www.transicionestructural.NET es un nuevo foro, que a partir del 25/06/2012 se ha separado de su homónimo .COM. No se compartirán nuevos mensajes o usuarios a partir de dicho día.
0 Usuarios y 3 Visitantes están viendo este tema.
Cita de: sudden and sharp en Marzo 22, 2024, 22:26:37 pmPersonalmente creo que al Deep State le da exactamente lo mismo quién gane. En USA el papel de president es el de defensor de los states dfrente al poder federal.Check and balances, lo llaman.Da exactamente lo mismo quien gane en Noviembre. Ninguno le va a hacer ascos al petroleo crudo... que por serlo, lo puedes refinar tú, para diesel, queroseno, lo que sea. Es como el oro dudoso... lo fundes, lo marcas. Oro fetén. Crudo barato + IAs varias... cartera llena.Es lo que dice Reiter, en todas las clases dominantes hay contradicciones internas. En Estados Unidos algunos ven a Trump como peligroso y quieren desactivarlo definitivamente dejándole ganar y colocándole el marrón de la crisis.
Personalmente creo que al Deep State le da exactamente lo mismo quién gane. En USA el papel de president es el de defensor de los states dfrente al poder federal.Check and balances, lo llaman.Da exactamente lo mismo quien gane en Noviembre. Ninguno le va a hacer ascos al petroleo crudo... que por serlo, lo puedes refinar tú, para diesel, queroseno, lo que sea. Es como el oro dudoso... lo fundes, lo marcas. Oro fetén. Crudo barato + IAs varias... cartera llena.
Cita de: Currobena en Marzo 23, 2024, 10:50:00 amCita de: sudden and sharp en Marzo 22, 2024, 22:26:37 pmPersonalmente creo que al Deep State le da exactamente lo mismo quién gane. En USA el papel de president es el de defensor de los states dfrente al poder federal.Check and balances, lo llaman.Da exactamente lo mismo quien gane en Noviembre. Ninguno le va a hacer ascos al petroleo crudo... que por serlo, lo puedes refinar tú, para diesel, queroseno, lo que sea. Es como el oro dudoso... lo fundes, lo marcas. Oro fetén. Crudo barato + IAs varias... cartera llena.Es lo que dice Reiter, en todas las clases dominantes hay contradicciones internas. En Estados Unidos algunos ven a Trump como peligroso y quieren desactivarlo definitivamente dejándole ganar y colocándole el marrón de la crisis.¿Qué crisis?Consiguen que hablemos el idioma del enemigo. No hay ninguna crisis. A los últimos del timo piramidal no les sale la jugada. Eso no es una crisis, son las reglas del juego.Lo que sí sería una crisis es una guerra. Lo que quieren los perdedores, pensando que no tienen nada (más) que perder. Cuando menos, pierden la dignidad.Como Lot, no miramos atrás.ES LO QUE HAY. La vida sigue. (Aquí ya hablan de batir _todos_ los récords esta misma Semana Santa.)Propongo dejar ya este tema y empezar a hablar del salvaje atentado de ayer en Moscú, empezando por ver si aclaramos qué narices es eso autollamado Estado Islámico.De primeras, creo que no es lo que parece. No me creo na que diría el maestro.
Si Trump gana no volverá a votarle nadie de todas maneras, en USA lo presidentes sólo pueden gobernar dos legislaturas.
Constitution of the United StatesTwenty-Second AmendmentSection 1No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.Section 2This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/#:~:text=No%20person%20shall%20be%20elected,the%20President%20more%20than%20once.
https://twitter.com/The_Lookout_N
Cita de: Cositas en Marzo 23, 2024, 20:43:55 pmSi Trump gana no volverá a votarle nadie de todas maneras, en USA lo presidentes sólo pueden gobernar dos legislaturas.Seguidas?
A tenor de todo lo que está pasando ¿el atentado es un movimiento externo para provocar una respuesta errática que justifique en envío de tropas extranjeras, interno para poder actuar sin cortapisas ahora que oficialmente hablan de guerra y no de operación especial o es lo que parece?
CitarConstitution of the United StatesTwenty-Second AmendmentSection 1No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.Section 2This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/#:~:text=No%20person%20shall%20be%20elected,the%20President%20more%20than%20once.Citarhttps://twitter.com/The_Lookout_NParece que continúan la campaña de ataques a refinerías pese a la advertencia. Tienen un par, Trump no va a continuar el apoyo militar y la administración Biden, cada vez menos comprometida, lo verá como un desaire. A tenor de todo lo que está pasando ¿el atentado es un movimiento externo para provocar una respuesta errática que justifique en envío de tropas extranjeras, interno para poder actuar sin cortapisas ahora que oficialmente hablan de guerra y no de operación especial o es lo que parece?
En cuanto al ataque en Moscú, los terroristas fueron vistos (https://t.me/milinfolive/119014) en la escena el 7 de marzo.Aquí hay una cronología interesante (https://t.me/ukraine_watch/19197):“25 de febrero - Publicación (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html) de un artículo del New York Times sobre las células de la CIA en Ucrania.28 de febrero: Victoria Nuland habla sobre la financiación de Ucrania y promete a Putin "sorpresas desagradables" (https://www.barrons.com/news/us-diplomat-says-russia-should-expect-surprises-on-battlefield-39f5567e) asimétrica .5 de marzo: Nuland dimite.7 de marzo: al menos un terrorista visita el Crocus.Noche del 7 al 8 de marzo: las embajadas estadounidense y británica anuncian simultáneamente (https://ru.usembassy.gov/security-alert-avoid-large-gatherings-over-the-next-48-hours/) un posible ataque terrorista contra Moscú, especialmente durante los conciertos dentro de las 48 horas.9 de marzo: el artista patriótico ruso Shaman actúa en Crocus. Este es un objetivo inicial muy posible para este ataque terrorista.Pasan exactamente dos semanas.22 de marzo: ataque terrorista que causa un gran número de víctimas en Crocus.Los preparativos para el ataque terrorista tenían como objetivo evidente la víspera de las elecciones presidenciales rusas (del 15 al 17 de marzo). Hubo un evento inesperado. »
5 de marzo: Nuland dimite.
Continuar la guerra a pesar de la derrota. Una guerra por poderes se pierde cuando el representante encargado de luchar por los patrocinadores no logra ganar. Frente a este resultado, existen cuatro posibilidades:(i) continuar la guerra indirecta;(ii) aceptar la derrota (Estados Unidos evacua Afganistán en 2021),(iii) tirar las máscaras y hacer que los patrocinadores hagan la guerra ellos mismos, es decir, guerra directa sin auxiliares,(iv) encontrar otros representantes para continuar la guerra de una forma u otra (en Siria, Estados Unidos reemplaza a los yihadistas derrotados por kurdos).
Es poco probable que se acepten las dos primeras posibilidades. Zelensky quiere continuar la guerra por poderes, pero las promesas de armas occidentales no pueden materializarse porque no hay más (Ucrania sólo recibió el 30% de los proyectiles prometidos) y las sumas solicitadas para mantener a Ucrania a cuentagotas se encuentran cada vez menos en las economías occidentales. , anémico y en el umbral de la austeridad. Gastar miles de millones en una guerra en Ucrania roza la indecencia mientras los precios se disparan, la agricultura está devastada por el derrame de productos ucranianos, los niveles de vida se hunden, los presupuestos públicos están abrumados por los déficits y la deuda nacional supera el PIB.
¿Pasar de (perder) una guerra por poderes a una guerra directa?Esto deja las fórmulas para colisión directa y proxy de sustitución. Ambos se cruzan y están en el centro de las noticias de las últimas dos semanas. En 2024, el alarmismo malo reemplaza a la exaltación ignorante de 2022-2023. Nos gusta asustarnos: Rusia no debe prevalecer en Ucrania porque estaría impaciente por invadir Europa; debemos detener los tanques rusos en Ucrania si no queremos verlos desfilar por los Campos Elíseos. Un caso de bipolaridad geopolítica.---A corto plazo, la intervención militar directa de cualquier país de la OTAN o de toda la OTAN es una abstracción en las condiciones actuales. La OTAN no tiene ni las tropas ni las armas para una guerra contra Rusia. Ningún país de la OTAN puede enviar más de unos pocos miles de tropas al combate. Todos tendrían que decretar el servicio militar obligatorio y el servicio militar obligatorio, mientras se convertían a la economía de guerra. Podemos imaginar la acogida que la opinión pública daría a estas medidas. Por el momento, ellos (Alemania en particular) están en el proceso de programas de rearme y aumentos de sus presupuestos militares.
Sin embargo, lo que está surgiendo parece ser una fusión de los escenarios iii y iv: Europa estaría preparada para ser el nuevo representante y se inclinaría hacia una confrontación directa con Rusia.¿Dónde está ubicado Estados Unidos?Estados Unidos, líderes de la coalición occidental y autores intelectuales de la estrategia de guerra por poderes, habrían sido los beneficiarios de la derrota de Rusia. Su hegemonía global se habría consolidado. Pero la guerra fue contraproducente y Estados Unidos estaba sumido en formidables problemas internos. ¿Qué hace Estados Unidos cuando una aventura exterior se vuelve amarga? Detienen las pérdidas, regresan a casa y dejan a los asociados que solían valerse por sí mismos en el campo abierto (Vietnam, Afganistán). Todo indica que actualmente están buscando una salida de Ucrania, independientemente de lo que haría un Trump reelegido. Los blasters de 2022-2023 son ahora el apoyo menos fiable de Kiev.Hay que recordar que Estados Unidos tiene dos enemigos: Rusia y China, y que debe separarlos para derrotarlos uno a uno. Para Estados Unidos, Rusia era vista sólo como un obstáculo menos importante que debía superar rápidamente para pasar a lo importante: un conflicto con China. Después de la anticipada derrota rusa, Estados Unidos cambiaría su atención hacia China, dejando a la OTAN Europa con la responsabilidad de continuar la lucha contra Rusia para mantenerla alejada de China durante el enfrentamiento entre Estados Unidos y China. La agitación en Europa para avanzar hacia lo que sería una guerra directa de facto y la creación de una “defensa europea” está en línea con este plan original. Esto significa que el papel asignado a Europa es el de ser el representante sustituto de Estados Unidos, tras el agotamiento del representante ucraniano. En caso de que se produjera una guerra directa contra Rusia, el territorio europeo sustituiría al territorio ucraniano. La guerra tendría lugar en Europa.
ConclusiónDespués de Ucrania, Europa es claramente el próximo representante de Estados Unidos para la guerra contra Rusia. Los primeros afectados, los europeos, harían bien en hacer sonar la alarma lo antes posible, antes de que la espiral de la guerra los arrastre al abismo. No hay garantía de que la guerra directa contra Rusia, hoy un alarde macroniano, no se convierta en una siniestra realidad. La carne de cañón ucraniana sería reemplazada por carne de cañón europea, los conejillos de indias ucranianos por conejillos de indias europeos.La batalla ideológica debe librarse simultáneamente en dos frentes. Es necesario subrayar el carácter contradictorio de las dos posiciones adoptadas respecto a los rusos. Como ya han señalado Noam Chomsky y muchos otros, los líderes de la OTAN, por un lado, hasta ahora han restado importancia a las capacidades de Rusia en la guerra de Ucrania, pero, por otro, al mismo tiempo han agitado a la opinión pública ante el peligro. de una posible invasión rusa del territorio europeo. Muy débil en terreno ucraniano, Rusia aún sería lo suficientemente fuerte como para tener la ambición de invadir Europa. Para escapar de esta visión contradictoria, irracional y maniquea, tal vez ya no sea necesario detenerse en las capacidades rusas desplegadas en Ucrania. Su poder militar es visible a simple vista. Ya no es necesario hacer la manifestación. Pero aún queda convencer a la población de que Rusia no tiene ni la ambición ni la necesidad de conquistar nuevos territorios. Ya tiene bastante que hacer en su inmenso territorio nacional que debe gestionar. También sería hora de ser un poco más cautelosos con Estados Unidos, que busca provocar a Rusia para que adopte medidas defensivas que los paranoicos líderes europeos se apresurarán a interpretar según la imagen que tienen de sus ambiciones.No es demasiado pronto para que todas las organizaciones e individuos pacifistas hablen y se unan para alertar a la opinión pública europea del peligro de que Europa se convierta en algo como Ucrania, o incluso algo más serio, si se utilizan armas nucleares. El “No a la guerra” debe ser rotundo y reflejar las consecuencias de la beligerancia europea en los términos más explícitos. Un movimiento fuerte no dejaría indiferentes a quienes toman las decisiones. La interrupción de esta marcha infernal no debe esperar al estallido de las hostilidades, porque entonces ya sería demasiado tarde.
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996)
Western colonialism began in the fifteenth century and ended, with a few exceptions, in the mid of the 20th century. It was enabled by the development of technologies and fast population growth. The West then changed to a new model of ruling the world. It talked about human values and human rights and certain rules that would allegedly enable everyone to enjoy those.The facade did not hold up well. The West, and especially the U.S., abused the 'rules based order' by circumventing international law whenever it did not fit its interests. It continued to apply 'organized violence' under dubious circumstances. The wars against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were supposed to demonstrate that the West would uphold whatever rules it claimed to exist. But the wars were lost and the U.S. had to retreat from them.The war in Ukraine is only the latest but most obvious demonstration that the 'rules based order' no longer exists:CitarOver the past several decades, the United States has continually placed Moscow in a position either to accept the fait accompli of NATO expansion at the expense of Russian security interests, or to escalate with force and suffer the consequences of increased economic and political ostracization. This disincentive to avoid escalation has been effectively removed. Explicating the altered state of international relations is not cheerleading for the Russian position — although it may be treated as such by those who disingenuously present any realistic assessment of the situation as “appeasement” — but rather illustrating how Moscow has insulated itself from Western ostracization, thus changing the entire balance of power in not only Europe, but the world.Now, it is Russia that has the West on the horns of a dilemma: It can either watch the Kremlin achieve its strategic objectives, guaranteed in a one-sided negotiated settlement or through the continued attrition of Ukrainian forces, or it can escalate with force. Putin’s statement regarding nuclear weapons was not mere rhetoric—it was the Russian president defining the limits of the current conflict from a position of authority.Anything short of total Ukrainian victory is therefore an implicit admission that the “rules-based” economic and political order has been irreversibly altered.
Over the past several decades, the United States has continually placed Moscow in a position either to accept the fait accompli of NATO expansion at the expense of Russian security interests, or to escalate with force and suffer the consequences of increased economic and political ostracization. This disincentive to avoid escalation has been effectively removed. Explicating the altered state of international relations is not cheerleading for the Russian position — although it may be treated as such by those who disingenuously present any realistic assessment of the situation as “appeasement” — but rather illustrating how Moscow has insulated itself from Western ostracization, thus changing the entire balance of power in not only Europe, but the world.Now, it is Russia that has the West on the horns of a dilemma: It can either watch the Kremlin achieve its strategic objectives, guaranteed in a one-sided negotiated settlement or through the continued attrition of Ukrainian forces, or it can escalate with force. Putin’s statement regarding nuclear weapons was not mere rhetoric—it was the Russian president defining the limits of the current conflict from a position of authority.Anything short of total Ukrainian victory is therefore an implicit admission that the “rules-based” economic and political order has been irreversibly altered.
Others have taken note. The recent flare up in U.S. relations with Niger is a consequence of this: CitarThe pressure brought to Niger reveals that Washington is supporting the war against Russia for reasons other than the right of Ukraine to choose its partners and join NATO, or that that right only applies when the partner being chosen is the United States and NATO but not Russia. The core principle, then, is not the right of a sovereign nation to choose its partner, but the right of a sovereign nation to partner with the United States. The American attitude toward Niger and Russia reveals a second lesson. A key response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine was to isolate Russia and reinforce the U.S.-led unipolar world. It has not worked. The United States has expressed concern that the “Russian Federation is really trying to take over central Africa as well as the Sahel.” Thurston told me that the U.S. is “very worried about Russian influence throughout the Sahel, and it has a particular sting in Niger given the previous closeness of the relationship.” He added that the United States “seems to regard competition with Russia in Africa as zero-sum; whereas, most African governments don’t see things that way.” And that is the hallmark of the emerging multipolar world that the U.S. is trying to hold back. Saudi Arabia has said “we do not believe in polarization or in choosing between sides.” India’s Minister of External Affairs, S. Jaishankar, in his book, The Indian Way, describes the new multipolar world as one in which countries deal “with contesting parties at the same time with optimal results” for their “own self-interest.”Having lost its two main sources power, the rules based order as a (somewhat) soft power instrument and its military hard power superiority, the West is in need of a new instrument of deterrence, a new tool that allows it to press its interest against the will of other powers.It found that in demonstrating utter savagery.The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide. That it will do everything to prevent international organizations to intervene against this.That it is willing to eliminate everyone and everything that resists it.
The pressure brought to Niger reveals that Washington is supporting the war against Russia for reasons other than the right of Ukraine to choose its partners and join NATO, or that that right only applies when the partner being chosen is the United States and NATO but not Russia. The core principle, then, is not the right of a sovereign nation to choose its partner, but the right of a sovereign nation to partner with the United States. The American attitude toward Niger and Russia reveals a second lesson. A key response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine was to isolate Russia and reinforce the U.S.-led unipolar world. It has not worked. The United States has expressed concern that the “Russian Federation is really trying to take over central Africa as well as the Sahel.” Thurston told me that the U.S. is “very worried about Russian influence throughout the Sahel, and it has a particular sting in Niger given the previous closeness of the relationship.” He added that the United States “seems to regard competition with Russia in Africa as zero-sum; whereas, most African governments don’t see things that way.” And that is the hallmark of the emerging multipolar world that the U.S. is trying to hold back. Saudi Arabia has said “we do not believe in polarization or in choosing between sides.” India’s Minister of External Affairs, S. Jaishankar, in his book, The Indian Way, describes the new multipolar world as one in which countries deal “with contesting parties at the same time with optimal results” for their “own self-interest.”
March 25, 2024Deterrence By Savagery?v/EN-- https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/03/deterrence-by-savagery.html#morev/FR-- https://lesakerfrancophone.fr/la-dissuasion-par-la-sauvagerieCitar“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996)CitarWestern colonialism began in the fifteenth century and ended, with a few exceptions, in the mid of the 20th century. It was enabled by the development of technologies and fast population growth. The West then changed to a new model of ruling the world. It talked about human values and human rights and certain rules that would allegedly enable everyone to enjoy those.The facade did not hold up well. The West, and especially the U.S., abused the 'rules based order' by circumventing international law whenever it did not fit its interests. It continued to apply 'organized violence' under dubious circumstances. The wars against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were supposed to demonstrate that the West would uphold whatever rules it claimed to exist. But the wars were lost and the U.S. had to retreat from them.The war in Ukraine is only the latest but most obvious demonstration that the 'rules based order' no longer exists:CitarOver the past several decades, the United States has continually placed Moscow in a position either to accept the fait accompli of NATO expansion at the expense of Russian security interests, or to escalate with force and suffer the consequences of increased economic and political ostracization. This disincentive to avoid escalation has been effectively removed. Explicating the altered state of international relations is not cheerleading for the Russian position — although it may be treated as such by those who disingenuously present any realistic assessment of the situation as “appeasement” — but rather illustrating how Moscow has insulated itself from Western ostracization, thus changing the entire balance of power in not only Europe, but the world.Now, it is Russia that has the West on the horns of a dilemma: It can either watch the Kremlin achieve its strategic objectives, guaranteed in a one-sided negotiated settlement or through the continued attrition of Ukrainian forces, or it can escalate with force. Putin’s statement regarding nuclear weapons was not mere rhetoric—it was the Russian president defining the limits of the current conflict from a position of authority.Anything short of total Ukrainian victory is therefore an implicit admission that the “rules-based” economic and political order has been irreversibly altered.CitarOthers have taken note. The recent flare up in U.S. relations with Niger is a consequence of this: CitarThe pressure brought to Niger reveals that Washington is supporting the war against Russia for reasons other than the right of Ukraine to choose its partners and join NATO, or that that right only applies when the partner being chosen is the United States and NATO but not Russia. The core principle, then, is not the right of a sovereign nation to choose its partner, but the right of a sovereign nation to partner with the United States. The American attitude toward Niger and Russia reveals a second lesson. A key response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine was to isolate Russia and reinforce the U.S.-led unipolar world. It has not worked. The United States has expressed concern that the “Russian Federation is really trying to take over central Africa as well as the Sahel.” Thurston told me that the U.S. is “very worried about Russian influence throughout the Sahel, and it has a particular sting in Niger given the previous closeness of the relationship.” He added that the United States “seems to regard competition with Russia in Africa as zero-sum; whereas, most African governments don’t see things that way.” And that is the hallmark of the emerging multipolar world that the U.S. is trying to hold back. Saudi Arabia has said “we do not believe in polarization or in choosing between sides.” India’s Minister of External Affairs, S. Jaishankar, in his book, The Indian Way, describes the new multipolar world as one in which countries deal “with contesting parties at the same time with optimal results” for their “own self-interest.”Having lost its two main sources power, the rules based order as a (somewhat) soft power instrument and its military hard power superiority, the West is in need of a new instrument of deterrence, a new tool that allows it to press its interest against the will of other powers.It found that in demonstrating utter savagery.The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide. That it will do everything to prevent international organizations to intervene against this.That it is willing to eliminate everyone and everything that resists it.