Crooked Bough News Round-up

— China, Hong Kong y el arte de parpadear

 

at 4/29/25 1:10pm

El Capitán Caos definitivamente no tiene las cartas, que, como hasta los pingüinos del Pacífico Sur saben, están fabricadas en China SHANGHÁI y HONG KONG – Como era de esperar, el Capitán Caos ha sido el primero en pestañear. Por mucho que él —y su extenso circo mediático— no puedan admitirlo. Todo comenzó con “exenciones arancelarias” —desde teléfonos inteligentes y ordenadores hasta piezas de automóviles— sobre productos importados de China. Luego se desvió hacia filtraciones cuidadosamente manipuladas que insinuaban que los aranceles “podrían” reducirse a un rango entre el 50 % y el 65 %. Y finalmente, una breve admisión de que, si no se llega a un acuerdo, se fijará unilateralmente una “cifra arancelaria”. El Ministerio de Comercio chino se mostró implacable: Intentar negociar los intereses de otros a cambio de ganancias temporales es como regatear con un tigre por su piel: solo servirá para conseguir el efecto contrario. Y se puso aún más duro. El Ministerio se mantuvo firme en que cualquier afirmación de Trump 2.0 sobre avances en las negociaciones bilaterales “carece de base factual”, describiendo de facto al presidente estadounidense como un difusor de noticias falsas. Tigres, tigres ardiendo en llamas: la imagen no recuerda al superestrella de la poesía William Blake, sino a la legendaria descripción de Mao del imperio estadounidense como un “tigre de papel”, un flashback que me impactó una y otra vez la semana pasada en Shanghái. Si el imperio estadounidense ya era un tigre de papel en la década de 1960, argumentan los chinos, imagínense ahora. Y el dolor aumentará, no solo para el tigre de papel: cualquier acuerdo dudoso celebrado por gobiernos extranjeros —vasallos— a expensas de los intereses chinos simplemente no será tolerado por Pekín. La semana pasada en Shanghái, académicos y empresarios me recordaron una y otra vez que las aranceles de Trump (TTT) van mucho más allá de China: son una ofensiva desesperada ordenada por las clases dirigentes estadounidenses contra un competidor que les aterroriza. Las mejores mentes analíticas chinas saben exactamente lo que está pasando en Washington. Tomemos, por ejemplo, este ensayo publicado originalmente por la influyente revista Cultural Horizon, que analiza la “estructura de poder triangular” de Trump 2.0. Tenemos al todopoderoso Trump formando un “superestablishment”; la política del dinero de Silicon Valley, representada por Elon Musk; y la nueva élite de derecha representada por el vicepresidente J.D. Vance. El resultado final: un “sistema de gobierno casi paralelo al gobierno federal”. Los chihuahuas europeos, atrapados en el fuego cruzado de Trump 2.0, son simplemente incapaces de una conceptualización tan sintética y precisa. El tigre de papel se enfrenta al dragón ardiente Lo que ha revelado una profunda inmersión en Shanghái es que Trump 2.0 ha brindado a China una oportunidad única para consolidar su iniciativa estratégica, afianzando su papel de líder del Sur Global/Mayoría Global, al tiempo que gestiona cuidadosamente el riesgo de una nueva Guerra Fría. Podría llamarse una jugada de Sun Tzu que podría paralizar al Imperio en seco. El profesor Zhang Weiwei, con quien tuve el placer de compartir un seminario en Shanghái sobre la asociación estratégica entre Rusia y China, estaría de acuerdo. China se está moviendo en todos los frentes. El primer ministro chino, Li Qiang, envió una carta al primer ministro japonés, Shigeru Ishibe, instándole a emprender una iniciativa conjunta, de inmediato, para contrarrestar la demencia arancelaria. El mensaje principal del presidente Xi en su gira por el sudeste asiático la semana pasada fue oponerse al “acoso unilateral”. Xi se movió hábilmente entre Malasia, actual presidente rotatorio de la ASEAN, que siempre evita tomar partido, y Vietnam, con su “diplomacia del bambú”, que siempre se mantiene a la espera entre Estados Unidos y China. Xi dijo directamente al primer ministro de Malasia, Anwar Ibrahim: “Debemos salvaguardar las brillantes perspectivas de nuestra familia asiática”. Traducción: creemos una esfera de influencia exclusiva cercana a la “comunidad de destino compartido”, pero que no incluya a potencias externas como Estados Unidos. Paralelamente, se ha producido un intenso debate, desde Shanghái hasta Hong Kong, que trasciende el papel de China como fábrica del mundo: lo que importa ahora es cómo redirigir parte de la asombrosa capacidad manufacturera de China hacia el mercado interno. Por supuesto, hay problemas, como la falta de poder adquisitivo de gran parte de los consumidores nacionales chinos, incluso cuando la mayor parte de los ingresos nacionales de China se destina a inversiones en activos fijos. Una gran parte de la población rural de edad avanzada de China sobrevive con una pensión mensual de unos 30 dólares, y la tarifa por hora de la economía gig se ha estancado en torno a los 4 dólares. Mientras tanto, en varios frentes de alta tecnología, China acaba de construir el tren de alta velocidad más rápido del planeta: 400 km/h, que pronto circulará entre Pekín y Shanghái. China ya está recibiendo pedidos para el avión comercial de fuselaje ancho C919. Y China ha creado el primer reactor nuclear del mundo propulsado por torio. Traducción: energía limpia y barata ilimitada al alcance de la mano. La forma mafiosa de hacer negocios Hong Kong es un caso muy especial. Los ejecutivos de HSBC, por ejemplo, están preocupados por una posible desconexión entre Estados Unidos y China, y se preguntan si Hong Kong podrá sobrevivir sin el comercio con Estados Unidos. Sí, puede hacerlo. Estados Unidos es el tercer socio comercial más importante de Hong Kong; sin embargo, las exportaciones e importaciones de Hong Kong a Estados Unidos solo representan el 6,5 % y el 4 %, respectivamente, del total de sus exportaciones e importaciones mundiales, incluido el transbordo de mercancías entre el continente y Hong Kong. Hong Kong es un centro logístico y un puerto franco de primer orden mundial. Por lo tanto, siempre que Trump 2.0 no prohíba el comercio con Hong Kong —bueno, todo puede pasar—, las importaciones no deberían verse afectadas. En cualquier caso, la mayor parte de las exportaciones de Hong Kong —productos electrónicos, artículos de lujo, ropa, juguetes— pueden encontrar fácilmente mercados alternativos en el sudeste asiático, Asia occidental y Europa. El punto crucial es que más de la mitad del comercio de Hong Kong es con el continente. Y el hecho clave es que China puede sobrevivir fácilmente sin el comercio con Estados Unidos. Pekín se ha estado preparando cuidadosamente para ello desde Trump 1.0. Desde Shanghái hasta Hong Kong, las mejores mentes analíticas están en sintonía con el inestimable Michael Hudson, quien ha enfatizado una y otra vez cómo Estados Unidos es el único país del mundo que ha convertido en arma su comercio exterior; ha convertido en arma su moneda extranjera, el dólar; ha convertido en arma el sistema financiero internacional; y ha tratado todas las relaciones económicas de forma hostil, para convertirlas en armas. Una China segura de sí misma y experta en alta tecnología, desde académicos y empresarios hasta vendedores de xiao long bao y fideos estirados a mano, entiende claramente que el Imperio del Caos, en su intento de ‘aislar’ a China, no hace más que aislarse a sí mismo (y a sus chihuahuas). Además, es una alegría ver que Michael Hudson también se refiere al mismo síndrome del “tigre de papel” que he observado en Shanghái estos últimos días: Bueno, Estados Unidos se ha convertido hoy en día en un tigre de papel en lo financiero. En realidad, no tiene nada que ofrecer, salvo la amenaza de los aranceles, la amenaza de alterar repentinamente todos los patrones comerciales que se han establecido en las últimas décadas. En Shanghái, escuché descalificaciones implacables y continuas del llamado “plan Miran”, como en el documento publicado el pasado mes de noviembre por el asesor económico de Trump para “reestructurar el sistema comercial mundial”. Miran es el cerebro detrás del acuerdo de Mar-a-Lago, cuya lógica es debilitar el dólar estadounidense obligando a las principales economías, desde China hasta Japón y la UE, a vender activos en dólares estadounidenses y cambiar bonos del Tesoro a corto plazo por bonos a 100 años con interés cero. La brillante idea de Miran se reduce a que las naciones solo tienen dos opciones: Aceptar dócilmente estos aranceles estadounidenses, sin represalias. Extender cheques al Tesoro estadounidense. Zhao Xijun, codirector del Instituto de Investigación del Mercado de Capitales de China en la Universidad Renmin, desmanteló el esquema de manera sucinta: transferir dinero al Tesoro de EE.UU. de esta forma es como ‘cobrar dinero por protección en las calles’. Traducción: esa es la manera de la mafia, “un acto matón y autoritario, simplemente disfrazado con la elevada justificación de proporcionar bienes públicos”. Mientras tanto, en el Gran Tablero de Ajedrez, Pekín sigue trabajando sin descanso junto a Rusia para construir una arquitectura de seguridad en toda Eurasia basada en el equilibrio de poderes: se trata del nuevo triángulo Primakov (RIC: Rusia, Irán y China). Los principales miembros del BRICS, Rusia y China, no permitirán que el Imperio ataque a Irán, también miembro del BRICS. Y el apoyo se manifiesta de diversas formas. Por ejemplo: ¿más sanciones energéticas imperiales contra Irán? China aumentará las importaciones a través de Malasia e invertirá aún más en las infraestructuras de Irán, en colaboración con Rusia en lo que respecta al Corredor Internacional de Transporte Norte-Sur (INSTC). En resumen: el Capitán Caos definitivamente no tiene las cartas, que, como incluso saben los pingüinos del Pacífico Sur, están hechas en China. China, Hong Kong y el arte de parpadear The post China, Hong Kong y el arte de parpadear appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: WORLD, +Spanish, BRICS, China, Hong Kong, Trade war, USA]

— Lo que está en juego en las negociaciones de Donald Trump con la República Islámica de Irán

 

at 4/29/25 6:11am

La opinión pública no sabe absolutamente nada sobre lo que realmente está en juego en las negociaciones entre Washington y Teherán. Este artículo presenta una situación en la que las mentiras constantes han venido acumulándose desde hace 30 años, lo cual hace particularmente difícil hasta el menor progreso. La “cuestión nuclear” iraní no está en saber si Irán va dotarse o no de la bomba atómica si no si podrá ayudar a Palestina sin tener que recurrir a las armas. Hace un mes y medio anuncié que, incluso antes de concretar la paz en Ucrania, el presidente estadounidense Donald Trump abriría negociaciones con Irán [1]. Como siempre, los comentaristas permeados por la ideología de Joe Biden me cubrieron de burlas, mientras que mis colegas, especialistas en relaciones internacionales, prestaban atención a mis observaciones [2]. La diferencia entre unos y otros residía en su comprensión de las negociaciones sobre Ucrania. Los “comentaristas” las veían simplemente como una venganza de Donald Trump contra Volodimir Zelenski o como una genuflexión del presidente de Estados Unidos ante el presidente ruso Vladimir Putin. Pero los especialistas en relaciones internacionales, veían en ellas la voluntad de concretar la paz con Rusia para poder, por fin, dedicar los medios de Estados Unidos a la reanimación de la economía nacional. Como vemos, ambos grupos abordan la cuestión iraní de manera diferente. Para los “comentaristas”, se trata de mantener el caos iniciado durante el primer mandato presidencial de Donald Trump con la retirada de Estados Unidos del acuerdo sobre el programa nuclear de Irán (JCPoA). Para los especialistas, al contrario, se trata de una voluntad de paz con Irán, dado el hecho que ese país es la única potencia regional que apoya la resistencia frente a Israel. A principios de marzo, el presidente Donald Trump envió una carta al Guía de la Revolución iraní, el ayatola Alí Khameney. Fue el mismo Trump quien dio a conocer la existencia de aquella carta, en su discurso del 4 de marzo ante el Congreso de Estados Unidos. Según Sky News Arabia, que tuvo acceso a ese documento, Donald Trump invitaba el gobierno iraní a negociar, aunque recalcaba: «Si rechazan la mano tendida y optan por la vía de la escalada, les advierto que habrá una respuesta rápida y decidida (…) Escribo esta carta con el fin de abrir nuevos horizontes a nuestras relaciones, lejos de los años de conflictos, de incomprensiones y de confrontaciones inútiles de los que hemos sido testigos en estas últimas décadas (…) Ha llegado el momento de dejar atrás la hostilidad y de abrir una nueva página de cooperación y de respeto mutuo. Estamos ante una oportunidad histórica (..) No nos quedaremos con los brazos cruzados ante las amenazas de su régimen contra nuestro pueblo o nuestros aliados (…) Si están ustedes dispuestos a negociar, nosotros también. Pero si continúan ignorando las exigencias del mundo, la historia será testigo de que dejaron pasar una excelente oportunidad.» En el mismo momento, Estados Unidos y Reino Unido lanzaron ataques contra el movimiento yemenita Ansar Allah. Pero esta vez los ataques no estaban dirigidos contra objetivos militares sino contra dirigentes políticos que vivían entre la población civil. Por consiguiente, en esos ataques murieron líderes del movimiento y también numerosas víctimas colaterales, lo cual convierte esos ataques en crímenes de guerra. Es importante recordar que el movimiento yemenita Ansar Allah, cuyos miembros son designados peyorativamente en la prensa occidental como “hutis” o “hutistas” –algo así como “la banda de la familia Huthi”, apellido del fundador y líder del movimiento–, ataca los barcos israelíes, o vinculados a intereses israelíes, que transitan por el Mar Rojo. De esa manera, el movimiento yemenita trata de obligar el gobierno de Israel a permitir la entrada de ayuda humanitaria en la martirizada franja de Gaza. Pero en Washington y Londres afirman que lo que hace el movimiento yemenita Ansar Allah es obstaculizar el comercio internacional y, aun sin aval del Consejo de Seguridad, Estados Unidos y Reino Unido reanudaron los ataques contra Yemen. Inicialmente habían atacado objetivos militares, pero rápidamente se dieron cuenta de que no lograban infligir daños significativos a esos objetivos por tratarse esencialmente de instalaciones subterráneas que se hallan a gran profundidad. La carta de Donald Trump no llegó a Teherán hasta el 12 de marzo y la respuesta de Irán se hizo esperar. A la hora de hacer análisis hay que entender que si bien en Teherán pudieron sentir satisfacción al recibir la carta secreta, incluso escrita a mano por el propio presidente de Estados Unidos, ese mensaje incluía muchos elementos que las autoridades iraníes no podían tolerar.• En primer lugar, fiel a su estrategia de negociación, descrita en su libro Art of the Deal, el presidente Trump conjugaba su llamado al entendimiento con la amenaza abierta.Pero las relaciones internacionales no pueden manejarse según las reglas del mundo de los negocios. Ceder ante la amenaza es un indicio de debilidad y los iraníes no podían mostrar debilidad en el inicio mismo de la negociación. Asi que, el 28 de marzo, el ayatola Alí Khamenei comentaba: «El comportamiento inamistoso de Estados Unidos e Israel siempre ha sido un obstáculo. Amenazan con atacarnos, lo cual, en nuestra opinión, no es muy probable, pero si se equivocan [y nos atacan], recibirán ciertamente un fuerte golpe en respuesta. Si los enemigos piensan que pueden iniciar la sedición en el país, la nación iraní les responderá por sí misma.»El presidente Trump reaccionó con una nueva bravata, declarando el 30 de marzo a NBC News: «Si no concluyen un acuerdo habrá bombardeos. Serán bombardeos como nunca han visto.»Según la Carta de las Naciones Unidas (artículo 2, párrafo 4), «los Miembros de la Organización, en sus relaciones internacionales, se abstendrán de recurrir a la amenaza o al uso de la fuerza contra la integridad territorial o la independencia política de cualquier Estado».En otras palabras, las negociaciones estaban en peligro incluso antes de haber comenzado.• Por otra parte, masacrar a los dirigentes de Ansar Allah es un crimen de guerra gratuito: al reorganizar el «Eje de la Resistencia», el general iraní Qassem Soleimani, devolvió su total libertad de acción a los grupos antiguamente “proxis” de Irán. En este momento, Teherán no ejerce ningún tipo de influencia sobre Ansar Allah –su único vinculo es de naturaleza ideológica. El embajador de Yemen, Amir Saeid Iravani recalcó esos puntos ante las Naciones Unidas [3].• Finalmente, y esto es lo más importante, los mensajes contradictorios del presidente Donald Trump no permitían a los iraníes evaluar sus relaciones con Israel. ¿Apoya Trump el proyecto de Estado binacional en Palestina (que es el proyecto de las Naciones Unidas)? ¿O apoya el de un Estado judío en Palestina (el “sionismo”)? ¿Respalda acaso la visión del “Gran Israel” (el “sionismo revisionista”)? Nadie puede decirlo a ciencia cierta. En definitiva, Irán envió una respuesta secreta a la carta secreta de Estados Unidos y las partes iniciaron entonces negociaciones, pero sólo de manera indirecta. O sea, las dos delegaciones no se hablaban directamente sino sólo a través de un mediador. Imponiendo esa forma de conversar, sin contacto directo, Teherán respondía positivamente a la invitación a negociar, pero marcaba a la vez su desaprobación sobre la manera de convocarla. En una Intervención directa, Francia y Reino Unido convocaron, por su parte, una reunión a puertas cerradas del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU. Los gobiernos de Francia y Reino Unido querían tratar varios puntos en suspenso. Como nada se ha filtrado sobre esa reunión, no se sabe si el presidente francés Emmanuel Macron y el primer ministro británico Keir Starmer querían aclarar lo que ya había hecho fracasar otros intentos de negociación. O si, al contrario, pretendían oscurecer más lo que aún podía ser menos claro.Al día siguiente, el 13 de marzo, el director general para la Paz y la Seguridad Internacionales en el ministerio de Exteriores de Irán, Mohammad Hassan-Nejad Pirkuhi, convocaba a los embajadores de Estados Unidos, Francia y Reino Unido. Y les reprochó haber manipulado los mecanismos de las Naciones Unidas para convocar una reunión «irresponsable y provocadora» del Consejo de Seguridad. El diplomático iraní recordó a los 3 embajadores que si bien Irán ya no aplica su compromiso de no enriquecer uranio a más de 3,67%, aún sigue respetando los compromisos que contrajo en el JCPoA en cuanto a los inspectores del Organismo Internacional de la Energía Atómica (OIEA) y que también sigue cumpliendo sus obligaciones como país firmante del Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear (TNP).Vale la pena recordar que si bien Irán se retiró del JCPoA y de los acuerdos bilaterales secretos irano-estadounidenses, lo hizo sólo después de que lo hiciera Estados Unidos y que, a pesar de ello, Teherán todavía sigue respetando los compromisos que contrajo en el JCPoA [4].Por el contrario, Francia y Reino Unido, países que dicen respetar el JCPoA, no hicieron absolutamente nada por aliviar las consecuencias de la salida de Estados Unidos de ese acuerdo, decisión estadounidense que violaba ese texto.Reino Unido respondió de inmediato, indicando que estaba dispuesto, a más tardar el 18 de octubre (fecha límite para este procedimiento), a reactivar las sanciones de la ONU si Irán no suspende sus operaciones de enriquecimiento de uranio. Las sanciones de la ONU están suspendidas, pero no han sido abrogadas. Tres rondas de negociaciones indirectas entre Estados Unidos e Irán ya han tenido lugar. La delegación estadounidense está encabezada por el emisario especial del presidente Trump para el Medio Oriente, Steve Witkoff, mientras que el ministro de Exteriores de Irán, Abbas Araghchi, preside la delegación de su país. La primera y la tercera ronda de negociaciones tuvieron lugar en Mascate, la capital del sultanato de Omán. La segunda se desarrolló en la embajada de Omán en Roma, en presencia del director del Órgano Internacional de la Energía Atómica (OIEA), el argentino Rafael Grossi. El ministro de Exteriores de Omán, Sayyid Badr ben Hamad ben Hamood al-Busaidi, ha actuado como mediador en las 3 rondas de negociaciones, o sea yendo y viniendo entre las dos delegaciones. La parte estadounidense ha hecho numerosísimas declaraciones, acumulando imprecisiones y contradicciones, a menudo sobre las rondas de negociaciones anteriores, pero principalmente sobre las “líneas rojas” de Washington. De manera que cada cual puede entender lo que mejor le parece. En Irán, el debate público es también particularmente opaco. Pero se puede decir que en Irán existe una corriente que, atendiendo a las lecciones de lo sucedido en Libia y en la península de Corea, asegura que si el imam Khomeiny viviera probablemente anularía su fatwa en contra de las armas de destrucción masiva y autorizaría el arma nuclear. Pero no lo haría porque ese tipo de arma le pareciese ahora moral desde el punto de vista musulmán sino porque le permitiría proteger la República Islámica de las amenazas que se ciernen sobre ella. Vale recordar que la Yamahiriya Árabe Libia de Muammar El-Kadhafi, que estaba a punto de dotarse del arma nuclear, desmanteló voluntariamente sus instalaciones nucleares e incluso recibió por ello las felicitaciones de Washington… antes de acabar siendo aplastada militarmente por Estados Unidos y sus aliados de Occidente. En cambio, la República Popular Democrática de Corea (Corea del Norte) de Kim Jong-un sigue resistiendo frente a las amenazas de Estados Unidos… porque posee el arma atómica y lo pregona alto y claro. El 22 de abril, en una larga entrevista concedida a Time Magazine, el presidente Donald Trump aclaró algunas cosas. Dijo que sacó a Estados Unidos del JCPoA y ordenó el asesinato del general iraní Qassem Soleimani para privar a Irán de su capacidad de alimentar la resistencia frente a Israel, por considerarlo una condición previa para la paz regional. Trump nunca había explicado esto y esas palabras permiten entender su intención en la actual negociación [5]. Mientras tanto, los “sionistas revisionistas” de Benyamin Netanyahu (no confundirlos con los “sionistas” a secas), dando continuación a 30 años de mentiras, multiplican las presiones para sabotear la negociación entre Estados Unidos e Irán [6]. En Washington, el gran jefe de los sionistas revisionistas, el estadounidense Elliott Abrams, publicó una nota [7] indicando lo que él llama «los 7 pecados capitales» de las administraciones estadounidenses anteriores ante Irán. Ese documento permite entender la posición de los partidarios de la guerra. Según la nota de Elliot Abrams, el JCPoA negociado por la administración Obama no habría frenado las ambiciones nucleares que los partidarios de la guerra atribuyen a Irán y la devolución a ese país de sus fondos “congelados” le habría dado los medios necesarios para combatir a Israel. Sin embargo, durante las conversaciones 5+1, en Lausana y Ginebra, todos los actores (menos Estados Unidos, representado por el secretario de Estado John Kerry) habían llegado a la conclusión de que no existía un “programa nuclear iraní” desde 1988 y la fatwa del imam Khomeiny. Ese punto, que Israel siempre ha querido poner en duda, acaba de ser confirmado, el 24 de marzo, por la directora de la Inteligencia estadounidense, Tulsi Gabbard, durante su audiencia ante el Senado y en su informe anual sobre las amenazas contra la seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos [8]. En resumen, para Alemania, China, Francia, Reino Unido y Rusia –y probablemente para muchos más actores– está absolutamente claro que la acusación de Israel contra Irán no está justificada, es pura intoxicación. • 1) Partiendo de esa mentira constantemente repetida, los “sionistas revisionistas” israelíes se apoyan en el hecho que Irán, en respuesta a la salida de Estados Unidos del JCPoA y de los acuerdos secretos que Teherán había firmado con John Kerry, retomó el enriquecimiento de uranio hasta el 60%, y exigen que se prohíba a los iraníes todo nivel de enriquecimiento de uranio.Es importante entender bien lo que implica este reclamo de Israel: su aplicación prohibiría a Irán todo programa nuclear civil, incluyendo, por ejemplo, la posibilidad de ofrecer a su población los usos de la energía nuclear con fines médicos que los occidentales garantizan en cualquiera de sus hospitales.Esa pretensión de Israel equivaldría a hacer retroceder Irán al subdesarrollo. Eso es exactamente lo mismo que hacían ciertos Estados europeos: prohibían a sus colonias el acceso a tecnologías modernas para mantenerlos bajo su dominación. • 2) Los “sionistas revisionistas” exigen también que las negociaciones no se limiten al programa nuclear y que incluyan la cuestión de los misiles. Hace años que Francia y Reino Unido afirman, a sabiendas de que no es cierto, que el desarrollo de misiles balísticos e hipersónicos por parte de Irán viola las sanciones de la ONU. Para justificar esa afirmación, París y Londres mezclan deliberadamente la investigación y la fabricación de misiles balísticos con la cuestión de las ojivas nucleares que esos misiles podrían portar… si Irán contara con tales ojivas.Rusia y China han intervenido varias veces para recordar al Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU «que ninguno de los instrumentos y mecanismos internacionales existentes, como el Régimen de Control de la tecnología de misiles y el Tratado de No Proliferación de las armas nucleares, prohíbe explícita o implícitamente a Irán concebir programas de misiles y programas espaciales.» [9]Durante los bombardeos iraníes contra Israel, el 1º de octubre de 2024, resultó que todos los misiles y drones iraníes fallaron, no dieron en los blancos designados, o fueron derribados en vuelo… exceptuando los misiles hipersónicos, que sí alcanzaron, todos, sus blancos. Este asunto, que no tiene nada que ver con las cuestiones nucleares, es por lo tanto fundamental para Israel. • 3) Los “sionistas revisionistas” exigen igualmente que la vigilancia se efectúe bajo las condiciones occidentales, no según las condiciones iraníes. Por ahora, Irán está sometido, con su propio consentimiento, a los procedimientos de verificación de la OIEA más estrictos que se han aplicado en la historia. Teherán se adapta a ellos escrupulosamente, así que no ve por qué habría que imponerle nuevos procedimientos… a no ser que se trate de inventar un problema donde no lo hay. • 4) Seguidamente, para los “sionistas revisionistas” Estados Unidos no debe renunciar prematuramente al uso de la fuerza. ¡Pero esa es la única manera civilizada de hacer las cosas! Y eso es además lo que estipula la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, como puede leerse en el artículo 2 (párrafo 4) anteriormente citado.Sabiendo que Israel no cuenta con los medios que le permitirían atacar Irán en solitario y que Tel Aviv no para de presionar a Washington para arrastrarlo a una guerra contra Irán, es fácil entender lo que hay detrás de este 4º punto. • 5) Los “sionistas revisionistas” se oponen además a que se reduzcan las sanciones de la ONU y las medidas coercitivas unilaterales que Estados Unidos, Reino Unido y la Unión Europea impusieron a Irán. Según los sionistas revisionistas la reducción de esas medidas estimularía Irán a financiar el terrorismo.Por supuesto, no se trata en este caso de asesinatos supuestamente organizados por Teherán fuera del país. Cuando los sionistas revisionistas hablan de “terrorismo”, en realidad se refieren al apoyo de Irán al Hamas y a la Yihad Islámica en Palestina, al Hezbollah libanés y a la resistencia iraquí, aunque saben que actualmente el apoyo financiero y militar de Teherán se limita al movimiento yemenita Ansar Allah. Pero, los conflictos en Palestina, Líbano, Siria e Irak son todos manifestaciones de la resistencia popular contra la colonización israelí y la resistencia armada es legítima en derecho internacional (lo cual no significa que todas las acciones realizadas en su nombre también lo sean).En resumen, el propósito de esta exigencia no es evitar un supuesto desmán iraní sino permitir que Israel pueda seguir violando las resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas. • 6 y 7) Los “sionistas revisionistas” exigen finalmente que no se ignoren los demás «comportamientos maliciosos» de Irán y que no se reduzcan las sanciones contra el “terrorismo” para obtener ventajas sobre el tema nuclear. Pero Irán no muestra «comportamientos maliciosos» hacia Estados Unidos. De lo que realmente se habla aquí es del apoyo de Irán a la resistencia frente al sionismo, ante la posibilidad de que ese apoyo se incremente en el plano financiero. Todo lo anterior es un intento de presentar el contenido real de las negociaciones entre Washington y Teherán. Hay que tener en cuenta que el equipo de Donald Trump está plagado de personalidades que creen en la retórica de los sionistas revisionistas. Numerosos miembros del Congreso estadounidense, tanto demócratas como republicanos, no enfocan los temas del Medio Oriente a través de su propia experiencia sino a través del prisma que les impone su principal donante… el American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Por ejemplo, Merav Ceren, que acaba de ser nombrado responsable del expediente Israel-Irán en el Consejo de Seguridad Nacional de la Casa Blanca tiene la doble nacionalidad israelo-estadounidense y es incluso oficial en las fuerzas armadas de Israel [10]. Sin embargo, el jefe de la delegación de Estados Unidos en las conversaciones de Omán, Steve Witkoff, es un promotor inmobiliario activo fuera de Estados Unidos, inclusos en países musulmanes. Y ya ha mostrado su independencia en cuanto al modo de pensar, incluso al negociar sobre la cuestión de Ucrania, demostrando que es realmente capaz de escuchar los argumentos de las dos partes. Aunque es judío de confesión, Steve Witkoff reaccionó positivamente cuando los iraníes le recordaron la propuesta de Irán de proclamar el Medio Oriente “zona libre de armas nucleares”, como se ha hecho en Latinoamérica [11]. Por supuesto, esa proposición incluye a Israel. La cuarta ronda de negociaciones entre las delegaciones de Estados Unidos e Irán está prevista para el 3 de mayo. Pero ahora las dos partes tienen conciencia de que la paz dependerá de la capacidad de Donald Trump de romper con los sionistas revisionistas y avanzar con acciones concretas sobre el futuro de los palestinos. https://www.voltairenet.org/article222173.html - [1] «Después de Ucrania, ¿negociación con Irán?», por Thierry Meyssan, Red Voltaire, 18 de marzo de 2025. [2] «La “paz” de Trump en Ucrania frente a la “paz global” de Putin (y China): de Gaza a Irán», por Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, La Jornada (México), Red Voltaire, 21 de marzo de 2025. [3] «Irán denuncia las amenazas de Estados Unidos contra la paz», por Amir Saeid Iravani , Read Voltaire, 31 de marzo de 2025. [4] «Irán niega el incumplimiento del Plan de Acción Integral Conjunto (PAIC) y la Resolución 2231», por Amir Saeid Iravani, Red Voltaire, 9 de diciembre de 2024. [5] “Full Transcript of Donald Trump’s ‘100 Days’ Interview With Time”, Eric Cortellessa y Sam Jacobs, Time Magazine, 25 de abril de 2025. [6] «¿Quién le teme al programa nuclear civil de Irán?», por Thierry Meyssan, Red Voltaire, 9 de julio de 2010. [7] “Avoiding the seven deadly sins of a bad iranian nuclear deal”, 24 de marzo de 2025. [8] “Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community”, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, marzo de 2025. [9] Ver por ejemplo: «Rusia denuncia acusaciones occidentales contra Irán», por Vassily Nebenzia, Red Voltaire, 8 de junio de 2022. [10] “Trump’s NSC Director for Israel and Iran Previously Worked for Israeli Ministry of Defense”, Ryan Grim y Saagar Enjeti, Drop Site, 21 de abril de 2025. [11] «Avanzan negociaciones de Irán y Estados Unidos en Omán ¿Un “Tratado de Tlatelolco” nuclear para Medio Oriente?», par Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, La Jornada (México), Red Voltaire, 15 de abril de 2025. The post Lo que está en juego en las negociaciones de Donald Trump con la República Islámica de Irán appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: WORLD, +Spanish, Axis of Resistance, Iran, JCPOA, Khamenei, Trump, USA]

— The Stakes of Donald Trump’s Negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran

 

at 4/29/25 6:09am

The general public is completely unaware of the real stakes in the negotiations between Washington and Tehran. This article presents a situation in which lies have been piling up over three decades, making any progress particularly difficult. Contrary to popular belief, the nuclear issue in Iran is not whether Tehran will acquire an atomic bomb, but whether it will be able to help Palestine without resorting to weapons. A month and a half ago, I announced that even before concluding peace in Ukraine, President Donald Trump would open negotiations with Iran [1]. As usual, commentators steeped in Joe Biden’s ideology showered me with sarcasm, while my colleagues, specialists in international affairs, noted my observations [2]. The difference between the two lay in their understanding of the negotiations in Ukraine. For the former, it was Donald Trump’s revenge against Volodymyr Zelensky, or a genuflection before Vladimir Putin. For the latter, it was, on the contrary, a desire for peace with Russia in order to devote US resources to its economic recovery. It follows that the two sides approach the Iranian issue differently. For the former, it is a matter of continuing the chaos that began during the first term with the withdrawal from the nuclear agreement (JCPOA). Conversely, for the latter, it is a desire for peace with Iran, given that it is the only regional power that supports the resistance to Israel. In early March 2024, President Donald Trump sent a letter to the leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The existence of this document was mentioned by the author himself during his speech to Congress on March 4, and then debated in the press. According to Sky News Arabia, which read this document, Donald Trump called for negotiations, while specifying: “If you reject the outstretched hand and choose the path of escalation and support for terrorist organizations, I warn you of a swift and determined response […] I am writing this letter with the aim of opening new horizons for our relations, away from the years of conflict, misunderstandings and unnecessary confrontations that we have witnessed in recent decades […] The time has come to leave hostility behind and open a new page of cooperation and mutual respect.” A historic opportunity presents itself to us today […] We will not stand idly by in the face of your regime’s threats against our people or our allies […] If you are willing to negotiate, so are we. But if you continue to ignore the world’s demands, history will testify that you missed a great opportunity. Simultaneously, the United States and the United Kingdom launched several attacks against Ansar Allah in Yemen. Unlike previous attacks, these did not target hidden military targets, but rather political targets scattered among the civilian population. They therefore killed leaders of the movement and many other collateral victims, which constitutes war crimes. It should be recalled that Ansar Allah, pejoratively referred to by Westerners as the Houthi family gang or the Houthis, attacks Israeli ships in the Red Sea in order to force Tel Aviv to agree to allow humanitarian aid to pass through to Gaza. Washington and London, believing that this was hampering international trade, and having failed to obtain approval from the Security Council, resumed the war. They initially targeted military objectives and quickly realized that these, buried deep within the country, could not be significantly affected. Donald Trump’s letter only arrived in Tehran on March 12, and the Iranian response was slow in coming. It is important to understand that while Tehran was flattered by Washington’s secret handwritten approach, it could not accept several aspects of its behavior. • First, the United States, faithful to Trump’s Art of the Deal technique, threatened Iran while trying to placate it. International relations are not governed by the same rules as business. Giving in to threats is a sign of weakness that the Iranians could not accept in these negotiations. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei commented on March 28: The enmity of the United States and Israel has always existed. They threaten to attack us, which we believe is not very likely, but if they commit a misdeed, they will certainly receive a strong blow in return. If the enemies think they can instigate sedition in the country, the Iranian nation itself will respond to them. President Donald Trump further emphasized this on March 30, telling NBC News: If they don’t reach an agreement, there will be bombing. It will be bombing like they’ve never seen before. According to the United Nations Charter (Article 2, paragraph 4), members of the Organization shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.The negotiations were therefore compromised before they even began. • Moreover, massacring the leaders of Ansar Allah was a gratuitous war crime: General Qassem Soleimani, by reorganizing the Axis of Resistance, had given Iran’s former proxies their complete freedom. Tehran currently has no influence, other than ideological, over Ansar Allah. Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani therefore raised these points at the United Nations [3].• Finally, and most importantly, Donald Trump, by accumulating contradictory signals, did not allow the Iranians to assess his relations with Israel. Does he support the project of a binational state in Palestine (the one promoted by the United Nations)? Or of a Jewish state in Palestine (Zionism)? Or that of a Greater Israel (Revisionist Zionism)? No one knows for sure. Ultimately, Iran sent a secret response to the secret letter from the United States, and negotiations were able to begin, but only indirectly. That is, the two delegations did not speak directly to each other, but only through a mediator. In this way, Tehran responded to the invitation, but expressed its disapproval of the manner in which it was convened. Intervening directly, France and the United Kingdom convened a closed-door meeting of the Security Council. Paris and London wished to address several outstanding issues. As nothing has been leaked, it is unclear whether President Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister Keir Starmer wanted to clarify what had caused all other attempts at negotiations to fail or, on the contrary, to obscure what could have been further obscured. The following day, March 13, Mohammad Hassan-Nejad Pirkouhi, Director General for International Peace and Security at the Iranian Foreign Ministry, summoned the ambassadors of the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. He criticized them for an irresponsible and provocative meeting of the Security Council, which abused UN mechanisms. He emphasized that while Iran no longer respects its commitment not to enrich uranium above 3.67%, it is still respecting its JCPoA commitments to IAEA inspectors and fulfilling its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It should be recalled that, generally speaking, Iran, following the United States, withdrew from the JCPoA and the secret bilateral agreements of the time, yet it still observes its JCPoA commitments [4]. In contrast, France and the United Kingdom, while claiming to respect the JCPoA, have taken no measures to address the consequences of the US withdrawal, in violation of the spirit of the text. The United Kingdom immediately responded by stating that it was prepared to reinstate UN sanctions by October 18 (the deadline for this procedure) if Iran did not curb its uranium enrichment. The UN sanctions were, in fact, suspended, not repealed. Three rounds of indirect negotiations have already taken place. The US delegation was led by Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s special envoy for the Middle East, and the Iranian delegation by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The first and third meetings were held in Muscat and Oman, while the second was held at the Sultanate’s embassy in Rome, in the presence of the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafel Grossi of Argentina. Sayyid Badr bin Hamad bin Hamood al-Busaidi, Omani Foreign Minister, acted as mediator at each opportunity, moving back and forth between the delegations. Numerous statements were made by the US side, accumulating imprecisions and contradictions, both regarding previous rounds of negotiations and especially regarding Washington’s red lines. Each side therefore believes it understands what it wants. In Iran, too, the public debate is particularly obscure. However, we note that one current, drawing lessons from the Libyan and Korean affairs, maintains that if Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini were still alive, he would likely rescind his fatwa condemning weapons of mass destruction and, on the contrary, authorize the atomic bomb. Not because he would now find it moral from a Muslim perspective, but because it would protect Iran from the threats it faces. Indeed, Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which was on the verge of acquiring such a bomb, voluntarily dismantled its facilities and received congratulations from Washington before being crushed by it. Meanwhile, Kim Jong-un’s Democratic People’s Republic of Korea still manages to resist the Pentagon because it possesses the bomb and boasts about it. On April 22, in a lengthy interview with Time Magazine, President Donald Trump clarified his thinking. In it, he declared that he had withdrawn the United States from the JCPoA and ordered the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani in order to deprive Iran of its ability to fuel resistance against Israel; a precondition for regional peace. He had never explained this, and this helps us understand his intention during these negotiations. [5] Meanwhile, Benjamin Netanyahu’s revisionist Zionists (not to be confused with simply Zionists), continuing three decades of lies, have increased pressure to sabotage the ongoing contacts [6]. In Washington, their chief leader, Elliott Abrams, published a memo [7] outlining what he calls the seven deadly sins of previous US administrations toward Iran. This document helps us understand the position of the warmongers. According to this note, the JCPoA negotiated by the Obama administration would not have succeeded in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and, by returning some blocked funds, would have given it the means to fight Israel. However, during the 5+1 talks in Lausanne and Geneva, all the actors (except the United States represented by Secretary of State John Kerry) had reached the conclusion that there had been no military nuclear program in Iran since 1988 and the fatwa of Imam Ruhollah Khomeini. This point, always contested by Israel, was just confirmed on March 24 by the Director of US Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, during her Senate hearing and in her annual report on threats against her country [8]. It is absolutely clear to Germany, China, France, the United Kingdom and Russia (and probably to many others) that the Israeli accusation is based on nothing; that it’s pure deception. • 1) Based on this oft-repeated lie, the revisionist Zionists rely on the fact that Iran, in response to the United States’ withdrawal from the JCPoA and the secret agreements it signed with John Kerry, has continued its uranium enrichment to 60%, and demand that Tehran be banned from all uranium enrichment.This demand must be clearly understood: it would prohibit Iran from any civilian program, including, for example, radiation treatments that are practiced by Western countries in all their hospitals. This claim amounts to a desire to return Iran to underdevelopment. It corresponds to the way in which certain European states have banned their colonies from modern activities in order to maintain their domination. 2) The revisionist Zionists continue by demanding that the negotiations not be limited to the nuclear program, but also include the issue of missiles. For years, France and the United Kingdom have falsely claimed that Tehran’s development of ballistic and hypersonic missiles violates UN sanctions. To do so, they deliberately confuse the research and production of ballistic missiles with the nuclear warheads they could carry if Iran possessed them. Russia and China have repeatedly intervened to remind the Security Council that none of the existing international instruments and mechanisms, including the Missile Technology Control Regime or the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, explicitly or implicitly prohibits Iran from developing missile and space programs. » [9] During the Iranian bombing of Israel on October 1, 2024, it turned out that all Iranian missiles and drones missed their targets or were shot down in flight, with the exception of all hypersonic missiles, which all hit their targets. This issue, unrelated to nuclear matters, is therefore essential for Israel. • 3) The revisionist Zionists also demand that monitoring be carried out on Western terms, not Iranian terms. However, for the time being, Iran is subject, with its own consent, to the strictest IAEA verification procedures ever enacted. Tehran complies scrupulously, and it is difficult to see why new ones should be imposed on it, unless one wants to create a problem where none exists. • 4) The revisionist Zionists continue by asserting that the threat of US force must not be abandoned prematurely. Yet this is the only civilized way to proceed, as set out in the United Nations Charter (Article 2, paragraph 4) cited above. Knowing that Israel lacks the means to attack Iran alone and that Tel Aviv continues to pressure Washington to draw it into a war against Tehran, it is easy to understand what this fourth point conceals. • 5) Then, the revisionist Zionists oppose the easing of UN sanctions and unilateral coercive measures by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union on the grounds that this would encourage Iran to finance terrorism. We are not talking here about the assassinations Tehran orders abroad, but about its support for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Resistance in Iraq, knowing that it no longer provides financial and military support to Ansar Allah. However, the conflicts in Palestine, Syria, and Iraq are all instances of popular resistance to Israeli military actions. They are legitimate under international law (which does not mean that all actions carried out in their name are legitimate). This demand, therefore, aims exclusively to allow Israel to violate UN resolutions even longer, not to prevent their violation by Iran. • 6 and 7) The revisionist Zionists conclude by demanding that Iran’s other malign behaviors not be ignored and that anti-terrorism sanctions not be eased to gain a nuclear advantage. However, Iran, like other states, does not engage in malign behaviors toward the United States. What we’re talking about here is Iranian support for the resistance to Zionism, which revisionist Zionists understandably fear will resume significant financial support. This lengthy discussion has presented the substance of the negotiations between Washington and Tehran. It should be noted that Donald Trump’s team is riddled with figures convinced by the rhetoric of the revisionist Zionists. Many congressmen, both Democrats and Republicans, do not approach the Middle East through their own experience, but through the prism of their main donor, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Merav Ceren, who has just been appointed head of the Israel-Iran portfolio at the White House National Security Council, is a dual national, an officer in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) [10]. However, the head of the US delegation to Oman, Steve Witkoff, is a real estate developer working in several countries, not only in the United States, but also in Muslim states. He has already demonstrated his independence of mind by negotiating on the Ukrainian issue and listening to the arguments of both sides. There is no reason, and certainly not his Jewish faith, to suspect him of bias. Thus, he reacted positively when the Iranians reiterated their proposal to make the Middle East a nuclear-weapon-free zone like Latin America [11] ; a proposal that includes Israel. The fourth round of negotiations will be held on May 3. Both sides now realize that peace will depend on Donald Trump’s ability to break with the revisionist Zionists and make concrete progress on the fate of the Palestinians. https://www.voltairenet.org/article222165.html - [1] “After Ukraine, Iran?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 20 March 2025. [2] « La paix de Trump en Ukraine face à la paix mondiale de Poutine (avec la Chine), de Gaza à l’Iran », par Alfredo Jalife-Rahme , Traduction Maria Poumier, La Jornada (Mexique), Réseau Voltaire, 21 mars 2025. [3] “Iran denounces US threats to peace”, by Amir Saeid Iravani , Voltaire Network, 31 March 2025. [4] “Iran denies non-compliance with JCPoA and Resolution 2231”, by Amir Saeid Iravani , Voltaire Network, 9 December 2024. [5] «Full Transcript of Donald Trump’s ‘100 Days’ Interview With Time», Eric Cortellessa and Sam Jacobs, Time Magazine, April 25, 2025. [6] “Who’s afraid of Iran’s civilian nuclear programme?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 27 July 2010. [7] «Avoiding the seven deadly sins of a bad iranian nuclear deal», March 24, 2025. [8] «Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community», Office of the Director of National Intelligence | March 2025. [9] For instance : “Russia denounces Western accusations against Iran”, by Vasily Nebenzya , Voltaire Network, 8 June 2022. [10] «Trump’s NSC Director for Israel and Iran Previously Worked for Israeli Ministry of Defense», Ryan Grim & Saagar Enjeti, Drop Site, April 21, 2025. [11] “Negotiations between Iran and the United States are progressing in Oman; a nuclear Tlatelolco Treaty for the Middle East?”, by Alfredo Jalife-Rahme , La Jornada (Mexico) , Voltaire Network, 22 April 2025. The post The Stakes of Donald Trump’s Negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: WORLD, Axis of Resistance, Iran, JCPOA, Khamenei, Trump, USA]

— Les enjeux des négociations de Donald Trump avec la République islamique d’Iran

 

at 4/29/25 6:04am

Le grand public ignore tout des véritables enjeux des négociations entre Washington et Téhéran. Cet article présente une situation où les mensonges se sont succédés et accumulés depuis trois décennies, rendant particulièrement difficile la moindre avancée. Contrairement à ce que l’on croit, la question nucléaire en Iran n’est pas de savoir si Téhéran va ou non se doter de la bombe atomique, mais s’il parviendra à aider la Palestine sans recourir aux armes. Il y a un mois et demi, j’annonçais qu’avant même de conclure la paix en Ukraine, le président Donald Trump allait ouvrir des négociations avec l’Iran [1]. Comme à l’habitude, les commentateurs trempés dans l’idéologie de Joe Biden m’ont couvert de sarcasmes, tandis que mes collègues, spécialistes des Affaires internationales, ont relevé mes observations [2]. La différence entre les uns et les autres résidaient dans leur compréhension des négociations en Ukraine. Pour les premiers, elle était une vengeance de Donald Trump contre Volodymyr Zelensky, ou une génuflexion devant Vladimir Poutine. Pour les second, elle était au contraire une volonté de paix avec la Russie afin de consacrer les moyens des États-Unis à leur redressement économique. Il s’en suit que les uns et les autres abordent différemment la question iranienne. Pour les premiers, il s’agit de poursuivre le chaos débuté lors du premier mandat avec le retrait de l’accord sur le nucléaire (JCPoA). Au contraire, pour les seconds, il s’agit d’une volonté de paix avec l’Iran étant entendu que c’est la seule puissance régionale qui soutien la résistance à Israël. Début mars 2024, le président Donald Trump a adressé une lettre au guide la Révolution, l’ayatollah Ali Khameney. L’existence de ce document a été évoquée par l’auteur lui-même lors de son discours au Congrès, le 4 mars, puis débattue dans la presse. Selon Sky News Arabia, qui a lu ce document, Donald Trump invite à des négociations, tout en précisant : « Si vous rejetez la main tendue et choisissez la voie de l’escalade et du soutien aux organisations terroristes, je vous mets en garde contre une réponse rapide et déterminée […] J’écris cette lettre dans le but d’ouvrir de nouveaux horizons pour nos relations, loin des années de conflits, d’incompréhensions et de confrontations inutiles dont nous avons été témoins ces dernières décennies […] Le moment est venu de laisser derrière nous l’hostilité et d’ouvrir une nouvelle page de coopération et de respect mutuel. Une opportunité historique se présente à nous aujourd’hui […] Nous ne resteront pas les bras croisés face aux menaces de votre régime contre notre peuple ou nos alliés […] Si vous êtes prêts à négocier, nous le sommes également. Mais si vous continuez à ignorer les exigences du monde, l’histoire témoignera que vous avez manqué une excellente opportunité. » Simultanément, les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni ont lancé diverses attaques contre Ansar Allah au Yémen. Contrairement aux précédentes, elles ne visaient pas des cibles militaires enfouies, mais des cibles politiques éparses parmi la population civile. Elles tuèrent donc des leaders du mouvement et de nombreuses autres victimes collatérales, ce qui constitue des crimes de guerre. Rappelons qu’Ansar Allah, péjorativement appelé par les Occidentaux la « bande de la famille Houthi » ou « les Houthis », attaque les navires israéliens en mer Rouge afin de contraindre Tel Aviv à accepter de laisser passer de l’aide humanitaire à Gaza.Washington et Londres, considérant que, ce faisant, il entrave le commerce international et n’ayant pas obtenu d’aval du Conseil de sécurité, ont repris la guerre. Ils ont d’abord ciblé des objectifs militaires et se sont rapidement rendus compte que ceux-ci, enfouis profondément, ne pouvaient pas être touchés significativement. La lettre de Donald Trump n’est arrivée que le 12 mars à Téhéran et la réponse iranienne s’est faite attendre. Il faut bien comprendre que si Téhéran était flatté par la démarche manuscrite secrète de Washington, il ne pouvait accepter plusieurs aspects de son comportement.• En premier lieu, les États-Unis, fidèles à la technique trumpiste de l’Art of the Deal, menaçaient l’Iran tout en essayant de l’amadouer. Les relations internationale ne sont pas gérées par les mêmes règles que le business. Céder aux menaces est un signe de faiblesse que les Iraniens ne pouvaient assumer dans ces négociations. L’ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a commenté le 28 mars : « L’inimitié des États-Unis et d’Israël a toujours été. Ils menacent de nous attaquer, ce qui, selon nous, n’est pas très probable, mais s’ils commettent un méfait, ils recevront certainement un coup fort réciproque. Si les ennemis pensent qu’ils peuvent initier la sédition dans le pays, la nation iranienne elle-même leur répondra. » Ce à quoi le président Donald Trump a renchérit, le 30 mars, en déclarant à NBC News : « S’ils ne concluent pas d’accord, il y aura des bombardements. Il s’agira de bombardements comme ils n’en auront jamais vus. »Selon la Charte des Nations unies (article 2 paragraphe 4), « les membres de l’Organisation s’abstiennent, dans leurs relations internationales, de recourir à la menace ou à l’emploi de la force, soit contre l’intégrité territoriale ou l’indépendance politique de tout État ».Les négociations étaient donc compromises avant d’avoir commencé.• D’autre part, massacrer les dirigeants d’Ansar Allah était un crime de guerre gratuit : le général Qassem Soleimani, en réorganisant « l’Axe de la résistance », avait redonné aux anciens proxys iraniens leur totale liberté. Téhéran n’a, à ce jour, aucune influence, sinon idéologique, sur Ansar Allah. L’ambassadeur Amir Saeid Iravani a donc relevé ces points aux Nations unies [3].• Enfin et c’est le plus important : Donald Trump, accumulant des signes contradictoires, ne permettait pas aux Iraniens d’évaluer ses relations avec Israël. Soutient-il le projet d’un État binational en Palestine (celui porté par les Nations unies) ? ou d’un État juif en Palestine (le « sionisme ») ? ou celui d’un « Grand Israël » (le « sionisme révisionniste ») ? Nul ne le sait avec certitude. En définitive, l’Iran adressa une réponse secrète à lettre secrète des États-Unis et des négociations purent commencer, mais uniquement sous forme indirecte. C’est-à-dire que les deux délégations ne se parlaient pas directement, mais uniquement par l’intermédiaire d’un médiateur. De cette manière, Téhéran répondait à l’invitation, mais marquait sa désapprobation sur la manière dont elle était convoquée. Intervenant directement, la France et le Royaume-Uni, ont, quant à eux, convoqué une réunion à huis clos du Conseil de sécurité. Paris et Londres souhaitaient traiter de plusieurs points en suspend. Rien n’ayant filtré, on ne sait pas si le président Emmanuel Macron et le Premier ministre Keir Starmer souhaitaient éclaircir ce qui avait fait échouer toutes autres tentatives de négociations ou, au contraire, obscurcir ce qui pouvait l’être encore plus.Le lendemain, 13 mars, Mohammad Hassan-Nejad Pirkouhi, directeur général pour la Paix et la Sécurité internationales au ministère iranien des Affaires étrangères, a convoqué les ambassadeurs des États-Unis, de France et du Royaume-Uni. Il leur a reproché une réunion « irresponsable et provocatrice » du Conseil de sécurité en abusant des mécanismes des Nations unies. Il a souligné que si l’Iran ne respecte plus l’engagement de ne pas enrichir d’uranium à plus de 3,67 %, il respecte toujours les engagements du JCPoA vis-à-vis des inspecteurs de l’AIEA et s’acquitte de ses obligations au titre du Traité sur la non-prolifération des armes nucléaires (TNP).Rappelons que, d’une manière générale, l’Iran, après les États-Unis, s’est retiré du JCPoA et des accords bilatéraux secrets de l’époque, mais observe pourtant toujours ses engagements du JCPoA [4]. Au contraire, la France et le Royaume-Uni, tout en prétendant respecter le JCPoA, n’ont pris aucune mesure pour palier aux conséquences du retrait US en violation de l’esprit du texte.Le Royaume-Uni a immédiatement répliqué en indiquant qu’il était prêt, au plus tard le 18 octobre (date limite pour cette procédure), à faire rétablir les sanctions de l’ONU si l’Iran ne freine pas son enrichissement de l’uranium. Les sanctions de l’ONU ont en effet été suspendues et non pas abrogées. Trois rounds de négociations indirectes ont déjà eu lieu. La délégation états-unienne était dirigée par Steve Witkoff, émissaire spécial du président Donald Trump pour le Moyen-Orient, l’iranienne par le ministre des Affaires étrangères, Abbas Araghchi. La première et la troisième réunion se sont tenues à Mascate et Oman, tandis que la seconde le fut à l’ambassade du sultanat à Rome, en présence du directeur de l’Agence internationale de l’Énergie atomique (AIEA), l’Argentin Rafel Grossi. Sayyid Badr bin Hamad bin Hamood al-Busaidi, ministre omanais des Affaires étrangères jouant, à chaque occasion, le rôle de médiateur, faisant des allées et retours entre les délégations. De très nombreuses déclarations ont été faites par la partie états-unienne, accumulant les imprécisions et les contradictions, à la fois à propos des rounds de négociations précédents et surtout concernant les lignes rouges de Washington. Chacun croit donc comprendre ce qu’il souhaite. En Iran aussi, le débat public est particulièrement obscur. Nous retiendrons cependant qu’un courant, tirant les leçons des affaires libyenne et coréenne, assure que si l’ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeiny était toujours vivant, il annulerait probablement sa fatwa condamnant les armes de destruction massive et, au contraire, autoriserait la bombe atomique. Non pas qu’il la trouverait désormais morale d’un point de vue musulman, mais parce qu’elle permettrait de protéger l’Iran des menaces qui pèsent sur lui. En effet, la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne de Mouammar Kadhafi, qui était sur le point de se doter d’une telle bombe, a démantelé volontairement ses installations et reçu les félicitations de Washington avant d’être écrasé par lui. Tandis que la République populaire démocratique de Corée de Kim Jong-un parvient toujours à résister au Pentagone parce qu’elle possède la bombe et s’en vante. Le 22 avril, accordant un entretien fleuve à Time Magazine, le président Donald Trump a précisé sa pensée. Il y déclare avoir retiré les États-Unis du JCPoA et ordonné l’assassinat du général Qassem Soleimani afin de priver l’Iran de ses capacité d’alimenter la résistance à Israël ; condition préalable d’une paix régionale. Il ne l’avait jamais expliqué et cela permet de comprendre son intention durant ces négociations. [5] Pendant ce temps, les « sionistes révisionnistes » de Benyamin Netanyahou (à ne pas confondre avec les « sionistes » tout court), poursuivant trois décennies de mensonges, ont multiplié les pressions pour saboter les contacts en cours [6]. À Washington, leur grand chef, Elliott Abrams, a publié une note [7] indiquant ce qu’il appelle « les 7 pèches capitaux » des administrations états-uniennes précédentes face à l’Iran. Ce document permet de comprendre la position des fauteurs de guerre. Selon cette note, le JCPoA négocié par l’administration Obama ne serait pas parvenu à freiner les ambitions nucléaires de l’Iran et, en lui restituant certains fonds bloqués, lui aurait donné des moyens pour combattre Israël. Or, durant les pourparler 5+1 de Lausanne et de Genève, tous les acteurs (sauf les États-Unis représentés par le secrétaire d’État John Kerry) étaient parvenus à la conclusion qu’il n’y avait pas de programme nucléaire militaire en Iran depuis 1988 et la fatwa de l’imam Rouhollah Khomeiny. Ce point, toujours contesté par Israël, vient d’être confirmé, le 24 mars, par la directrice du Renseignement états-unien, Tulsi Gabbard, lors de son audition par le sénat et dans son rapport annuel sur les menaces contre son pays [8]. Il est absolument clair pour l’Allemagne, la Chine, la France, le Royaume-Uni et la Russie (et probablement pour bien d’autres) que l’accusation israélienne ne repose sur rien ; que c’est une pure intoxication. • 1) Partant de ce mensonge maintes fois répété, les « sionistes révisionnistes » s’appuient sur le fait que l’Iran, en réplique au retrait des États-Unis du JCPoA et des accords secrets qu’ils avaient signés avec John Kerry, a poursuivi leur enrichissement d’uranium à 60 %, exigent que l’on interdise à Téhéran tout enrichissement d’uranium.Il faut bien comprendre cette réclamation : elle interdirait à l’Iran tout programme civil, y compris, par exemple, les soins par radiation qui sont pratiqués par les Occidentaux dans tous leurs les hôpitaux.Cette prétention revient à vouloir renvoyer l’Iran au sous-développement. Elle correspond à la manière dont certains États européens ont interdit à leur colonies des activités modernes pour les maintenir sous leur domination. • 2) Les « sionistes révisionnistes » poursuivent en exigeant que les négociations ne se limitent pas au programme nucléaire, mais incluent la question des missiles. Cela fait des années que la France et le Royaume-Uni prétendent, à tort, que la mise au point de missiles balistiques et hypersoniques par Téhéran viole les sanctions édictées par l’ONU. Pour ce faire, ils confondent volontairement la recherche et la fabrication de missiles balistiques avec les charges nucléaires qu’ils pourraient porter si l’Iran en disposait.La Russie et la Chine sont plusieurs fois intervenues pour rappeler au Conseil de sécurité « qu’aucun des instruments et mécanismes internationaux existants, notamment le Régime de contrôle de la technologie des missiles ou le Traité sur la non-prolifération des armes nucléaires, n’interdit explicitement ou implicitement à l’Iran de mettre au point des programmes de missiles et des programmes spatiaux. » [9]Lors des bombardements iraniens d’Israël, le 1er octobre 2024, il s’est avéré que tous les missiles et drones iraniens ont loupé leurs cibles ou ont été abattus en vol, à l’exception de tous les missiles hypersoniques qui ont, tous, atteint la leur. Cette question, sans lien avec les questions nucléaires est donc essentielle pour Israël. • 3) Les « sionistes révisionnistes » exigent en outre que la surveillance soit effectuée selon les conditions occidentales, et non selon les conditions iraniennes. Or, pour le moment, l’Iran est soumis, avec son propre accord, aux procédures de vérification de l’AIEA les plus strictes jamais édictées. Téhéran s’y conforme scrupuleusement et l’on ne voit pas pourquoi on devrait lui en imposer de nouvelles, sauf à vouloir créer un problème là où il n’y en a pas. • 4) Les « sionistes révisionnistes » poursuivent en assurant que la menace de la force des États-Unis ne doit pas être abandonné prématurément. C’est pourtant la seule manière civilisée de procéder ainsi que posée par la Charte des Nations unies (article 2 paragraphe 4) citée plus haut.Sachant qu’Israël n’a pas les moyens d’attaquer seul l’Iran et que Tel-Aviv ne cesse de faire pression sur Washington pour l’entraîner dans une guerre contre Téhéran, on comprend aisément ce que masque ce quatrième point. • 5) Puis, les sionistes révisionniste s’opposent à l’allégement des sanctions des Nations unies et des mesures coercitives unilatérales des États-Unis, du Royaume-Uni et de l’Union européenne au motif que cela encouragerait l’Iran à financer le terrorisme.On ne parle pas ici des assassinats que Téhéran commandite à l’étranger, mais de son soutien au Hamas, au Jihad islamique, au Hezbollah, et à la Résistance en Iraq, sachant qu’il ne soutient plus financièrement et militairement Ansar Allah. Or, les conflits en Palestine, en Syrie et en Iraq sont tous trois des résistances populaires aux actions militaires israéliennes. Elles sont légitimes en droit international (ce qui ne signifie pas que toutes actions menées en leur nom soient légitimes).Cette demande vise donc exclusivement à permettre à Israël de violer encore plus longtemps les résolutions des Nations unies et non pas à prévenir leur violation par l’Iran. • 6 et 7) Les « sionistes révisionnistes » concluent en demandant que les autres « comportements malveillants » de l’Iran ne soient pas ignorés et que les sanctions contre le terrorisme ne soient pas allégées pour obtenir un gain dans le dossier nucléaire. Or, l’Iran, pas plus que d’autres États, n’a de « comportements malveillants » vis-à-vis des États-Unis. Ce dont on parle ici, c’est du soutien iranien à la résistance au sionisme dont on comprend bien que les sionistes révisionnistes craignent qu’il reprenne une forme financière significative. Ce long développement vous a présenté le contenu des négociations entre Washington et Téhéran. Il faut constater que l’équipe de Donald Trump est truffée de personnalités convaincues par la rhétorique des sionistes révisionnistes. De nombreux parlementaires, à la fois démocrates et républicains, n’abordent pas le Proche-Orient à travers leur expérience, mais avec le prisme de leur principal donateur, l’American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Merav Ceren, qui vient d’être nommé responsable du dossier Israël-Iran au Conseil nationale de Sécurité de la Maison-Blanche, est un double national, officier des Forces de défense israéliennes (FDI) [10]. Toutefois, le chef de la délégation états-unienne à Oman, Steve Witkoff, est un promoteur immobilier travaillant dans plusieurs pays, non seulement aux États-Unis, mais aussi dans des États musulmans. Il a déjà montré son indépendance d’esprit, en négociant sur la question ukrainienne et en écoutant les arguments des deux parties. Il n’y a aucune raison, et sûrement pas sa foi juive, pour le suspecter de partialité. Ainsi, il a réagi de manière positive lorsque les Iraniens ont rappelé leur proposition de faire du Moyen-Orient une zone exempte d’armes nucléaire comme l’Amérique latine [11] ; une proposition… qui inclut Israël. Le quatrième round de négociations se tiendra le 3 mai. Désormais, les deux parties ont conscience que la paix se jouera dans la capacité de Donald Trump de rompre avec les sionistes révisionnistes et de faire avancer de manière concrète le sort des Palestiniens. https://www.voltairenet.org/article222163.html [1] « Après l’Ukraine, l’Iran ? », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 18 mars 2025. [2] « La paix de Trump en Ukraine face à la paix mondiale de Poutine (avec la Chine), de Gaza à l’Iran », par Alfredo Jalife-Rahme , Traduction Maria Poumier, La Jornada (Mexique), Réseau Voltaire, 21 mars 2025. [3] « L’Iran dénonce les menaces états-uniennes contre la paix », par Amir Saeid Iravani , Réseau Voltaire, 31 mars 2025. [4] « L’Iran réfute ne pas respecter le JCPoA et la résolution 2231 », par Amir Saeid Iravani, Réseau Voltaire, 9 décembre 2024. [5] « Full Transcript of Donald Trump’s ‘100 Days’ Interview With Time », Eric Cortellessa and Sam Jacobs, Time Magazine, April 25, 2025. [6] « Qui a peur du nucléaire civil iranien ? », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 30 juin 2010. [7] « Avoiding the seven deadly sins of a bad iranian nuclear deal », March 24, 2025. [8] « Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community », Office of the Director of National Intelligence | March 2025. [9] Voir par exemple : « La Russie dénonce les accusations occidentales contre l’Iran », par Vassily Nebenzia , Réseau Voltaire, 8 juin 2022. [10] « Trump’s NSC Director for Israel and Iran Previously Worked for Israeli Ministry of Defense », Ryan Grim & Saagar Enjeti, Drop Site, April 21, 2025. [11] « Les négociations entre l’Iran et les États-Unis progressent à Oman ; un Traité de Tlatelolco nucléaire pour le Moyen-Orient ? », par Alfredo Jalife-Rahme , Traduction Maria Poumier, La Jornada (Mexique) , Réseau Voltaire, 15 avril 2025. The post Les enjeux des négociations de Donald Trump avec la République islamique d’Iran appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: WORLD, +Français, Axis of Resistance, Iran, Khamenei, Trump, USA]

— Kashmir Terrorist Attack: India Politicizes Domestic Issues

 

at 4/29/25 4:41am

On April 22, 2025, in the Indian-administered part of Kashmir, unidentified people who emerged from the forest in the vicinity of the city of Pahalgam shot a group of civilians, including tourists, with machine guns. According to estimates by the Indian side, 27 people were killed and dozens more injured. A little-known group, the Kashmiri Resistance Front (TRF), claimed responsibility for the attack. New Delhi, however, accused Pakistan of the attack and immediately retaliated by expelling Pakistani diplomats, closing the main land border (the only land checkpoint Wagah operates between Lahore and Amritsar) and canceling visas for all Pakistani citizens. In addition, The Indus Waters Treaty was suspended, which obliges the parties not to limit river flows – the Indus, Jhelum, Ravi and Chenab flow into Pakistan from India. In addition, India has deployed counter-terrorism measures in the Kashmir Valley and along the line of control. Pakistan, for its part, stated that such accusations are unfounded and violate bilateral agreements, as well as UN Security Council resolutions, similarly declared Indian military advisers in Pakistan persona non grata, cancelled visas for Indian citizens, put the armed forces on alert, closed the airspace for Indian aircraft and completely stopped economic cooperation, including contacts. through third countries. The office of the Prime Minister of Pakistan also issued a statement that if India restricts the water flows to Pakistan, it will be considered as military action and any means available to the state can be used in response. And the Pakistani stock exchange saw a sharp drop in its value due to the incident. Security personnel patrol a street the morning after militants indiscriminately opened fire on tourists near Pahalgam in Indian-controlled Kashmir, April 23. The escalation is evident, although its real causes are clearly politicized by the Indian side, since Pakistan has also been suffering from the actions of various extremist and separatist groups for many years, and the annual number of victims in Pakistan itself is significantly higher than in India. But mutual accusations and the appointment of the secret services of the opposing country as guilty are commonplace, since the two states have been at war since the very beginning of independence from Britain in 1947. Putting aside historical claims, the most pressing question will be how India, which is much stronger than Pakistan economically and militarily, will behave. But since Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, there is a risk of further escalation. It is no coincidence that, year after year, Western experts have referred to Kashmir as a potential hotbed of regional war. Assuming that New Delhi will act according to the logic of previous precedents, India may well launch a limited retaliatory strike. The only question is where and for whom. In February 2019, the last major terrorist attack was in Pulwama in southern Kashmir, when a suicide bomber drove a car up to a police convoy and detonated an explosive device. More than forty people were killed. At that time, the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed. group claimed responsibility for the attack. And India has attacked the territory of Azad Kashmir (AJK), a nominally independent quasi-state, but under the protection of Islamabad. According to the ironic comment of the Pakistani side, then “the trees were damaged” by this strike. Although, according to India, precise weapons were used to attack the terrorist training camp, there were no casualties on the other side of the Line of Control. As for the Indian-administered territory of Kashmir (in addition to the Pakistani part, another historical part of this former principality is under the control of China, an ally of Pakistan), a special status has been revoked there since 2019, which led to the loss of some of its rights by its indigenous inhabitants. As an act of revenge for the revocation, which led to a change in the demographic balance, the Kashmiri Resistance Front (TRF) called its campaign. And, probably, the dissatisfied will continue to try to somehow resist the pressure of New Delhi. JD Vance India Visit. Although in this case there are interesting nuances that are worth paying attention to. Firstly, the Indian part of Kashmir is one of the most militarized zones in the world, with 700,000 Indian military, police and security personnel stationed on its territory. If they managed to footle away this terrorist attack, then this is a serious failure, and in addition to the repressive measures promised by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, some cabinet reshuffles should follow. Secondly, the terrorist attack occurred during the visit of US Vice President JD Vance, who publicly called on India to buy more American weapons. In Pakistan itself, they fear that the terrorist attack was nothing more than a false flag operation in order to carry out some radical measures, like those that Israel did in the Gaza Strip. The narrative of “Islamic fundamentalism,” taking into account the historical US war on terrorism and the current position of the White House, could contribute to this. And India could benefit not only from the diplomatic solidarity of the United States and Israel, but also from their military assistance. On April 24, a military transport aircraft took off from the US Air Force base in Doha for India, which Pakistan also regarded as part of some kind of secret plan directed against Pakistan, and possibly China. It should also be noted that now the military leadership in Pakistan is closely linked to the British lobby, which is quite critical of the administration of Donald Trump. Meanwhile, the discourse about “Islamic terrorism”, which, according to New Delhi, is sponsored by Pakistan, clearly does not correspond to reality in India. Other than the long-standing problem in Kashmir itself, India has other critical points. One of them is Punjab, where some Sikhs are interested in creating an independent state of Khalistan. The other is the central and eastern parts of India, where the so-called Naxalite belt (known as the “Red Corridor”) stretches from south to north, where armed groups of Maoists operate, against which the government is fighting. And while a counter-terrorism operation is underway in Jammu and Kashmir, a similar one is underway in another part against the Naxalites. And according to official data, in the Bastar region of the small central state of Chhattisgarh alone, 1,623 civilians were killed by Maoists between 2021 to 2024, and another 228 were killed by explosive devices, while 1,292 security personnel were killed in several incidents of encounter, ambush and IED blasts. Based on these data alone, it can be concluded that there were much fewer violent deaths in Kashmir. And at least India does not officially accuse China or any other countries with leftist governments of supporting these groups. Presumably, the historical memory of the first (1947-1949) and second (1965) Indo—Pakistani wars over Kashmir, as well as the Kargil War (1999), causes the Indian leadership to overreact. And, taking advantage of its status and position, including through cooperation with Russia, and being a member of the BRICS and SCO, India will use such incidents to its geopolitical interests. https://www.geopolitika.ru/en/article/kashmir-terrorist-attack-india-politicizes-domestic-issues The post Kashmir Terrorist Attack: India Politicizes Domestic Issues appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: WORLD, India, Kashmir, Pakistan, terrorism]

— Putin’s Victory Day Truce Is Meant To Reassure Trump Of His Peaceful Intentions

 

at 4/28/25 11:18pm

Putin might be concerned that Zelensky manipulated Trump against him after their latest meeting given Trump’s subsequent angry post about Putin. The Kremlin announced on Monday that Russia will temporarily suspend military action against Ukraine from midnight on May 7-8 to midnight on May 10-11 for humanitarian reasons in honor of Victory Day. Just like with the recent Easter truce, however, Russia also warned that there’ll be an “adequate and effective response” if Ukraine violates it. The larger context in which this second Russian-initiated truce in recent weeks is taking place concerns Trump’s increasing irritation with Putin. It was earlier explained how “Five Significant Disagreements Account For Trump’s Newfound Anger With Putin” that manifested itself over the weekend by Trump speculating in a post that “maybe [Putin] doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along”. Trump also threatened banking and secondary sanctions. At the same time, however, Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that new sanctions would prolong the conflict by promptly ending the peace process so Trump might just be bluffing for now. Be that as it may, Putin might have interpreted Trump’s post as proof of him having been negatively influenced by Zelensky following their latest meeting at the Vatican the day prior during Pope Francis’ funeral, which could explain why he decided upon a Victory Day truce and then announced it so early. Regardless of whatever observers might think about Russia’s terms for ending the conflict, not to mention their feasibility, Putin’s move is arguably meant to reassure Trump of his peaceful intentions. Putin isn’t “tapping Trump along”, he’s just reluctant to agree to what Reuters reported to be the terms of the US’ finalized peace plan, which entail major concessions that would basically freeze the conflict in exchange for sanctions relief without addressing some of Russia’s core demands. These include Ukraine’s demilitarization and restoring its minorities’ socio-religious rights, especially those of ethnic Russians and Russian Orthodox Christians, though Ukraine’s path to NATO would be blocked if this deal is reached. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov recently confirmed that Russia isn’t seeking Zelensky’s removal and is ready to resume bilateral negotiations without any preconditions, but neither should be interpreted as capitulation, just as attempts to get Ukraine to comply with more of Russia’s demands. Lavrov repeated these selfsame demands in his latest interview with Brazil’s O Globo newspaper, though at the same time, he also just told CBS’ Margaret Brennan that Russia is seeking a “balance of interests”. This should be interpreted as a sincere willingness to compromise in some creative way that meets more of Russia’s demands, but the Kremlin claimed on Monday that Ukraine has shown no interest in this. Even so, while Russia hopes that the newly announced Victory Day truce might get Ukraine to reconsider, Putin’s primary objective right now is to convince Trump that he’s serious about peace. To that end, once again temporarily ceasing hostilities can help, though it can only do so much. If tangible progress towards peace isn’t soon achieved, then the US might abandon its mediation efforts, the consequences of which were analyzed here. In that scenario, it can’t be ruled out that the US might double down on its armed aid to Ukraine in parallel with imposing secondary sanctions against Russia, which Putin doesn’t want to risk. That’s why he just announced another truce, and so early at that, in order to show Trump that he still wants to attain more of his goals through diplomacy instead of force. https://korybko.substack.com/p/putins-victory-day-truce-is-meant The post Putin’s Victory Day Truce Is Meant To Reassure Trump Of His Peaceful Intentions appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: WORLD, Putin, Russia, Trump, Ukraine, USA]

— The Kellogg framework is a disaster for Trump

 

at 4/28/25 12:26pm

All of Kellogg’s underlying assumptions lacked any basis in reality. Yet Trump seemingly took them on trust. Political warfare in Washington is endemic. But the body count at the Pentagon has started to rise precipitously. Three of Secretary of Defence Hegseth’s top advisors were placed on leave, and then fired. The war continues, with the Secretary now in the firing line. Why this matters is that the Hegseth attrition comes amid fierce internal debates in the Trump administration about Iran policy. Hawks want an definitive elimination of all Iran’s nuclear and weapons capabilities, whilst many ‘restrainers’ warn against military escalation; Hegseth reportedly was amongst those warning against an intervention in Iran. The recent Pentagon dismissals have all been identified as restrainers. One of the latter, Dan Caldwell, formerly Hegseth’s Top Adviser and an army veteran, wrote a post slamming the ‘Iran Hawks’ – and subsequently was fired. He was later interviewed by Tucker Carlson. Notably, Caldwell describes in scathing terms America’s wars in Iraq and Syria (“criminal”). This adverse sentiment concerning America’s earlier wars is a rising theme, it seems, amongst U.S. Vets today. The three Pentagon staffers essentially were fired, not as ‘leakers’, but for talking Hegseth out of supporting war on Iran, it would appear; the Israeli-Firsters, have not given up on that war. The inflamed fault lines between hawks and traditionalist ‘Republicans’ bleed across into the Ukraine issue, even if the faction membership may alter a tad. Israeli-Firsters and U.S. hawks more generally, are behind both the war on Russia and the maximalist demands on Iran. Conservative commentator Fred Bauer observes that when it comes to Trump’s own war impulses, they are conflicted: “Influenced by the Vietnam War of his youth … Trump seems deeply averse to long-term military conflicts, yet, at the same time, Trump admires a politics of strength and swagger. That means taking out Iranian generals, launching airstrikes on the Houthis, and boosting the defence budget to $1 trillion”. Hegseth’s potential exit – should the campaign for his removal succeed – could cause the struggle to grow fiercer. Its first casualty is already apparent – Trump’s hope to bring a quick end to the Ukraine conflict is over. This week, the Trump team (including both warring factions, Rubio, Witkoff and General Kellogg) met in Paris with various European and Ukrainian representatives. At the meeting, a Russian-Ukrainian unilateral ceasefire proposal was mooted by the U.S. delegation. After the meeting, at the airport, Rubio plainly said that the ceasefire plan was ‘a take-it-or-leave-it’ U.S. initiative. The various sides – Russia, Kiev and the European members of the ‘coalition of the willing’ – had only days to accept it, or else the U.S. was ‘out’, and would wash its hands of the conflict. The framework presented, as reported, is almost (maybe 95%) unadulteratedly that previously proposed by General Kellogg: i.e. it is his plan, first aired in April 2024. It appears that the ‘Kellogg formula’ was adopted then as the Trump platform (Trump was at the time in mid-campaign, and unlikely to have been following the complicated minutiae of the Ukraine war too closely). General Kellogg is also the likely source for Trump’s optimism that the ending to the Ukraine war could come with a click of Trump’s fingers – through the limited application of asymmetric pressures and threats on both belligerents by Trump – and with the timing decided in Washington. In short, the plan represented a Beltway consensus that the U.S. could implement a negotiated end-state with terms aligned to U.S. and Ukrainian interests. Kellogg’s implicit assumptions were that Russia is highly vulnerable to a sanctions threat (its economy perceived as being fragile); that it had suffered unsustainably high casualties; and that the war was at a stalemate. Thus, Kellogg persuaded Trump that Russia would readily agree to the ceasefire terms proposed – albeit terms that were constructed around patently flawed underlying assumptions about Russia and its presumed weaknesses. Kellogg’s influence and false premises were all too evident when Trump, in January, having stated that Russia had lost one million men (in the war) then went on to say that “Putin is destroying Russia by not making a deal, adding (seemingly as an aside), that Putin may have already made up his mind ‘not to make a deal’”. He further claimed that Russia’s economy is in ‘ruins’, and most notably said that he would consider sanctioning or tariffing Russia. In a subsequent Truth Social post, Trump writes, “I’m going to do Russia – whose Economy is failing – and President Putin, a very big FAVOR”. All of Kellogg’s underlying assumptions lacked any basis in reality. Yet Trump seemingly took them on trust. And despite Steve Witkoff’s subsequent three lengthy personal meetings with President Putin, in which Putin repeatedly stated that he would not accept any ceasefire until a political framework had been first agreed, the Kellogg contingent continued to blandly assume that Russia would be forced to accept Kellogg’s détente because of the claimed serious ‘setbacks’ Russia had suffered in Ukraine. Given this history, unsurprisingly, the ceasefire framework terms outlined by Rubio this week in Paris reflected those more suited to a party at the point of capitulation, rather than that of a state anticipating achieving its objectives – by military means. In essence, the Kellogg Plan looked to bring a U.S. ‘win’ on terms aligned to a desire to keep open the option for continuing attritional war on Russia. So, what is the Kellogg Plan? At base, it seeks to establish a ‘frozen conflict’ – frozen along the ‘Line of Conflict’; with no definitive ban on NATO membership for Ukraine, (but rather, envisaging a NATO membership that is deferred well into the future); it places no limits on the size of a future Ukrainian army and no restrictions on the type or quantity of armaments held by the Ukrainian forces. (It foresees, contrarily, that after the ceasefire, the U.S. might re-arm, train and militarily support a future force) – i.e. back to the post-Maidan era of 2014. In addition, no territory would be ceded by Ukraine to Russia, save for Crimea which alone would be recognised by the U.S. as Russian (the unique sop to Witkoff?), and Russia would only ‘exercise control’ over the four Oblasts that it currently claims, yet only up to the Line of Conflict; territory beyond this line would remain under Ukrainian control (see here for the ‘Kellogg map’). The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant would be neutral territory to be held, and managed, by the U.S. There is no mention made of the cities of Zaporozhye and Kherson that have been constitutionally incorporated into Russia, but lie beyond the contact line. Nothing about a political solution apparently was outlined in the plan, and the plan leaves Ukraine free to pursue its claim to all Ukraine’s former territories – save for only Crimea. Ukrainian territory west of the Dnieper River however, would be divided into three zones of responsibility: British, French and German zones (i.e. which NATO forces would manage). Finally, no American security guarantees were offered. Rubio subsequently passed details of the plan to Russian FM Lavrov, who calmly stated that any ceasefire plan should resolve the underlying causes to the conflict in Ukraine as its first task. Witkoff flies to Moscow this week to present this ‘pig’s ear’ of a plan to Putin – seeking his consent. The Europeans and Ukrainians are set to meet next Wednesday in London to give their riposte to Trump. What’s next? Most obviously, the Kellogg Plan will not ‘fly’. Russia will not accept it, and likely Zelensky will not either, (though the Europeans will work to persuade him – hoping to ‘wrong-foot Moscow’ by presenting Russia as the essential ‘spoiler’). Reportedly, Zelensky already has rejected the Crimea provision. For the Europeans, the lack of security guarantees or backstop by the U.S. may prove to be a killer for their aspiration to deploy a tripwire troop deployment to Ukraine, in the context of a ceasefire. Is Trump really going to wash his hands of Ukraine? Doubtful, given that the U.S. neo-conservative institutional leadership will tell Trump that to do so, would weaken America’s ‘peace through strength’ narrative. Trump may adopt supporting Ukraine ‘on a low flame’ posture, whilst declaring the ‘war was never his’ – as he seeks a ‘win’ on the business front with Russia. The bottom line is that Kellogg has not well-served his patron. The U.S. needs effective working relations with Russia. The Kellogg contingent has contributed to Trump’s egregious misreading of Russia. Putin is a serious actor, who says what he means, and means what he says. Colonel Macgregor sums it up thus: “Trump tends to view the world through the lens of dealmaking. [Ending the Ukraine war] is not about dealmaking. This is about the life and death of nations and peoples. There’s no interest in some sort of short-fused deal that is going to elevate Trump or his administration to greatness. There will be no win for Donald Trump personally in any of this. That was never going to be the case”. The Kellogg framework is a disaster for Trump The post The Kellogg framework is a disaster for Trump appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: WORLD, Russia, Trump, Ukraine, USA]

— أين أخطأ الرئيس عون وأصابَت المُقاومة اللبنانيّة؟ وماذا وراء الغارات الإسرائيليّة المُتصاعدة في الضّاحية الجنوبيّة والهجَمات السيبرانيّة في إيران؟

 

at 4/28/25 5:30am

بعد ساعاتٍ من الغارة الإسرائيليّة التي استهدفت عمارةً مدنيّة في الضّاحية الجنوبيّة للعاصمة اللبنانيّة بيروت أمس الأحد، شدّد الرئيس اللبناني جوزيف عون أمام وفد من مجلس الشّيوخ الفرنسي على “أنّ قرار حصر السّلاح بيد الدّولة اللبنانيّة قد اتّخذ ومن غير المسموح بالعودة إلى لُغة الحرب”، وأضاف بأنّه “يُريد من فرنسا وامريكا، والضّامنتين لوقف إطلاق النّار إجبار إسرائيل على وقف اعتِداءاتها”. لا نعرف كيف يطلب الرئيس عون من أمريكا وفرنسا وقف الاعتداءات الإسرائيليّة هذه التي وقَعت في قلب العاصمة، وهي جاءت بضُوءٍ أخضر من البلدين، فإسرائيل تحكمهما فعليًّا، ومُعظم دُول العالم الغربيّ أيضًا، فإذا كانتا لم تُصدران مُجرّد إدانة “لفظيّة” لحرب الإبادة والتّجويع لمِليونيّ “إنسان” في قطاع غزة، وبطريقةٍ ساديّة، فهل تُوقفان غارةً واحدة على لبنان؟ ولماذا؟ *** حُكومة نتنياهو أكّدت أنها “أبلغت واشنطن مُقدّمًا عن قصفها للضّاحية الجنوبيّة التي تتعهّد بأنّها لن تعود ملاذًا آمنًا لحزب الله، أو أن تسمح للحزب لاستعادة قوّته بحيث يُشكّل أيّ تهديد لدولة الاحتلال”، ولو كانت الإدارة الأمريكيّة التي يبدو أنّ الرئيس عون، ورئيس وزرائه نواف سلام يثقان بها، تُريد فرض احترام وقف إطلاق النّار لاعترضت على هذا العُدوان، وما سبقه من اعتداءات، وبادرت بمنعه، ولكنّها لمْ ولنْ تفعل. الطّائرات الحربيّة الإسرائيليّة باتت تخترق المجال الجوّي اللبناني، وتُحلّق فوق العاصمة ليل نهار، أمّا اغتيالاتها لشخصيّاتٍ لبنانيّة في الجنوب والبقاع فباتت أمْرًا عاديًّا ومألوفًا، ويبدو أنّ القيادات اللبنانيّة الثلاثة التي فرضت وقف إطلاق النّار على المُقاومة اللبنانيّة، لا تُريد أن ترى هذه الاختِراقات وتتمسّك بموقفها في نزع سِلاح المُقاومة وفي أسرعِ وقتٍ مُمكن، وحصره في يد جيش لم يستطع على مدى أكثر مِن 70 عامًا حماية شعبه. لم تُفاجئنا هذه الاختِراقات الإسرائيليّة الدمويّة لوقف إطلاق النّار، التي وصلت إلى أكثر من 3028 اختراقٍ حتّى الآن، ليس لأنّنا طلبنا بالتريّث وتمحيص كُل بُنود الاتّفاق قبل التّوقيع عليه، لعدم ثقتنا بالنّوايا الأمريكيّة والإسرائيليّة، وإنّما لأنّنا توقّفنا وحذّرنا بالصّوت والصّورة والكتابة أمام الفقرة التي تُعطي دولة الاحتلال الحق في انتهاك الأجواء والأراضي اللبنانيّة لردع أي خطر لبناني على أمنها، ومِن المُؤلم أنّنا تعرّضنا لانتقاداتٍ عديدة من “المُتلهّفين” على التّسريع بتوقيع الاتّفاق الذين كانوا يعتقدون أنّه سيُعيد لبنان إلى عصره الذهبيّ كدُرّة الشّرق الأوسط. الغطاء الذي تستّرت حُكومة نتنياهو خلفه لشنّ الغارة على الضّاحية الجنوبيّة الادّعاء بأنّ الهدف الذي قصفته الطّائرات كان مَخْزَنًا للصّواريخ الدّقيقة تابعًا لحزب الله، ولكنّنا، ومُعظم أهل الضّاحية، لم نسمع انفجار صاروخ واحد من تلك الصّواريخ المُستَهدفة أثناء القصف، ممّا يُؤكّد أنّ الهدف مِن هذه الغارات، والأُخرى التي سبقتها مُنذ بدء وقف إطلاق النّار هو إرهاب الشّعب اللبناني، وإذلال حُكومته وجيشه، وإلغاء شيء اسمه “السّيادة”. دولة الاحتلال تُريد جر لبنان إلى حربٍ أهليّة تكون بدايتها إشعال فتيل فتنة عُنوانها الأبرز الصِّدام بين الجيش اللبناني والمُقاومة، ولهذا دقّت “مِسمار جُحا” في الجنوب اللبناني المُمثٍل في التّلال الخمسة التي لم تسحب قوّاتها منها، ويبدو أنّها لن تسحبها إلّا بالطّريقة نفسها التي أجبرت نظيراتها على الانسِحاب من الحِزام الأمني عام 2000، أي بقوّة المُقاومة. *** الدّور التّخريبي الإسرائيلي في المِنطقة، يتصاعد ابتداءً من لبنان ويتمثّل في الغارات والاغتِيالات المُستمرّة، وانتهاءً بالتّفجيرات في ميناء بندر عباس لمخزون مادّة الأمونيا على غِرار ما حدث في مرفأ بيروت، مثلما أكّد محمد سراج النائب في البرلمان الإيراني، لتعطيل المُفاوضات النوويّة الأمريكيّة الإيرانيّة، وهي التّفجيرات التي تلتها حربٌ سيبرانيّة على مُنشآت عسكريّة إيرانيّة أُخرى في طِهران. أمريكا وفرنسا لن تستجيبا لتوسّلات الرئيس عون ورئيس وزرائه نواف سلام، وتُوقفان هذه الاعتِداءات الإسرائيليّة، ولذلك لا بُدّ من عودة مُعادلة “الشّعب الجيش المُقاومة”، وتعزيز قُدرات الأخيرة عسكريًّا وسياسيًّا، وليس نزع سِلاحها، لأنّها الوحيدة القادرة على وضعِ حدٍّ لهذه الإهانات الإسرائيليّة، وتحرير كُل الأراضي اللبنانيّة، وكسْر أنف نتنياهو وجِنرالاته، مثلما حدث في حرب التّحرير التي تكلّلت بانتصار عام 2000 وتكرّست بهزيمة عُدوان حرب تمّوز عام 2006، ونأمل أن يتوحّد اللبنانيّون حُكومةً وشعبًا خلفها مجددًا، والحياة “وقفة عز” مثلما قال الزعيم السوري أنطون سعادة. https://www.raialyoum.com/%D8%A3%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%B7%D8%A3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3-%D8%B9%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84/ The post أين أخطأ الرئيس عون وأصابَت المُقاومة اللبنانيّة؟ وماذا وراء الغارات الإسرائيليّة المُتصاعدة في الضّاحية الجنوبيّة والهجَمات السيبرانيّة في إيران؟ appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: WORLD, +Arabic, airstrike, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Lebanon]

— Yet another Disastrous Consequence of the Digital Revolution

 

at 4/28/25 3:07am

The nerds who brought us the digital revolution did so without any thought to the obvious consequences.  Americans addicted to scrolling their cell phones and enjoying social media are suffering from the numerous threats that the digital revolution brings to them.  Not just government spying on them and, if government wishes, setting them up for prosecution.  Not just from being dispossessed of their identity and left with massive bills.  Not just from theft of their bank and retirement accounts. The digital revolution allows thieves to steal our homes.  Assuming it is not another hoax, the Daily Mail provides the FBI’s account of how it works:   https://www.dailymail.co.uk/real-estate/article-14567729/fbi-warning-scam-victims-24-hours-save-home.html  To protect yourself from the easy theft of your home, you should sign up for a notification alert at the registry of deeds, which will alert you when a document is recorded for your property.  You are most vulnerable if your property is debt free with no mortgage.  If you have no mortgage, take out a small one as your property cannot be transferred from your ownership until the mortgage is paid, if my understanding is correct.  So having to clear a mortgage provides you with a warning that your home is in the process of being stolen. The digital revolution is the worst thing except for nuclear weapons that humans have ever devised. The Tech morons who gave us this disaster failed to anicipate the disastrous consequences of their work. Read the report: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/real-estate/article-14567729/fbi-warning-scam-victims-24-hours-save-home.html  PUBLISHED: 18:27 EDT, 26 April 2025 | UPDATED: 02:04 EDT, 27 April 2025 Urgent FBI warning about cruel scam suffered by thousands that leaves you with just 24 hours to save your home The FBI is sending an urgent warning to homeowners to be aware of ‘title theft,’ the latest of various moves fraudsters make in order to steal a property owner’s identity and sell their land out from under them.  The land theft is on the rise, with the FBI saying the scammers tend to prey on the elderly. ‘Our elderly population [are more at risk] because they are more likely to own vacant pieces of land that they have had for quite some time, and they are also more likely to own homes without any mortgages on them,’ FBI Special Agent Vivian Barrios told CBS. ‘Because those have the biggest benefit to the criminal actor.’ In Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, 2,301 victims lost more than $61.5 million from 2019 to 2023. According to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, nationwide, from 2019 through 2023, 58,141 victims reported $1.3 billion in losses relating to real estate fraud. In the Boston Division – which includes all of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island – during the same period, 2,301 victims reported losing more than $61.5 million. In Maine 262 victims lost $6,253,008. In Massachusetts, 1,576 people lost $46,269,818. In New Hampshire 239 people lost $4,144,467. In Rhode Island 224 people lost a combined $4,852,220.  Time is of the essence and as soon as a victim finds out this has happened, they need to report it, ideally within 24-hours. That makes it easier for the feds to get the money back to the victims. Plymouth, Massachusetts resident John Grimes got a call from a local attorney about his ‘sale.’ Title pirates got Plymouth, MA, resident John Grimes, who nearly lost his home after he found out it was for sale. Grimes bought his home six years ago but in September 2024 got a call from local attorney Alan Sharaf informing him his home was for sale. Grimes was shocked. He filed a fraud report with the FBI. He also signed up for a notification alert at the registry of deeds. That alert is free and will let him know when a document is recorded for his property. Sharaf said he was looking at a purchase and sale agreement that was supposedly signed by Grimes. He wanted to make sure he was actually selling the home to the ‘buyer,’ who was located in Montreal and had made an all cash over. No one ever answered the phone number listed for the buyer. Grimes loves his home, which backs onto a cranberry bog, isn’t selling it, and never signed sale papers.  ‘I got a phone call from a lawyer just outside of Boston and he had gotten a request asking him to facilitate a closing with an e-signature. And everything was all set. But it wasn’t my real signature,’ Grimes told the Daily Mail.  Grimes said if he hadn’t gotten that call, it would have been too late. The lawyer told him that another attorney would have shown up at the registry of deeds, filed a record of a fraudulent deed by Grimes, and he would have had his house taken away. He would have gotten it back but only after months of fighting and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.  ‘He advised me to check my credit, contact the FBI, which I did immediately and I had to give them a bunch of detailed information,’ Grimes says.  ‘The bank looks, oh you’ve got a deed, it’s been recorded at the registry as a sale,’ Grimes says. Once the sale was flagged as fraudulent, the ‘buyers’ disappeared.  The FBI explained to Grimes how exactly these scammers pull this off. Because most contracts today are done electronically, it’s easy for thieves to do. First they target a property in the US at random. They send a fake deed they’ve made electronically to a local lawyer they ‘hire’ to ‘close’ on the sale.  If they’re lucky the lawyer will do business as usual, easily sign off on it, and send them back a purchase and sale agreement. The scammers then claim to the bank that they rushed to pay all cash in competition with other buyers, and now want to take out a loan, which often gets approved because the house is an asset they now ‘own.’ Then they run away with the loan cash, which oftentimes is hundreds of thousands of dollars. ‘You’re the owner. They get a loan and take off with the money. And then I would get a notice that there’s an overdue loan on my property,’ he added.  The FBI has since sent out a note to realtors and homeowners about the scam, and told elderly people especially to be aware.  Lisa Vesperman Still, a title underwriter and past president of the New England Land Title Association, said the scammers are so sophisticated with technology it’s become easy to dupe lawyers who are bogged down with work or in a rush. ‘Seller impersonation fraud by title pirates is happening quite a bit now, and unfortunately a landowner doesn’t often know until the deed from the fraudster to the innocent purchaser gets recorded,’ Still told the Daily Mail. ‘The fraudsters also impersonate vacant land owners, owners of empty vacation rentals or second homes that are mortgage free, using fake identification and information combed from public websites, and reach out to unsuspecting real estate agents wanting to sell “their” property.’ She adds they state it all has to be done remotely, that they can’t meet or appear on a video chat – and certainly can’t come to the closing.  ‘Any ID they provide is a very well done forgery, there are often features on the fake ID that are slightly off from an authentic one, but so slightly off that one has to very closely examine every feature. They need their money wired, and want the property sold quickly, almost always at a price well below market value,’ she added. Seller impersonation fraud and title piracy are just two of the types of real estate fraud included within those statistics. The National Association of Realtors has offered tips to help real estate agents and homeowners avoid getting caught in this scam. Avoid remote closings, if possible, they advise. Ask for in-person identity checks. Request copies of documents that only the property owner would have, including a copy of the most recent tax bill, utility bill, or survey from when the property was purchased, in addition to the individual’s ID. Send a certified letter to the address of record on the tax bill. Look up the phone number by reverse search or through the phone carrier. Call to verify the public notary and confirm he/she attested to the documents. They also suggest homeowners sign up for a notification alert at the registry of deeds, which will alert someone when a document is recorded for their property. Yet another Disastrous Consequence of the Digital Revolution The post Yet another Disastrous Consequence of the Digital Revolution appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: SOCIAL/CULTURAL, digitalisation, USA]

— Five Significant Disagreements Account For Trump’s Newfound Anger With Putin

 

at 4/27/25 10:53pm

The peace process might go kaput if they can’t resolve these issues. Trump speculated that Russia’s bombing of civilian areas might signal that “maybe [Putin] doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along”, and then reiterated his earlier threat to impose “secondary sanctions” against those who violate the US’ primary ones, which was analyzed here. This followed Trump’s latest meeting with Zelensky, who might have negatively influenced over his hitherto largely positive perceptions of Putin, and comes after reports that the US has finalized its peace plan. Five significant disagreements that have emerged throughout the course of negotiations account for Trump’s volte-face toward Putin. The first was referenced by Trump in his post where he condemned Russia’s bombing of civilian areas. Putin argued earlier in April that Russia is targeting Ukrainian troops there, but the optics of continued Russian strikes against civilian areas amidst peace talks with the US evidently left a very negative impression on Trump, who now doubts Putin’s commitment to peace. The second concerns European peacekeepers in Ukraine, which the US’ reportedly finalized peace plan suggests despite Russia opposing it. Although Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth already declared that the US won’t extend Article 5 mutual defense guarantees to NATO countries’ troops in Ukraine, Russia fears that the US could be manipulated by the Europeans into mission creep if the latter deploy there. Putin therefore prefers for there to be no ambiguity about this and for Trump to scrub it from his plan. Third, it’s unclear whether Ukraine will be obligated to at least partially demilitarize like Kiev provisionally agreed to do during spring 2022’s ultimately failed peace talks, which is one of Russia’s explicitly declared goals in the conflict. Trump is reluctant to support this since he seems to believe that it could embolden Putin to recommence hostilities in the future, especially in the absence of European peacekeepers, but this demand isn’t something that Putin could easily walk away from. The fourth disagreement is over the US’ refusal to accede to Russia’s demand for coercing Ukraine into withdrawing from the disputed territories that are still under Kiev’s control. The New York Times cited a source who described this as “unreasonable and unachievable”, but it’s imperative for Russia after the Kremlin recognized the entirety of these regions as Russian following September 2022’s referenda. Just like with demilitarization, Putin also can’t easily walk away from this either, hence the disagreement. And finally, the US’ reportedly finalized peace plan also requests that Russia hand over the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant and Kakhovka Dam to the US, which is as unacceptable for Putin as the preceding points of accepting European peacekeepers, dropping demilitarization, and curbing his territorial claims. All five disagreements, including the first-mentioned one about Russia’s continued strikes against military targets in civilian areas, collectively contributed to this impasse right before the diplomatic finish line. If Putin and Trump can’t resolve these issues, after which Trump would then also have to get Zelensky to agree to their new deal, then the peace process will probably go kaput. Putin and Trump are incentivized to resolve their disputes due to how mutually beneficial the nascent RussianUS “New Détente” is while Zelensky would struggle to continue fighting if the US once again cuts off military aid as punishment for rejecting whatever those two agree to. Be that as it may, it’ll still be very difficult to break this deadlock. https://korybko.substack.com/p/five-significant-disagreements-account The post Five Significant Disagreements Account For Trump’s Newfound Anger With Putin appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: WORLD, Putin, Russia, Trump, Ukraine, USA]

— It’s Always About The System: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

 

at 4/27/25 8:04pm

The main reason more people don’t just go all in with opposing the US empire and rejecting all its propaganda about enemy states is because they can’t handle working through the heavy cognitive dissonance which comes with recognizing that everything you’ve been taught is a lie. Most people recognize to some extent that the US and its allies do bad things, but those who take it all the way into a clear understanding that this power structure is responsible for most of our world’s ills are a small minority in the west. Even the relatively awake ones will try to cling on to this or that imperial propaganda narrative about nations like China, North Korea, Iran and/or Russia. Most try to at least keep a foot in the door of their imperial indoctrination, so they don’t have to experience the psychological discomfort of letting it close completely. But that’s where the truth is. Coming to a lucid understanding of the world necessarily means abandoning all untruths for truth on every level. If you can work up the courage to really do this, the entire mainstream western worldview gets flushed right down the toilet. ❖ Israel is a bad country full of bad people. They are not bad because of their religion, they are bad because they live in a genocidal apartheid state whose existence depends on indoctrinating its people into seeing genocide and apartheid as good. It’s the system. It’s always the system. Western countries are full of shitty people with shitty beliefs who do shitty things to each other all the time. This isn’t because westerners are inherently shitty, nor because humans are inherently shitty. It’s because here in the western empire we live under capitalism, which encourages selfish behavior and cutthroat competition against each other, and because we are indoctrinated into accepting the tyrannical white supremacist propaganda of western imperialism. Nobody is inherently bad. We are all the products of our conditioning, and the systems under which we live play a large role in shaping our conditioning. That’s what mass media propaganda and the indoctrination of western schooling are: streamlined systems for determining what our conditioning will be. These systems can have as much of an effect on our view of the world as other forms of conditioning like trauma. The powerful understand that humans are an easily conditioned animal, and so vast resources are poured into determining what our conditioning shall be. As soon as we are old enough to start learning about the world our minds are trained to shape us into good cogs in the imperial machine. Good employees and gear-turners for capitalism. Good soldiers and police officers. Good citizens who would never do anything to inconvenience our rulers. We are funneled through carefully crafted factories of conditioning by the malignant systems under which we live. As long as those malignant systems exist they will keep churning out malignant people, and goodness will struggle to find any purchase. This is true whether you are talking about capitalism, imperialism, or Zionism. ❖ I’m the least religious person I know but some westerners are getting so obnoxious about Islam and Muslims that I sometimes think about converting, just to piss them off. ❖ Had a medical incident in my family the other day. It’s funny what a reminder of human mortality can do to dispel all the little resentments and dramas that can build up between loved ones over the years and cause all the old grievances to be seen for the insignificant mind fluff that they are. And right now I feel sorrowful that it so often takes a major health scare or accident to remind us of this. We all know we’re all going to die, but we let the small stuff come between us anyway. We let the little quibbles in our heads stop us from touching hands and experiencing intimacy with each other during our fleeting time on this beautiful planet. In the play Waiting for Godot, Beckett writes that our mothers “give birth astride of a grave,” and it’s just so true. “They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it’s night once more,” the character Pozzo laments. The line resonates because that really is what the human experience feels like. We get a short time here, and then we’re gone. How bizarre is it, then, that we still find time to hate each other? That we still have time for grudges and resentment? That our mothers give birth astride of a grave, and we punch and kick each other on the way down? Bukowski said, “We’re all going to die, all of us, what a circus! That alone should make us love each other but it doesn’t. We are terrorized and flattened by trivialities, we are eaten up by nothing.” It’s about the weirdest thing you could possibly imagine. Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley): https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/its-always-about-the-system The post Its Always About The System: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: Uncategorized]

— US Warmongers Talk “Peace” w/Iran, US-trained Ukraine Intel Kill Russian General

 

at 4/27/25 5:57am

US Warmongers Talk Peace w/Iran, US-trained Ukraine Intel Kill Russian General The post US Warmongers Talk Peace w/Iran, US-trained Ukraine Intel Kill Russian General appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: interview, Multimedia, WORLD, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, USA]

— Are Americans Still Americans?

 

at 4/27/25 12:08am

This question came to mind from reading Edward Curtin’s essays, “At the Lost and Found,” (Clarity Press, 2025), in which he shares with readers his intellectual encounters with the rising criminality of the governments of the United States since the 1960s. Edward Curtin is a decent person with a sense of justice and a moral conscience, traits more common in his time than today.  I found his moral responses reassuring, and wonder if recent generations would respond in the same way. Curtin, I suspect, was a member of the old moderate left, which was concerned with fairness and pushing a reform here and there.  Today this left remains only in its elderly remnants.  The modern left is not reformist.  It is revolutionary, committed to using law, government, and media to overthrow traditional society and replace it with a Sodom & Gomorrah Tower of Babel in which merit is regarded as a white racist tool.  Today the left, as epitomized by the Biden regime, pushes DEI over merit, sexual perversity over love between a man and a woman, sexualization of young children, demonization of white people as racists, and ideology over truth. Today for the left the truth resides in the ideological agenda, not in facts. Despite the digital revolution, the Internet, social media, email, and texting, the acquisition of truthful information has become ever more difficult.  The reason is that for almost all parties concerned, it is the agenda that is important, not the facts.  A consequence is that, unlike in the past, today we live in narratives orchestrated to serve agendas. As Curtin puts it, “we are living in a pretend society” in which truth is not present. Curtin’s essays, like my own, vary in quality, but every decent person will enjoy escape from social media into thought about what is happening to us.  I am not going to attempt to organize Curtin’s essays around a theme.  I am going to limit my comments to two of his essays.  The first is about what has become of Christmas.  As my readers know, for several decades it has been my habit to republish my Christmas essay, “The Greatest Gift of All,” to remind people that Christianity gave us freedom and meaning in our lives.  In the Massachusetts town in which Curtin and his wife live, Christmas fireworks are a feature.  As he and his wife inside their home sit holding and trying to calm the family dogs, “sentient animals with deep feelings,” who are quaking uncontrollably, Curtin thinks of “children in Gaza quivering in fear as the Israelis bomb them night and day in savage attacks” and thinks of “the visceral sense of what those Palestinians  must be feeling as they hold their trembling children” who are declared by Israel’s leader to be “useless objects.”   It is America’s shame that the entire government of the United States, including President Trump, the media, and the brainwashed and indoctrinated hapless American population  accept the destruction of a people, even enable it with weapons and money and deportation of persons with sufficient moral conscience to protest the genocide of a nation.  Curtin has every right to raise the question, what kind of people have Americans become? The second essay is about Curtin’s “Known Knowns,” which consists of the massive lies that the US government has based its rule upon, regardless of whether Republican or Democrat, since the 1960s.  In a mere 8 pages Curtin presents the history of the US government’s degeneration into evil kept in power by lies. He begins with the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and goes on to Allan Dulles who engineered slaughter of one million Indonesians, the orchestrated Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal orchestrated by the CIA to drive Nixon from power, the neoconservatives’ Iran-Contra scandal, the orchestrated Persian Gulf War, the Clinton regime’s bombing of four countries in four months –Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia, the 9/11 false flag attacks on the World Trade Center, the George W. Bush regime’s fake “war on terror,” used to strip Americans of civil liberties and to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama who institutionalized the warfare state and bombed seven countries, Trump who allowed the deadly Covid vaccine to be imposed on us and subjects the conscience of America to the support of Israel’s genocide of Palestine, and Biden who engineered the anti-Russian coup in Ukraine, renewed war with Russia, and imprisoned American citizens for exercising their constitutional rights. From the standpoint of the American Establishment, the problem with Curtin’s indictment is that it is true.   In today’s America, to tell the truth is becoming an indication of treason for which whistleblowers, allegedly protected by federal law, are being imprisoned. This is not changing under Trump.  Instead, it is expanding.  If you criticize Israel, you are deported.  Thus, under the Trump regime, if you speak the truth about Israel, you are considered an enemy of the state. Americans really do need to think about how they arrived at this position.  Curtin’s essays will help you. Are Americans Still Americans? The post Are Americans Still Americans? appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: SOCIAL/CULTURAL, USA]

— We Are Trapped In A Dystopia That Is Ruled By Lunatics: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

 

at 4/26/25 7:07pm

We really need a name for the mental illness that comes with obscene amounts of wealth. Elon Musk’s bizarre progeny obsession. All the weird shit Michael Jackson did. The stories you hear about rich families making their servants clean their toilets after every use or throw away plates after every meal. Call it rich-brain or something. That psychological phenomenon where extreme wealth causes people to lose their mental moorings and spin off into deep space because there’s no one in their lives telling them “no” or holding them to any standards of normal human behavior. Where their ability to shape their day to day lives however they want with no limitations lets them fly off into uncharted psychological territory where they’ll have whole teams of people orchestrating elaborate scenes and projects to accommodate their debilitating neuroses. We need a good label for this phenomenon because these are the individuals who are shaping our world. Many people suffering from psychological disorders will come up with unhealthy ideas for how society ought to be run, but they don’t have the means to turn their vision into a reality. The people who are made insane by obscene amounts of wealth are not restricted in this way. Their mental illnesses can actually directly influence how human civilization plays out on this planet. As billionaires take more and more control over our world, we are finding ourselves increasingly led by those least qualified to lead us. We are trapped in a dystopia that is ruled by lunatics. We should probably do something about that. ❖ https://x.com/caitoz/status/1911958077202632854 ❖ They’re ripping kids in half right in front of us and telling us we need to be mad at Kneecap and Ms Rachel. ❖ A Palestine supporter witnesses new footage every day of children being mutilated, shredded and burned to death by Israel. An Israel supporter spends every day avoiding looking at that same footage. This one fact tells you very clearly who is on the wrong side of history here. ❖ When you witness an injustice you can either oppose it, look away, or make up some reason why the injustice is okay. Only the first option can lead to the cessation of the injustice. Ignoring the Gaza holocaust looks different from justifying it, but both yield the same result. There are people opposing the genocide and there are people justifying it, but the largest group by far are those standing in the middle and shrugging. These people may tell themselves that they are morally superior to the ones actively cheerleading a mass atrocity, and at first glance this may appear to be the case, but in practice both are choosing an option that allows the mass atrocity to continue. One is just more photogenic than the other. It allows a certain type of person to feel nice about themselves while still facilitating an active genocide. This is almost everyone with the loudest and most influential voices in our society today, by the way. The celebrities. The people with the largest platforms. Most of them are not actively supporting the Gaza holocaust, they’re just sitting there watching it happen, like a psychopath sitting back watching a toddler drown to death in a swimming pool. They know something terrible is happening, but they know they’ll pay a professional price if they oppose it, so they avail themselves of the many distractions afforded to the wealthy and keep their attention fixed on the insignificant. And the end result is that this nightmare continues. Day after day. Month after month. Year after year. Because too many people, when faced with history’s first live-streamed genocide, have chosen to do nothing. ❖ It would be a mistake to view the Chinese people’s skyrocketing quality of life as miraculous or extraordinary. Beijing made some very clever decisions over the years, but ultimately it’s just doing the normal thing: spending the nation’s wealth on the public instead of on war. ❖ When capitalism simps want to shit on China they call it communist. When they want to dismiss its accomplishments they say it only happened because China became capitalist. When you ask why your country can’t do what China is doing in order to share those same accomplishments they circle back around to “No, that’s communism!” again. ❖ And meanwhile the war in Ukraine rages on, for no reason other than the fact that under our psychotic status quo it is much easier to start a war than to end one. The risk of nuclear war is far lower than it was in the early months of the conflict, but Ukrainian lives are still being thrown into a proxy war to no one’s benefit but the war profiteers. NATO’s never going to directly enter the war, and without a massive escalation on that level it’s inevitable that this thing ends with a peace deal where Ukraine has to give up a fair amount of land. At this point it’s just a bunch of men killing each other and blowing each other’s limbs off for no good reason while they wait for that conclusion to arrive, because a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats far away from the fighting keep postponing it. It’s so, so ugly and so, so stupid. Such a pointless, idiotic thing for all this suffering and dying to be happening for. This whole nightmare could have been avoided with a little diplomacy and a few low-cost concessions from the US empire, but they decided to provoke a war to move a few pieces around on the grand chessboard for the advancement of their goal of planetary domination instead. The world is ruled by sociopaths. ❖ I keep meaning to mention that watching or listening to Dave DeCamp’s half-hour show for Antiwar News every day is the easiest way to cultivate a lucid understanding of what’s going on in the world. Just put it on over breakfast or on your way to work or whatever and you’ll always understand what the empire is up to from day to day. Other good resources include: The Alternative World Antiwar.com Breakthrough News Consortium News Drop Site News and its quality Twitter account World Socialist Website Electronic Intifada Mintpress News The Grayzone The Cradle Moon of Alabama Responsible Statecraft I’ve also got a public Twitter list of individuals whose commentary I find helpful if anyone’s looking for people to follow on there. The other day I asked my Twitter followers for some recommendations of good leftist podcasts and YouTube shows with an emphasis on foreign policy which yielded a lot of good responses if you want to check that out as well. Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley): https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/we-are-trapped-in-a-dystopia-that The post We Are Trapped In A Dystopia That Is Ruled By Lunatics: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: WORLD, dystopia, Elon Musk, USA]

— We Are Trapped In A Dystopia That Is Ruled By Lunatics

 

at 4/26/25 7:07pm

We really need a name for the mental illness that comes with obscene amounts of wealth. Elon Musk’s bizarre progeny obsession. All the weird shit Michael Jackson did. The stories you hear about rich families making their servants clean their toilets after every use or throw away plates after every meal. Call it rich-brain or something. That psychological phenomenon where extreme wealth causes people to lose their mental moorings and spin off into deep space because there’s no one in their lives telling them “no” or holding them to any standards of normal human behavior. Where their ability to shape their day to day lives however they want with no limitations lets them fly off into uncharted psychological territory where they’ll have whole teams of people orchestrating elaborate scenes and projects to accommodate their debilitating neuroses. We need a good label for this phenomenon because these are the individuals who are shaping our world. Many people suffering from psychological disorders will come up with unhealthy ideas for how society ought to be run, but they don’t have the means to turn their vision into a reality. The people who are made insane by obscene amounts of wealth are not restricted in this way. Their mental illnesses can actually directly influence how human civilization plays out on this planet. As billionaires take more and more control over our world, we are finding ourselves increasingly led by those least qualified to lead us. We are trapped in a dystopia that is ruled by lunatics. We should probably do something about that. ❖ https://x.com/caitoz/status/1911958077202632854 ❖ They’re ripping kids in half right in front of us and telling us we need to be mad at Kneecap and Ms Rachel. ❖ A Palestine supporter witnesses new footage every day of children being mutilated, shredded and burned to death by Israel. An Israel supporter spends every day avoiding looking at that same footage. This one fact tells you very clearly who is on the wrong side of history here. ❖ When you witness an injustice you can either oppose it, look away, or make up some reason why the injustice is okay. Only the first option can lead to the cessation of the injustice. Ignoring the Gaza holocaust looks different from justifying it, but both yield the same result. There are people opposing the genocide and there are people justifying it, but the largest group by far are those standing in the middle and shrugging. These people may tell themselves that they are morally superior to the ones actively cheerleading a mass atrocity, and at first glance this may appear to be the case, but in practice both are choosing an option that allows the mass atrocity to continue. One is just more photogenic than the other. It allows a certain type of person to feel nice about themselves while still facilitating an active genocide. This is almost everyone with the loudest and most influential voices in our society today, by the way. The celebrities. The people with the largest platforms. Most of them are not actively supporting the Gaza holocaust, they’re just sitting there watching it happen, like a psychopath sitting back watching a toddler drown to death in a swimming pool. They know something terrible is happening, but they know they’ll pay a professional price if they oppose it, so they avail themselves of the many distractions afforded to the wealthy and keep their attention fixed on the insignificant. And the end result is that this nightmare continues. Day after day. Month after month. Year after year. Because too many people, when faced with history’s first live-streamed genocide, have chosen to do nothing. ❖ It would be a mistake to view the Chinese people’s skyrocketing quality of life as miraculous or extraordinary. Beijing made some very clever decisions over the years, but ultimately it’s just doing the normal thing: spending the nation’s wealth on the public instead of on war. ❖ When capitalism simps want to shit on China they call it communist. When they want to dismiss its accomplishments they say it only happened because China became capitalist. When you ask why your country can’t do what China is doing in order to share those same accomplishments they circle back around to “No, that’s communism!” again. ❖ And meanwhile the war in Ukraine rages on, for no reason other than the fact that under our psychotic status quo it is much easier to start a war than to end one. The risk of nuclear war is far lower than it was in the early months of the conflict, but Ukrainian lives are still being thrown into a proxy war to no one’s benefit but the war profiteers. NATO’s never going to directly enter the war, and without a massive escalation on that level it’s inevitable that this thing ends with a peace deal where Ukraine has to give up a fair amount of land. At this point it’s just a bunch of men killing each other and blowing each other’s limbs off for no good reason while they wait for that conclusion to arrive, because a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats far away from the fighting keep postponing it. It’s so, so ugly and so, so stupid. Such a pointless, idiotic thing for all this suffering and dying to be happening for. This whole nightmare could have been avoided with a little diplomacy and a few low-cost concessions from the US empire, but they decided to provoke a war to move a few pieces around on the grand chessboard for the advancement of their goal of planetary domination instead. The world is ruled by sociopaths. ❖ I keep meaning to mention that watching or listening to Dave DeCamp’s half-hour show for Antiwar News every day is the easiest way to cultivate a lucid understanding of what’s going on in the world. Just put it on over breakfast or on your way to work or whatever and you’ll always understand what the empire is up to from day to day. Other good resources include: The Alternative World Antiwar.com Breakthrough News Consortium News Drop Site News and its quality Twitter account World Socialist Website Electronic Intifada Mintpress News The Grayzone The Cradle Moon of Alabama Responsible Statecraft I’ve also got a public Twitter list of individuals whose commentary I find helpful if anyone’s looking for people to follow on there. The other day I asked my Twitter followers for some recommendations of good leftist podcasts and YouTube shows with an emphasis on foreign policy which yielded a lot of good responses if you want to check that out as well. Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley): https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/we-are-trapped-in-a-dystopia-that The post We Are Trapped In A Dystopia That Is Ruled By Lunatics appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: WORLD, dystopia, Elon Musk, USA]

— Trump Admits MASSIVE Defeat to Putin & China, BRICS War Begins NOW

 

at 4/26/25 10:49am

Geopolitical analyst and journalist Pepe Escobar returns from a trip to China and reveals the deep trouble that Trump finds himself in as he admits a shocking string of defeats to the rising multipolar world leaders of China and Russia. This must-watch stream exposes what comes next as the empire of chaos seeks total war on BRICS in rapid fashion. The post Trump Admits MASSIVE Defeat to Putin China, BRICS War Begins NOW appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: interview, Multimedia, WORLD, BRICS, China, multipolar world, Russia, USA]

— A Peace Deal or a Deception

 

at 4/25/25 11:45pm

Is Putin Again Being Deceived, or Are Putin and Trump Deceiving Their Own Populations? The details of the peace deal presented  by US special envoy Steve Witkoff are consistent with the report in the Financial Times discussed in my previous article and with Larry Sparano in the posted interview.  Putin will halt the Russian advance prior to driving Ukrainian soldiers out of all of the territory that has been reincorporated into Russia.  It appears to be the case that the borders between Russia and Ukraine will be the current front line, so Putin is withdrawing Russia’s claim to the Russian territories still under Ukrainian occupation. In exchange Washington will give de jure, that is legal, by right, recognition to Crimea as a constituent part of Russia, and Washington will give de facto, that is accept the facts on the ground whether legal or not, recognition of the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Luhansk People’s Republic, Zaporozhye, and Kherson as provinces of Russia according to the present boundaries in the conflict. By withholding de jure recognition of Russia’s battlefield gains, Ukraine can continue to claim, and demand return of, Russia’s battlefield gains. In other words, the agreement evades the central issue. According to the agreement, Ukraine must renounce all NATO aspirations.  But Putin’s other demands, demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine are apparently not included in the agreement. Washington will lift the sanctions against Russia, and there will be US-Russia economic cooperation, which seems to mean that Russia will open aspects of its economy to foreigners for exploitation, a disastrous Russian decision. This is what the Russian oligarchs and Atlanticist Integrationists, who have never supported the war, want.  How the Russia’s military feels about victory being shoved aside by a negotiated settlement is unknown. But is it a settlement?  Zelensky’s latest statement at this time of writing is that he will not concede a square inch of territory to Russia.  If Zelensky has to be coerced, and as he is not legally or constitutionally the current president of Ukraine as his term of office has expired, successive Ukrainian governments can legitimately claim that the agreement is not valid. Moreover,  Ukraine and Europe have placed themselves behind an alternative agreement.  In their proposed agreement, Ukraine will consent to begin talks with Russia, Europe, and the US about the territorial issues. Moreover, Ukraine will be granted US security guarantees similar to Article 5 in the NATO treaty.  In other words, Ukraine becomes essentially a de facto member of NATO.  Additionally, there will be no restrictions on Ukraine’s armed forces or on the operations of foreign forces on Ukrainian territory, and Russia will compensate Ukraine for war damage. Clearly, the two proposals have nothing in common.  Unless Europe gives in to Trump, a split is implied between the US and NATO, a split that could leave the US and Russia in an alliance that excludes Europe.  I have no explanation why Europe is taking this risk. As we can see from the facts, only two of the four parties agree to the deal. Moreover, even if there is a deal, in the absence of de jure recognition of Russia’s territorial claims, the deal amounts to little more than kicking the can down the road. In fact, John Helmer says that the deal is just a mechanism, a cover, for moving Russia aside so that Washington can get on with its war with China. Here is how Helmer describes the situation: “The politico-military strategy driving the US negotiators and prompting Trump’s tweets, is not a peace deal with Russia, nor even US withdrawal from the war in Europe. It is a strategy of sequencing one war at a time – the war in Europe to continue in the Ukraine with rearmed Germany, Poland and France in the lead, supported by Trump; and the US war against China in Asia. “Sequencing these wars so as not to fight both enemies simultaneously – that’s the formula devised for Trump by Wess Mitchell, a former State Department appointee in the first Trump Administration,  and his business partner Elbridge Colby, now the third-ranking Pentagon official as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.   ‘The essence of diplomacy in strategy,’ Mitchell has just declaimed in Foreign Affairs, ‘is to rearrange power in space and time so that countries avoid tests of strength beyond their ability.’ . . “Mitchell and Colby have convinced Trump and his negotiators that Russia has been badly damaged by the Ukrainian war which the Obama and Biden Administration have fought. Russian weakness, especially the perception that President Putin is both politically vulnerable and personally susceptible to US business inducements, is Trump’s strong card, and he should play it now.” The goal is not peace, but to make money off of two wars: Europe and Ukraine’s war with Russia, and Washington’s war with China.  And perhaps a war with Iran for Israel thrown in. Readers can listen to Helmer’s presentation of what he says is actually occurring in his discussion with Ray McGovern on Nima Alkhorshid’s program ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgG4ZmTZQww ), and they can read it in several of Helmer’s recent articles in Dancing with Bears ( https://johnhelmer.net/one-war-at-a-time-and-plenty-of-money-to-be-made-in-the-meantime-this-is-trumps-game-as-the-russian-and-chinese-general-staffs-understand/ ). Helmer’s source for his explanation of what is really happening is an article in Foreign Affairs by West Mitchell, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia in the first Trump term.  Mitchell is currently working with Trump’s current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby to sequence America’s wars with Russia and China as the US lacks the power to take on both simultaneously. Mitchell’s article was published on April 22, 2025, in the May/June 2025 issue of Foreign Affairs. Mitchell writes that the process of sequencing the wars with Russia and China should  begin “by bringing the war in Ukraine to an end in a way that is favorable to the United States. That means that when all is said and done, Kyiv must be strong enough to impede Russia’s westward advances” [for which no evidence exists, showing Mitchell’s mind to be controlled by the false narrative]. Washington should use the Korean War formula: “prioritize an armistice and push questions about a wider settlement into a separate process that could take years to bear fruit, it it ever does.”  This, of course, is what Washington’s de facto recognition of Russia’s territorial claims ensures. Mitchell carelessly then reveals the intended deception of Babe-in-the-Woods Putin: “The United States should pursue a defense relationship with Ukraine akin to the one it maintains with Israel: not a formal alliance, but an agreement to sell, lend, or give Kyiv what it needs to defend itself. But it should not grant Ukraine [ de jure ] NATO membership. Instead, the United States should push European states to take responsibility for Ukraine—and for the security of their continent more generally.” This strategy capitalizes “on Putin’s special relationship with the Russian oligarchs” and dupes Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s negotiator, ” into pressing the Kremlin to accept a short-term military armistice which stops well short of the demilitarization and denazification goals of the Special Military Operation.” So, as Mitchell describes it, the “peace agreement” is a Washington deception to set up, yet again,  “Babe-in-the Woods Putin” for the eventual destruction of Russia. Can I believe this?  Yes, I can.  Helmer has  been watching things for a long time and reporting on them.  This scenario is not a product of Helmer’s imagination.  It is spelled out in an article in Foreign Affairs, long the arbiter of American foreign policy. The author, West Mitchell, a former Trump high official, clearly holds to the neoconservative policy stated by Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfwitz that the purpose of American foreign policy is hegemony over the world. If American hegemony requires war, war it is. The Russians, with a large part of the mindless Russian establishment so desirous of being part of the West, have never paid any attention to the implication for Russian sovereignty of the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony. This doctrine has not been denounced by President Trump. Consequently, Russia will be destroyed as the Russian government stupidly walks into deception after deception. Under Putin and Lavrov it will be one Minsk Agreement after another. The question I have is:  Is Trump a part of the deception not only of Putin but also of the American people, or is this a deal he has accepted without realizing its consequences because he is desperate to end the conflict as he promised?  If Trump himself is part of the deception, then we have the explanation why the American Establishment did not prevent his reappearance in the Oval Office. “The Return of Great-Power Diplomacy, How Strategic  Dealmaking Can Fortify American Power, by A. West Mitchell, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2025,   https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/return-great-power-diplomacy-strategy-wess-mitchell A Peace Deal or a Deception The post A Peace Deal or a Deception appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: WORLD, Iran, Russia, Ukraine]

— Does the West really need to be great again?

 

at 4/25/25 10:32am

From the US to Europe, panic is setting in as we witness the rise of a new multipolar world “Make the West great again”: This was the headline slogan uttered by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni during her recent meeting with US President Donald Trump in Washington. Meloni’s trip to the US was highly anticipated at a tense moment in transatlantic relations, fuelled by Trump’s unorthodox stance on the war in Ukraine and his decision to target the world allies included with hefty tariffs. Trump’s harsh stance on Ukraine was a sort of wakeup call for Nato’s European members, triggering a frenzy of meetings aimed at rebuilding Europe’s defence strategy, starting from the assumption that the US security umbrella is no longer reliable. The net result: an €800 billion ($900bn) European rearmament plan. At the same time, US tariffs have elicited mixed reactions, with some countries, such as China, quick to retaliate, and others keen to strike deals with the White House. Europe has never closed the door to talks with the US, but it is still weighing countermoves if no understanding is reached. Stock markets have been on a rollercoaster amid the extreme unpredictability of US policy, with tariff announcements, pauses, new announcements and general chaos. Meloni is considered to be among the European leaders who are more politically and ideologically aligned with the Trump administration, as is Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Rules-based order Away from the cameras, what Trump and Meloni discussed in the Oval Office is not known, but their joint statement notes that the US president accepted his Italian counterpart’s invitation to visit Italy “in the very near future”, and hinted at a broader top-level American-European meeting “on such occasion”. The statement notes only that this idea is under “consideration”, which does not imply any commitment. But if Trump ultimately meets top EU officials during his forthcoming visit to Rome to attend the funeral of Pope Francis, then Meloni’s trip to Washington will, in retrospect, appear to have been a significant success. As we await these potential developments, we must also examine the notion of “making the West great again”. When Trump first started his “make America great again” sloganeering a decade ago, what exactly did he have in mind? And what was in Meloni’s mind when she extended Trump’s ambition to all of the West? The notion of the West as a political-civilisational concept more than a geographical one has been explained in multiple forums. Simply put, it is a group of countries attached to the US-led “rules-based world order”. This political notion has come to replace the system of international law, which has been increasingly abandoned, because it forces western nations to confront their failure to apply international law without favour, with Gaza being the most visible example. The West is considered to be the pillar of the so-called rules-based world order, which encompasses a series of alleged good practices centred on freedom: free elections, free trade, free press, freedom of religion, etc. But if this is true, and according to its advocates this is what makes the West great, then what is the reason for the obsessive search to “make the West great again”? What do the western leaders who are claiming this necessity see as missing in their golden image of the West? What part is in decline? Serious problem Western “greatness” is less and less rooted in its supposed values which, incidentally, are less and less upheld by its supporters, with Gaza once again presenting the most vivid example than in its historical hegemony. The difference between leadership and hegemony can be extremely thin. The West is thus “great” if it can successfully impose its views and narratives on the world without challenge, and less so if its soft power begins to disintegrate, as we’ve seen in recent decades. A truly great entity should not need force to make its case. When soft power fades away, the easiest option is to resort to hard power and this is the route the US has chosen for the last quarter of a century of the post-Cold War era. Meanwhile, a new multipolar world is slowly arising, with many different examples some good and some bad. There are different options on the menu now, no longer just one. The western era of “there is no alternative” appears to be in retreat. The West’s leading role can no longer be taken for granted. Western nations seem terrified at this prospect. They believe they are the only ones entitled to lead humankind, while much of the latter seems to be considering other options. When all your power is built upon an unquestioned global leadership/hegemony, when the latter slowly vanishes, you have a serious problem. Can the West be great again? It must first drop its exceptionalism. Secondly, it must drop its illegitimate use of force, and turn instead back to the “force of the good example”. All the panic being spread by western elites and their media echo chambers about the alleged existential battle between democracy and autocracy is nonsense a rhetorical device used to scare ordinary people, while perpetuating a new western arms race to perpetual conflict. https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/does-west-really-need-be-great-again The post Does the West really need to be great again? appeared first on TheAltWorld.

[Category: WORLD, Europe, Italy, multipolar world, USA, West, World Order]

As of 4/30/25 4:46am. Last new 4/29/25 1:38pm.