm the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Gaza. It failed. Critics correctly pointed out that the US' watered down resolution did not go far enough in condemning Israel. For example, Russia's ambassador to the UN said the proposal offered an "effective green light" to Israel to launch a military operation in the south of Gaza.

Previous resolutions failed because the US was unwilling to accept language that called for an unconditional cease-fire. After the American resolution was denied, TIME magazine noted that President Biden has faced increasing pressure and ongoing protests from the left to more forcefully push Israel to stop its bombardments against Hamas that are killing civilians in Gaza. The effort by U.S. diplomats to put forth their own resolution on Friday marked a shift in the Biden administration's U.N. strategy, but not a significant shift in its stance on a ceasefire or the Israel/Gaza conflict more broadly.

The White House would be wise to keep in mind that Americans are dissatisfied with what is taking place in Gaza. A recent Pew Research Center poll reported that roughly one in three US adults had defined "Israel's conduct of the war …[as] unacceptable." Meanwhile, key members of President Joe Biden's own party, most notably Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, are voicing their displeasure with the events and with Biden's efforts to address them.

On the same day the resolution failed, the largest concert hall in Moscow was the scene of a terrorist attack. As of press time, Russia arrested four suspects in the attack as the death toll climbed to 137. Moscow's mayor called the attack a "huge tragedy."

Whether the White House feels the same way is not clear. Biden himself did not immediately speak to the American people about the attack. However, in October, he did offer his strong support for Israel shortly after the events of October 7, 2023, which led Israel to commence its attacks in Gaza.

There is no reason to believe he will offer any public statement about the carnage in Moscow; the enmity that has developed between him and Russian president Vladimir Putin almost certainly will give Biden a "reason" to stay silent.

This is the same White House that is quick to ask Americans to offer continuous support, even if just a prayer, for the victims of terror, a natural disaster, an accident, anything. But on Friday, there was not enough. Of course, the White House was quick to say there was no evidence to link the attack to Ukraine, a statement that led Russian officials to challenge their American counterparts to share any information it might have on groups that could have carried out the assault. The Wall Street Journal reported that warnings of a possible attack were provided to Moscow by Washington.

The State Department's website proudly notes that the "protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago. Since then, a central goal of US foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

The Palestinian and Russian people would be justified in questioning that. Both peoples are likely to remember that international organizations find America's commitment to the "protection of fundamental human rights" lacking. One such report found that when it comes to preventing hate crimes, gun violence and excessive use of force by its police agencies, the US comes up short. Another organization suggested that the US does not belong in the top 10 countries when it comes to freedom. Perhaps even more damning is that the US is behind almost all of its closest European allies in this area.

Situational support for human rights and humanitarianism should worry Americans. To borrow a cliche, if their country wants to talk the talk, then it must walk the walk. In other words, the US cannot be a champion of human rights unless it is steadfast in saying and doing what is right all the time. This is the same country that is quick to condemn its rivals for presumed human rights infractions, but rarely asks, if at all, if its own moral compass is pointed in the right direction.

Consider the catastrophe that followed its disastrous and empty claims on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now, consider the image that comes with roadblocking real attempts to bring about a cease-fire in Gaza.

Before its demands for human rights can be taken seriously, the US must do better.

Original article: Global Times

9. The Juche idea and the meaning of independence for the Korean revolution

Eduardo Vasco continues to explain how Kim Il Sung managed to create a Communist regime largely independent of the Soviet Union.

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Eduardo Vasco continues to explain how Kim Il Sung managed to create a Communist regime largely independent of the Soviet Union. The first article in this cycle can be found here.

With the responsibility of organizing the vanguard of the Korean revolution, the young Kim Il Sung emerged, who would lead the process of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat in Korea over the next seven decades. Instead of adhering to the policy of the Communist Party of Korea – an instrument of the Stalinist bureaucracy – Kim Il Sung founded the Union to Defeat Imperialism (UDI) in 1926, carrying out a policy independent of the Communist Party of the Third International.

At the UDI founding ceremony, Kim Il Sung gave a speech in which he stated that:

Because the UDI assumes, in name and in fact, the mission of overthrowing imperialism, its program must establish the immediate task of destroying Japanese imperialism, the sworn enemy of the Korean people, achieving the liberation and independence of Korea, and maintaining as future task the building of socialism and communism in Korea, overthrowing all forms of imperialism and building communism throughout the world. (Let us overthrow Imperialism, October 17, 1926)

The idea of independence of the popular masses to carry out the revolution arises from Korea's own colonial situation and from the struggles against other sectors of the revolutionary movement (such as the nationalists and the Communist Party). The masses need to have class independence in relation to bourgeois nationalism, Stalinism and, obviously, imperialism. This idea will be further developed and will result in the official ideology of the North Korean Workers' State, led by Kim Il Sung: the Juche philosophy. It is a concept that means that it is necessary to rely on one's own strengths, thus being a demarcation of ground between the movement that would lead the revolution and take power in North Korea and other sectors such as Korean nationalists and Stalinists, as well as, at the international level, an ideological support point for the political independence of the North Korean regime in relation to the Soviet bureaucracy.

In 1930, the Kalun Conference of the Communist Youth League and the Anti-imperialist Youth League took place. On this occasion, Kim Il Sung makes new statements about the permanent nature of the Korean revolution:

(…) The main task of the Korean Revolution, therefore, is to overthrow the Japanese imperialists and win Korean independence and, at the same time, liquidate feudal relations and introduce democracy. (…) We will not stop halfway in completing the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal democratic revolution, but we will transform it into a revolution to also build the socialist and communist society and thus carry out the world revolution. Completing the Korean Revolution is a great service to accelerating the world revolution. (The way forward for the Korean Revolution, June/July 1930)

Such a policy went against the dictates of Stalin's Third International, which preached the "revolution in stages", in which the democratic revolution should be supported by the proletariat but led by the bourgeoisie, to form a bourgeois regime that would carry out democratic reforms and, only then the proletariat could finally take power.

In the wake of this conference, an armed national liberation movement was formed, the Korean Revolutionary Army, which would later be called the Anti-Japanese People's Guerrilla Army and, later on, the Korean People's Revolutionary Army. While Stalinism, at a global level, forced the communist movement that was under its influence to remain in the wake of the imperialist bourgeoisie in the infamous Popular Fronts, thus removing the class independence of the proletariat and adapting to bourgeois democracy, in Korea the revolutionaries took in arms to defeat imperialism and carry out the revolution. What Kim Il Sung did, as did Fidel Castro later, was to lead the proletariat to lead the revolutionary process, relying first on the peasants and then on other sectors oppressed by Japanese imperialism, including layers of the petit bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie whose interests contradicted those of the occupants. But he never put the workers movement behind these sectors. On the contrary: founded in 1936, the Association for the Restoration of the Fatherland was a united front whose main objective and result was the recruitment of hundreds of thousands of Koreans into the ranks of the revolution, being an impetus for the armed struggle, which was never abandoned by Kim Il Sung, thus opposing the general policy of Stalinism.

Regarding this process, Kim Jong Il (son of Kim Il Sung and his successor as leader of North Korea) reflected as follows:

Due to the fact that in the past our country was a backward, semi-feudal and colonial society, the working class was not numerous, but being the contingent with the strongest aspiration for independence and revolutionary spirit, it constituted the core of the forces of the revolution. Since the democratic, anti-imperialist and anti-feudal stage, the great Leader [referring to his father] considered the workers as members of the ruling class of the revolution and took their demands and those of the nation as the starting point of all his policies and guidelines. In our country, all processes of the revolution, from the anti-imperialist of national liberation and the democratic anti-feudal, to the socialist and its construction, were carried out successfully under the leadership of the working class. (Our socialism centered on the popular masses is invincible, May 5, 1991)

Thus, through this revolutionary process, which combined armed struggle in the mountains with the organization of the working class in the cities through Popular Committees, the communists led by Kim Il Sung took power in Korea in the wake of Japan's defeat in World War II., in 1945.

 

10. Invasão da embaixada mexicana no Equador: Colapso do direito internacional

Os EUA precisem sepultar o Direito Internacional e lançar o continente no caos.

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

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

O mundo acompanhou com espanto conforme a polícia equatoriana de Quito invadia a Embaixada Mexicana no país para cumprir um mandado de prisão contra o ex-vicepresidente Jorge Glas, acusado de corrupção em um caso que levanta inúmeras suspeitas.

Jorge Glas foi vicepresidente do Equador entre 2013 e 2017, período que correspondeu às presidências de Rafael Correa e Lenin Moreno, até ser condenado a 6 anos de prisão, em dezembro de 2017, por suposta corrupção envolvendo licitações de obras que teriam sido entregues, mediante pagamento, à empresa brasileira Odebrecht.

O caso se deu no contexto da Operação Lava-Jato, que outrora levou à prisão do presidente brasileiro Lula, bem como a prejuízos incalculáveis em empregos, investimentos e obras que afetaram principalmente a Petrobrás e a Odebrecht. No Brasil, muitas decisões relativas à Operação Lava-Jato têm sido revogadas e anuladas nos últimos anos – naturalmente por causa, em primeiro lugar, das novas relações de força entre as elites políticas e econômicas brasileiras, mas não se pode ignorar que as provas usadas para conseguir condenações durante os processos sobre corrupção ligados à Lava-Jato eram extremamente frágeis.

De fato, a maioria das condenações se baseou em "delações premiadas", ou seja, quando um investigado afirma ter informações sobre outros acusados e as entrega às autoridades em troca de uma série de benefícios, inclusive imunidade processual. Esse mecanismo, previamente inexistente na maioria dos ordenamentos jurídicos ibero-americanos, é óbvia importação estadunidense.

A Operação Lava-Jato foi reconhecida desde o começo, bastando ver para isso os escritos de Andrew Korybko, como fazendo parte de um esquema de lawfare dirigido a partir dos EUA contra as principais empresas brasileiras, com os EUA reivindicando jurisdição universal a partir do seu Departamento de Justiça por meio de um dispositivo que lhes autorizava investigar e perseguir criminalmente qualquer caso de corrupção, em qualquer lugar do mundo, desde que houvesse a participação de algum cidadão ou empresa estadunidense em qualquer parte do suposto esquema.

Enquanto lawfare, esse tipo de estratégia de "combate à corrupção" conduzido por juízes e promotores previamente educados nos EUA se revelou como parte do arsenal de armas da guerra híbrida permanente do Ocidente atlantista.

No caso de Jorge Glas encontramos os mesmos indícios e elementos peculiares, e chama a atenção o fato de que a condenação de Glas deu-se, também, tão somente por causa de uma "delação premiada". Um caráter político em seu caso, portanto, é algo plausível.

O caso deve, portanto, ser inserido no contexto da vitimização do Equador nas táticas de guerra híbrida do Ocidente atlantista. Desse contexto fazem parta também a virada ocidentalista de Lenín Moreno, sucessor de Rafael Correa, responsável por entregar Julian Assange às autoridades britânicas, bem como a decadência do Equador em uma crise narcoterrorista (a qual, por sua vez, exige medidas de "estado de exceção" como resposta) que culminou nos ataques generalizados em Quito em 2023.

O que é surpreendente, porém, é que se chegue ao ponto de violar princípios básicos do Direito Internacional na "luta contra a corrupção".

A imunidade diplomática e a inviolabilidade das embaixadas é um princípio tão antigo que praticamente pode ser considerada uma lei natural aplicada às civilizações humanas. Essa imunidade, significando o respeito à pessoa e propriedade de um emissário estrangeiro portando documentação oficial (posteriormente estendido aos estabelecimentos físicos nos quais esses emissários desempenham as suas funções, quando as embaixadas tornaram-se permanentes já na Idade Moderna) é algo já descrito pelo historiador grego Heródoto, fazendo-se presente também no Alcorão e entre os reinos do Subcontinente Indiano.

De fato, ao longo da história, inúmeras guerras foram deflagradas especificamente por causa de ofensas à integridade de diplomatas, como na invasão mongol do Império Corásmio. Mesmo durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial, uma das mais duras e destrutivas já travadas sobre a face da terra, as nações em choque respeitaram as embaixadas, garantindo a evacuação dos funcionários dos países inimigos através de países neutros.

Não cabe ao Equador, porém, o demérito da mais grotesca violação da imunidade diplomática e da sacralidade das embaixadas nos últimos anos. Essa desonra cabe, na verdade, a Israel, que dias antes da invasão da Embaixada do México pelas forças policias equatorianas, realizou um bombardeio às instalações usadas pela missão diplomática iraniana em Damasco.

Nesse bombardeio, de fato um crime segundo o Direito Internacional (razão pela qual a moderada reação iraniana duas semanas depois pode ser considerada legítima), Israel assassinou 16 pessoas, incluindo civis. Como toque fúnebre da morte do Direito Internacional, a chamada "Comunidade Internacional" (ou seja, os EUA e seus aliados) em sua maioria não condenou o atentado terrorista israelense.

Não dá para apontar de maneira direta que a invasão da embaixada mexicana não teria acontecido sem o bombardeio israelense, mas é óbvio que cada violação do Direito Internacional que é tolerada sem que haja punição clara enfraquece ainda mais a estrutura geral das normas internacionais.

Assim, o que vai ficando claro é que o colapso do momento unipolar (essa tentativa pelos EUA de impor a sua ordem como norma universal) vem acompanhado também de um enfraquecimento generalizado de todo senso de ordem, especialmente pelas mãos das potências que se sentem em desvantagem nessa fase de transição internacional. Com isso, vamos nos aproximando de uma espécie de "estado de natureza" internacional, de recorte hobbesiano, em que cada Estado age exclusivamente conforme os próprios interesses imediatos, sem levar em consideração a preservação da harmonia e do equilíbrio internacionais.

Retornando ao evento da invasão da embaixada, porém, é curioso como ele ocorre poucos meses após a assinatura de acordos de cooperação militar entre Equador e EUA, no contexto dos atentados narcoterroristas ocorridos em Quito no ano passado (atentados em relação aos quais despertou-se muitas suspeitas, graças aos vínculos históricos notórios entre os cartéis de drogas e o Deep State dos EUA) – o que representou o aumento da presença estadunidense no continente.

Se poderia haver alguma dúvida sobre a subserviência do novo governo equatoriano aos EUA, há alguns dias o Intercept mostrou que o Equador estava atuando como proxy dos EUA para fazer lóbi internacional na ONU contra o reconhecimento da estatalidade palestina.

Na prática, de fato, é possível com tudo isso confirmar a leitura que aponta para um aumento da pressão dos EUA sobre a América Ibérica, em uma estratégia que combina elementos militares, jurídicos, culturais e policiais, em uma espécie de atualização da Doutrina Monroe, com o fim de garantir a hegemonia sobre as Américas diante de suas derrotas geopolíticas em outras partes do mundo.

Mesmo que, para isso, os EUA precisem sepultar o Direito Internacional e lançar o continente no caos.