The head of the Russian GRU reveals US plans against Venezuela (MUST SEE!)

The head of the Russian GRU reveals US plans against Venezuela (MUST SEE!)

May 02, 2019

The U.S. wants to change the government in Venezuela and use Colombia to do that. The head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Vice-Admiral Igor Kostyukov, stated that. He made that statement at the conference on international security. It was held last week in Moscow.

Advertisements

What Monroe Doctrine?

What Monroe Doctrine?

What Monroe Doctrine?

Because there is a presidential election coming up next year, the Donald Trump Administration appears to be looking for a country that it can attack and destroy in order to prove its toughness and willingness to go all the way in support of alleged American interests. It is a version of the old neocon doctrine attributed to Michael Ledeen, the belief that every once in a while, it is necessary to pick out some crappy little country and throw it against the wall just to demonstrate that the United States means business.

“Meaning business” is a tactic whereby the adversary surrenders immediately in fear of the possible consequences, but there are a couple of problems with that thinking. The first is that an opponent who can resist will sometimes balk and create a continuing problem for the United States, which has a demonstrated inability to start and end wars in any coherent fashion.

This tendency to get caught in a quagmire in a situation that might have been resolved through diplomacy has been exacerbated by the current White House’s negotiating style, which is to both demand and expect submission on all points even before discussions begin. That was clearly the perception with North Korea, where National Security Advisor John Bolton insisted that Pyongyang had agreed to American demands over its nuclear program even though it hadn’t and would have been foolish to do so for fear of being treated down the road like Libya, which denuclearized but then was attacked and destroyed seven years later. The Bolton mis-perception, which was apparently bought into by Trump, led to a complete unraveling of what might actually have been accomplished if the negotiations had been serious and open to reasonable compromise right from the beginning.

Trump’s written demand that Kim Jong Un immediately hand over his nuclear weapons and all bomb making material was a non-starter based on White House misunderstandings rooted in its disdain for compromise. The summit meeting with Trump, held in Hanoi at the end of February, was abruptly canceled by Kim and Pyongyang subsequently accused Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo of making “gangster-like” demands.

The second problem is that there are only a few actual casus belli situations under international law that permit a country to attack another preemptively, and they are usually limited to actual imminent threats. The current situation with Venezuela is similar to that with North Korea in that Washington is operating on the presumption that it has a right to intervene and bring about regime change, using military force if necessary, because of its presumed leadership role in global security, not because Caracas or even Pyongyang necessarily is threatening anyone. That presumption that American “exceptionalism” provides authorization to intervene in other countries using economic weapons backed up by a military option that is “on the table” is a viewpoint that is not accepted by the rest of the world.

In the case of Venezuela, where Trump has dangerously demanded that Russia withdraw the hundred or so advisors that it sent to help stabilize the country, the supposition that the United States has exclusive extra-territorial rights is largely based on nineteenth and early twentieth century unilaterally declared “doctrines.” The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 and the Roosevelt Corollary of 1904 de facto established the United States as the hegemon-presumptive for the entire Western Hemisphere, stretching from the Arctic Circle in the north to Patagonia in the south.

John Bolton has been the leader in promoting the Monroe Doctrine as justification for Washington’s interference in Venezuela’s politics, apparently only dimly aware that the Doctrine, which opposed any attempts by European powers to establish new colonies in the Western Hemisphere, was only in effect for twenty-two years when the United States itself annexed Texas and then went to war with Mexico in the following year. The Mexican war led to the annexation of territory that subsequently became the states of California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and Colorado. In the same year, the United States threatened war with Britain over the Oregon Territory, eventually accepting a border settlement running along the 49th parallel.

Meanwhile the march westward across the plains continued, forcing the Indian tribes back into ever smaller spaces of open land. The US government in the nineteenth century recognized some Indian tribes as “nations” but it apparently did not believe that they enjoyed any explicit “Monroe Doctrine” rights to continue to exist outside reservations when confronted by the “manifest destiny” proponents who were hell bent on creating a United States that would run from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

The Roosevelt Corollary of 1904 amended the Monroe Doctrine, making it clear that the United States believed it had a right to interfere in any country in the western Hemisphere to maintain good order, which inevitably led to exploitation of Latin American nations by US business conglomerates that could count on a little help from US Marines if their trade agreements were threatened. In 1898, Washington became explicitly imperialist when it defeated Spain and acquired effective control over Cuba, a number of Caribbean Islands and the Philippines. This led to a series of more than thirty interventions by the US military in the Caribbean and Central America between 1898 and 1934. Other states in the region that were not directly controlled by Washington were frequently managed through arrangements with local autocrats, who were often themselves generals.

Make no mistake, citing the Monroe Doctrine is little more than a plausible excuse to get rid of the Venezuelan government, which is legitimate, like it or not. The recent electrical blackouts in the country are only the visible signs of an aggressive campaign to destroy the Venezuelan economy. The United States is engaging in economic warfare against Caracas, just as it is doing against Tehran, and it is past time that it should be challenged by the international community over its behavior. Guns may not be firing but covert cyberwarfare is total warfare nevertheless, intended to starve people and increase their suffering in order to bring about economic collapse and take down a government to change it into something more amenable to American interests.

FINALLY, GUAIDO TO BE STRIPPED OF IMMUNITY; SYRIA REDUX

Image result for elliott abrams

(Photo Credit: Codepink.org) Elliott Abrams, a Zionist katsa neo-con slug has been tasked with overthrowing the legitimate president of Venezuela. This “ojete chingado” was convicted of lying to Congress back in the days of the Iran-Contra scandal and should have had his career terminated but for the fact that he is the kind of rodent loved by Washington’s neo-con cabal of murdering Zionist sociopaths.

Ziad Fadel

People are finally realizing that the situation in Venezuela is the same as that of Syria in 2011.  It is becoming increasingly clear that die-hard, entrenched Zionist neo-cons in Washington will not give up on their insane crusade to make the Zionist Apartheid State both unassailable and durable.  Maduro has taken our advice, evidently, and is studying the Syrian model closely.  The Russians, who are committed to Maduro’s survival, are also giving him advice based on the rich records they have of the war in Syria and their own involvement.  They have told him to stay put and control the streets.

In Syria, the so-called “peaceful” demonstrations were not enough to oust the sitting government in Damascus.   Dr. Assad stayed put.  The street demonstrations in both Der’ah and Homs transmogrified into a full-blown insurrection complete with Islamist fanatics, foreign mercenaries and, even direct assistance from NATO countries.  Some of you might remember the “Shpionshiffe” Merkel sent to the coastline of Turkey in order to monitor the movements of the SAA to help the terrorists to destabilize Syria.

I don’t believe the U.S. will follow that program for several reasons.  The first is that Gulf nations which had the ability to fund the arrival of tens of thousands of mercenaries to fight alongside the Syrian terrorists are no longer on speaking terms and are unlikely to try their hand again at regime change.  Both Saudi Arabia and Qatar are at odds with one another over terrorism support and relations with Iran.  The scenario in Venezuela is distant in both geography and politics.  If Elliott Abrams thinks he’s going to get a repeat of the disastrous intervention in Venezuela, he is in for a tough awakening.

Add to this the prospect of another insurrection against a sitting president when that president has the support of the Russian Federation.  Again, Abrams would be foolish not to consider again the disgraceful failure of the U.S. under Obama to effectuate a clean ouster of Dr. Assad.  It would be even more ignominious for the U.S. to fail in a country located well within the borders of the Monroe Doctrine, like Venezuela.

We must also remember that most Latin American countries are loath to invite the U.S. to invade a nation in South America.  Memories of the tragic death of Salvador Allende in Chile, with the blood-stained hands of the United States all too visible, remain a formidable disincentive for any Latin American president, even Bolsinaro, to contemplate accommodation with Washington.  Other incidents of Yanqui involvement include Cuba, Mexico and Nicaragua.  The U.S. simply cannot afford another debacle in its own backyard.  Supporting the CONTRAS was egregious enough in Nicaragua,  what with the surreptitious Iranian deal-making that brought the U.S. into international disrepute;  imagine the fallout if the U.S. were to engage the services of something like FARC to help topple President Maduro.  But, FARC is in the Maduro camp.  There is no Saudi Arabia or Qatar to finance the arrival of religious fanatics from the four corners of the world to help to unseat the legitimate president of Venezuela.  Elliott Abrams is looking into Nietsche’s darkest abyss.  And it’s staring back at him.

Maduro is clearly feeling better.  His Constituent Assembly has ordered Guaido’s immunity removed on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  It is obvious the upstart Yanque stooge is going to be arrested finally for treason.  The U.S. has repeatedly warned Maduro that arresting Guaido would cross a red line.  Abrams has said it.  So has Bolton.  And so have Pence and Pompeo.  Yet, it appears the Americans have talked themselves, once again, into a corner.  With all sanctions imposed on Venezuela, what is there left for Washington to do?  Invasion?  Surgical strikes on infrastructure?  They did all that in Syria and where did that get them?  In Libya, the Americans nihilistically bombed the country into pure devastation, destroying the nation with the highest standard of living in all Africa.  Hillary Clinton, shrieked with joy after telling the world that Qaddafi was dead.  And now, the Yanquis, and their miserable frog and limey allies are trying to pick up the pieces of one of history’s most reprehensible acts of political gluttony.  The U.S. cannot afford another disaster like that.  Or can it?

Oh, Europe will be aghast at the arrest of Guaido.  The Europeans will pontificate and self-congratulate themselves for their own civility.  They will tsk-tsk at Mr. Maduro, who, just like Dr. Assad, will blow his nose at the mentally corrupt hypocrites, like Macron, May and Merkel, all of them, descendants of the European barbarians who colonized the world with their toxic philosophies of greed and rapine – the same doctrines which led to the infamous creation of that metastatic, cancerous tumor known to my readers as the Zionist Entity.

Maduro stands with the Palestinian people.  That should be reason enough for well-meaning countries to stand up and fight to keep him in power.

Note to readers:  Until the Russians sell the S-400 to Turkey and Turkey begins to receive and deploy the systems, little will happen in Syria.  There is simply a scarcity of news.  .

 

‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine

‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine

FEDERICO PIERACCINI | 07.03.2019 | WORLD / AMERICAS

‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine

The previous articles (firstsecond) examined what appears to be a coordinated strategy between Moscow and Beijing to contain the damage wrought by the United States around the world. This strategy’s effectiveness relies heavily on the geographical position of the two countries vis-a-vis the United States and the area of contention. We have seen how the Sino-Russian strategy has been effective in Asia and the Middle-East, greatly stemming American disorder. Moscow and Beijing have less capacity to contain the US and influence events in Europe, given that much depends on the Europeans themselves, who are officially Washington’s allies but are in reality treated as colonies. With the new “America First” doctrine, it is the central and southern parts of the American continent that are on the receiving end of the US struggling to come to terms with the diminishment of its hitherto untrammelled influence in the world.

South and Central American countries blossomed under the reign of socialist or leftist anti-imperialist governments for the first decade of this century. Such terms as “21st-century socialism” were coined, as was documented in the 2010 Oliver Stone documentary film South of the Border. The list of countries with leftist governments was impressive: Fernando Lugo (Paraguay), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Lula da Silva (Brazil), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Argentina), Fidel Castro (Cuba), Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua) and Hugo Chávez (Venezuela).

We can establish a close correlation between Washington’s actions since 1989 and the political roller-coaster experienced in South America in the ensuing thirty years.

Washington, drunk on the experience of being the only superpower in the post-Soviet period, sought to lock in her commanding position through the establishment of full-spectrum dominance, a strategy that entails being able to deal with any event in any area of ​​the globe, treating the world as Washington’s oyster.

Washington’s endeavor to shape the world in her own image and likeness meant in practical terms the military apparatus increasing its power projection through carrier battle groups and a global missile defense, advancing towards the land and sea borders of Russia and China.

Taking advantage of the US dollar’s dominance in the economic, financial and commercial arenas, Washington cast aside the principles of the free market, leaving other countries to contend with an unfair playing field.

As later revealed by Edward Snowden, Washington exploited her technological dominance to establish a pervasive surveillance system. Guided by the principle of American exceptionalism, combined with a desire to “export democracy”, “human rights” became an enabling justification to intervene in and bomb dozens of countries over three decades, aided and abetted by a compliant and controlled media dominated by the intelligence and military apparatuses.

Central and South America enjoyed an unprecedented political space in the early 2000s as a result of Washington focusing on Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Georgia and Ukraine. The Latin Americans exploited this breathing space, with a dozen countries becoming outposts of anti-imperialism within a decade, advancing a strong socialist vision in opposition to free-market fundamentalism.

Both Washington and Moscow placed central importance on South America during the Cold War, which was part of the asymmetric and hybrid war that the two superpowers undertook against each other. The determination by the United States to deny the Soviet Union a presence in the American hemisphere had the world holding its collective breath during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As any student of international relations knows, the first objective of a regional power is to prevent the emergence of another hegemon in any other part of the world. The reason behind this is to obviate the possibility that the new power may venture into other regions occupied by other hegemonic powers, thereby upsetting the status quo. The second primary objective is to prevent access by a foreign power to its own hemisphere. Washington abides by this principle through its Monroe Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe, with the United States duly expelling the last European powers from the Americas in the early 19th century.

In analyzing the events in South America, one cannot ignore an obvious trend by Washington. While the United States was intent on expanding its empire around the world by consolidating more than 800 military bases in dozens of countries (numbering about 70), South America was experiencing a political rebirth, positioning itself at the opposite end of the spectrum from Washington, favoring socialism over capitalism and reclaiming the ancient anti-imperialist ideals of Simon Bolivar, a South American hero of the late 18th century.

Washington remained uncaring and indifferent to the political changes of South America, focusing instead on dominating the Middle East through bombs and wars. In Asia, the Chinese economy grew at an impressive rate, becoming the factory of the world. The Russian Federation, from the election of Putin in 2000, gradually returned to being a military power that commanded respect. And with the rise of Iran, destined to be the new regional power in the Middle East thanks to the unsuccessful US intervention in Iraq in 2003, Washington began to dig her own grave without even realizing it.

Meanwhile, South America united under the idea of a common market and a socialist ideology. The Mercosur organization was founded in 1991 by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. But it was only when Venezuela, led by Chavez, became an associate member in 2004 that the organization assumed a very specific political tone, standing almost in direct opposition to Washington’s free-market template.

Meanwhile, China and Russia continued their political, military and economic growth, focusing with particular attention on South America and the vast possibilities of economic integration from 2010. Frequent meetings were held between Russia and China and various South American leaders, culminating in the creation of the BRICS organization (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Brazil, first with Lula and then with Dilma Rousseff, was the unofficial spokesperson for the whole of South America, aligning the continent with the emerging Eurasian powers. It is during these years, from the birth of the BRICS organization (2008/2009), that the world began a profound transformation flowing from Washington’s progressive military decline, consumed as it was by endless wars that ended up eroding Washington’s status as a world power. These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have deeply undermined US military prestige, opening unprecedented opportunities for alliances and future changes to the global order, especially with the rise of Iran’s influence in the region as a counterweight to US imperialism.

China, Russia and the South American continent were certainly among the first to understand the potential of this political and historical period; we can recall meetings between Putin and Chavez, or the presence of Chinese leaders at numerous events in South America. Beijing has always offered high-level economic assistance through important trade agreements, while Moscow has sold a lot of advanced military hardware to Venezuela and other South American countries.

Economic and military assistance are the real bargaining chips Moscow and Beijing offer to countries willing to transition to the multipolar revolution while having their backs covered at the same time.

The transformation of the world order from a unipolar to a multipolar system became a fact in 2014 with the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation following the NATO coup in Ukraine. The inability for the US to prevent this fundamental strategic defeat for Brussels and Washington marked the beginning of the end for the Pentagon still clinging on to a world order that disappeared in 1991.

As the multipolar mutation developed, Washington changed tactics, with Obama offering a different war strategy to the one advanced during the George W. Bush presidency. Projecting power around the globe with bombs, carrier battle groups and boots on the ground was no longer viable, with domestic populations being in no mood for any further major wars.

The use of soft power has always been part of the US toolkit for influencing events in other countries; but given the windfall of the unipolar moment, soft power was set aside in favor of hard power. However, following the failures of explicit hard power from 1990 to 2010, soft power was back in favor, and organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) set about training and financing organizations in dozens of hostile countries to subvert governments by underhanded means (colour revolutions, the Arab Spring, etc.).

Among those on the receiving end of this soft-power onslaught were the South American countries deemed hostile to Washington, already under capitalist-imperialist pressure for a number of years in the form of sanctions.

It is during this time that South America suffered a side effect of the new multipolar world order. The United States started retreating home after losing influence around the globe. This effectively meant focusing once again on its own backyard: Central and South America.

Covert efforts to subvert governments with socialist ideas in the hemisphere increased. First, Kirchner’s Argentina saw the country pass into the hands of the neoliberal Macri, a friend of Washington. Then Dilma Rousseff was expelled as President of Brazil through the unlawful maneuvers of her own parliament, following which Lula was imprisoned, allowing for Bolsonaro, a fan of Washington, to win the presidential election.

In Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, the successor of Correa, betrayed his party and his people by being a cheerleader for the Pentagon, even protesting the asylum granted to Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London. In Venezuela following Chavez’s suspicious death, Maduro was immediately targeted by the US establishment as the most prominent representative of an anti-imperialist and anti-American Chavismo. The increase in sanctions and the seizure of assets further worsened the situation in Venezuela, leading to the disaster we are seeing today.

South America finds itself in a peculiar position as a result of the world becoming more multipolar. The rest of the world now has more room to maneuver and greater independence from Washington as a result of the military and economic umbrella offered by Moscow and Beijing respectively.

But for geographic and logistical reasons, it is more difficult for China and Russia to extend the same guarantees and protections to South America as they do in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. We can nevertheless see how Beijing offers an indispensable lifeline to Caracas and other South American countries like Nicaragua and Haiti in order to enable them to withstand Washington’s immense economic pressure.

Beijing’s strategy aims to limit the damage Washington can inflict on the South American continent through Beijing’s economic power, without forgetting the numerous Chinese interests in the region, above all the new canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific that runs through Nicaragua (it is no coincidence that the country bears the banner of anti-imperialist socialism) that will be integrated into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Moscow’s objective is more limited but just as refined and dangerous to Washington’s hegemony. A glimpse of Moscow’s asymmetrical military power was given when two Russian strategic bombers flew to Venezuela less than four months ago, sending an unmistakable signal to Washington. Moscow has the allies and the technical and military capacity to create an air base with nuclear bombers not all that far away from the coast of Florida.

Moscow and Beijing do not intend to allow Washington to mount an eventual armed intervention in Venezuela, which would open the gates of hell for the continent. Moscow and Beijing have few interlocutors left on the continent because of the political positions of several countries like Argentina, Brazil and Colombia, which far prefer an alliance with Washington over one with Moscow or Beijing. We can here see the tendency of the Trump administration to successfully combine its “America First” policy with the economic and military enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, simultaneously pleasing his base and the hawks in his administration.

Leaving aside a possible strategy (Trump tends to improvise), it seems that Trump’s domestic political battle against the Democrats, declared lovers of socialism (naturally not as strident as the original Soviet or Chavist kind), has combined with a foreign-policy battle against South American countries that have embraced socialism.

The contribution from China and Russia to the survival of the South American continent is limited in comparison to what they have been able to do in countries like Syria, not to mention the deterrence created by Russia in Ukraine in defending the Donbass or with China vis-a-vis North Korea.

The multipolar revolution that is changing the world in which we live in will determine the rest of the century. One of the final battles is being played out in South America, in Venezuela, and its people and the Chavist revolution are at the center of the geopolitical chessboard, as is Syria in the Middle East, Donbass in Central Europe, Iran in the Persian Gulf, and the DPRK in Asia. These countries are at the center of the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world order, and the success of this shift will be seen if these countries are able to resist US imperialism as a result of Moscow and Beijing respectively offering military help and deterrence and economic survival and alternatives.

Russia and China have all the necessary means to place limits on the United States, protecting the world from a possible thermonuclear war and progressively offering an economic, social and diplomatic umbrella to those countries that want to move away from Washington and enjoy the benefits of living in a multipolar reality, advancing their interests based on their needs and desires and favoring sovereignty and national interest over bending over to please Washington.

Viva Venezuela!

Viva Venezuela!

Saturday, 26 January 2019 10:54

Why Americans do consider themselves the inheritors and keepers of everything in their own selfish financial interests! It is the newly founded entity of the Puritans at the expense of the suffering and agonies of the millions of the civilized innocents living peacefully on their own territories, starting from the Red Indians to today’s innocents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela and in many other corners of today’s US savagery and craziness.

With Mr. Trump in power, the USA is more exposed with no figs leaves! Deep states’ schemes, greed, pressure groups’ interests, CIA and Pentagon blinded drives to obliterate and silence every non-US music! The USA , even before Monroe Doctrine in 1823, gives itself an alienable right to do whatever it deems right in the interests of its lobbies, industrialists, warmongers and the like, and with no consideration for any accountability nor responsibility.

The USA is now to topple another democratically-elected President on Venezuela!  Trump is even ready to ask his proxies to pain the sky black if he is to gain financial profits! Tens of pretexts, false flags and lies are in waiting as funny invalid like ”moderate opposition” , ”freedom”  and ”humanitarian” mottos.

 Trump claims Juan Guaido as the legitimate self-proclaimed President of Venezuela! Another US-made coup! In waiting, the series is still open-ended. This is America and its bloody interventions worldwide. As for Latin America, and according to AP report, as published by the Washington Post, this is but some of US dirty roles in Latin America:

Since the advent of the Monroe Doctrine in the early 19th century, the United States has involved itself in the daily affairs of nations across the hemisphere, often on behalf of North American commercial interests or to support right-leaning forces against leftist leaders.

That military involvement petered out after the end of the Cold War, although the U.S. has been accused of granting at least tacit backing to coups in Venezuela in 2002 and Honduras in 2009.

The Trump’s administration leading role in recognizing Juan Guaido as the interim president of Venezuela returns the U.S. to a more assertive role in Latin America than it has had for years.

Some of the most notable U.S. interventions in Latin America:

1846: The United States invades Mexico and captures Mexico City in 1847. A peace treaty the following year gives the U.S. more than half of Mexico’s territory — what is now most of the western United States.

1903: The U.S. engineers Panamanian independence from Colombia and gains sovereign rights over the zone where the Panama Canal would connect Atlantic and Pacific shipping routes.

1903: Cuba and the U.S. sign a treaty allowing near-total U.S. control of Cuban affairs. U.S. establishes a naval base at Guantanamo Bay.

U.S. Marines repeatedly intervene in Central America and the Caribbean throughout the first quarter of the 20th century, often to protect U.S. business interests in moments of political instability.

1914: U.S. troops occupy the Mexican port of Veracruz for seven months in an attempt to sway developments in the Mexican Revolution.

1954: Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz is overthrown in a CIA-backed coup.

1961: The U.S.-backed Bay of Pigs invasion fails to overthrow Soviet-backed Cuban leader Fidel Castro but Washington continues to launch attempts to assassinate Castro and dislodge his government.

1964: Leftist President Joao Goulart of Brazil is overthrown in a U.S.-backed coup that installs a military government lasting until the 1980s.

1965: U.S. forces land in the Dominican Republic to intervene in a civil war.

1970s: Argentina, Chile and allied South American nations launch brutal campaign of repression and assassination aimed at perceived leftist threats, known as Operation Condor, often with U.S. support.

1980s: Reagan administration backs anti-Communist Contra forces against Nicaragua’s Sandinista government and backs the Salvadoran government against leftist FMLN rebels.

1983: U.S. forces invade Caribbean island of Grenada after accusing the government of allying itself with Communist Cuba.

1989: U.S. invades Panama to oust strongman Manuel Noriega.

1994: A U.S.-led invasion of Haiti is launched to remove the military regime installed by a 1991 coup that ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The invasion restores Aristide.

2002: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is ousted for two days before retaking power. He and his allies accuse the U.S. of tacit support for the coup attempt.

2009: Honduran President Manuel Zelaya overthrown by military. U.S. accused of worsening situation by insufficient condemnation of the coup.

One cannot but, in light of the US long dirty history of sinister plots and assassination, to wonder whether the USA would move its proxy cells to, for example, assassinate Guaido so as to accuse Maduro supporteers! Does the USA live but on wars!

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Mohamad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

alibrahim56@hotmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/Mohamad.Abdo.AlIbrahim

http://www.presidentassad.net/

Related Videos

Related Articles

انقلاب واشنطن في كراكاس وسبل المواجهة البوليفارية…!

يناير 30, 2019

محمد صادق الحسيني

إنّ مخططات الولايات المتحدة العدوانية، وتصعيد التآمر المفتوح والمفضوح والمناقض لكافة القوانين والأعراف الدولية، تجاه فنزويلا ورئيسها ونظامها السياسي، ليس بجديد على السياسة الخارجية الأميركية ولا هو من اختراع الرئيس الأميركي الحالي، دونالد ترامب. إذ إنّ المؤامرات، التي تقوم بتنفيذها ادارة ترامب الحاليّة، تعود في الحقيقة الى بدايات القرن التاسع عشر وتعتبر امتداداً «لعقيدة مونروي» Monroe Doctrine ، التي أطلقها الرئيس الأميركي آنذاك، جيمس مونروي James Monroe وذلك عبر خطاب ألقاه امام الكونغرس الأميركي، بتاريخ 2/12/1923، والذي حدّد فيه الخطوط العريضة للسياسة الخارجية الأميركية، والتي تتمحور حول النقاط التالية:

1 – وجود منطقتي نفوذ في العالم Two Spheres . وتمثلت عندئذ في منطقة النفوذ الأميركية ومنطقة النفوذ الأوروبية.

2 – عدم تدخل الولايات المتحدة في الشؤون الداخلية الأوروبية، وسمّي هذا المبدأ بالانجليزية: Non –

Intervention، إلا في حال تجاهلت الدول الأوروبية هذه المبادئ.

3 – إنهاء أطماع الاستعمار، في منطقة النفوذ الغربية /أيّ الأميركيين / بمعنى وقف محاولات إعادة السيطرة على الدول التي نالت استقلالها حديثاً في تلك الحقبة. وقد سمّي هذا المبدأ

بالانجليزية: Non – Colonization.

4 – وعلى قاعدة ما ذكر أعلاه قام الرئيس الأميركي، في خطابه المذكور، بإطلاق شعار أميركا للأميركيين… وهو ليس بعيداً، في جوهره، عن شعار دونالد ترامب القائل: أميركا أولاً.

أما في ظلّ الصراع الدولي القائم حالياً على مناطق النفوذ، الذي تغذيه عدوانية الولايات المتحدة بأشكال وأساليب مختلفة، فإنّ صراع الولايات المتحدة الأميركية لم يعد مقتصراً على القوى الاستعمارية الاوروبية، للسيطرة على أميركا الجنوبية، كما كان الوضع في بداية القرن التاسع عشر، وإنما انتقل هذا الصراع الى دائرة أوسع وصلت الى روسيا والصين وإيران، نتيجة للتحوّلات الجيوسياسية التي شهدها العالم.

وعليه فقد عمدت الإدارة الأميركية الى توظيف وسائل وأساليب جديدة، بهدف مواصلة سيطرتها على مقدرات شعوب أميركا الجنوبية، والتي تعتمد على القوة العسكرية والنشاط المخابراتي التخريبي، الذي يهدف الى تحقيق سيطرة الولايات المتحدة المطلقة على كلّ قارة أميركا الجنوبية. وهو ما يعني محاربة أيّ حكومة او قوة سياسية، في تلك القارة تحاول أن تعارض سياسات الولايات المتحدة او حتى المطالبة بهامش أوسع من الاستقلالية، كما كان الوضع في البرازيل والأرجنتين وتشيلي في العقدين الماضيين، وصولاً الى صعود حركة اليسار البوليفارية في فنزويلا الى السلطة قبل حوالي عقدين من الزمن، وعبر انتخابات حرة ونزيهة. الأمر الذي دفع بالولايات المتحدة للعودة الى أساليب تغيير الحكومات الوطنية بالقوة، كما فعلت عام 1973 عندما دعمت مجموعة انقلابية تشيلية في تنفيذ انقلاب عسكري في تشيلي، أدّى الى قتل الرئيس الشرعي للبلاد، سلفادور الليِنْدي، واستيلاء عملاء الولايات المتحدة من الجنرالات على الحكم وإقامة نظام حكم عسكري قتل عشرات آلاف الأبرياء من الشعب التشيلي.

اذن، فقد عمدت الولايات المتحدة الى إعادة تفعيل سياسة إسقاط الحكومات والدول الوطنية في تلك القارة، وذلك من خلال:

أ – إقامة 76 قاعدة عسكرية في دول عدة من دول أميركا الجنوبية والبحر الكاريبي، التي من بينها: بنما/ بورتو ريكو /كولومبيا /البيرو .

ب – إقامة قواعد تجسّس وحرب إلكترونية/ إعلامية/ حرب نفسية في أميركا الجنوبية، للتأثير في الرأي العام هناك وتأليبه على الحكومات الوطنية.

ج- ومن أجل ذلك أقامت الولايات المتحدة قبل فترة وجيزة، بالتعاون مع الأرجنتين وعلى أراضٍ أرجنتينية، قاعدة تجسّس رئيسية أو إقليمية، أطلقوا عليها اسم مركز الأمن الإقليمي، وذلك عند المثلث الحدودي بين الأرجنتين والبرازيل والبراغواي.

د- توقيع اتفاقية تعاون عسكري بين البنتاغون ووزارة الدفاع البرازيلية، في شهر 11/2017، تقوم جيوش الدولتين بموجبها بتنفيذ تدريبات عسكرية مشتركة في غابات الأمازون.

إذن فهو نشاط عسكري أمني دعائي تخريبي واسع النطاق، يشمل المساحة الممتدّة من حدود المكسيك مع الولايات المتحدة شمالاً، وحتى القطب المتجمّد الجنوبي، في أقصى جنوب قارة أميركا الجنوبية. وهذا الأمر يستدعي إدارة العمليات في هذا المسرح الشامل بشكل منهجي ومخطط ومدروس ومن قبل جهات مختصة عالية الكفاءة، خاصة أنّ معركة السيطرة على هذه القارة ليست مقتصرة على المواجهة مع فنزويلا وكوبا، كما ذكرنا سالفاً.

ومن أجل تحقيق ذلك قامت الولايات المتحدة بما يلي:

أولاً: توسيع صلاحيات القيادة الجنوبية South COM في الجيوش الأميركية، بحيث تشمل تنسيق وإدارة كافة عمليات الجيوش الأميركية في أميركا الجنوبية.

ثانياً: توثيق العلاقة والتعاون بين هذه القيادة وبين وكالة الاستخبارات الجوفضائية الأميركية National Geospatial-intelligegence Agency . علماً أن هذه الوكالة هي أهمّ وكالة تجسّس عسكرية أميركية يشمل عملها الجانبين العسكري والتجاري بالإضافة الى الاستطلاع الميداني وإعداد الخرائط.

ثالثاً: إقامة ثلاثة غرف عمليات، للإشراف على إدارة الميدان في أميركا الجنوبية، حيث توجد الغرفة الأولى في ولاية فلوريدا الأميركية والثانية في سوتو كانو Soto Cano في هندوراس. أما الثالثة فتوجد في القاعدة الأميركية، المقامة على اراضٍ كوبية محتلة، في غوانتانامو Guant namo.

ولعلّ من الجدير بالذكر التنويه الى انّ قائد القيادة الجنوبية في الجيوش الأميركية، الأدميرال كورت تيد Kurt Tidd، قد لخّص التحديات والأهداف الأميركية وخططه الاستراتيجية، في أميركا الجنوبية لفترة السنوات العشر المقبلة، وخلال حديث له أمام الكونغرس الأميركي في شهر شباط 2018، بالنقاط التالية:

أ أنه وبالنظر الى القرب الجغرافي، بين الولايات المتحدة وأميركا الجنوبية، وبسبب العلاقات التجارية والمواضيع المتعلقة بالهجرة، فإنّ تأثير هذه القارة في الحياة اليومية للولايات المتحدة اكبر من تأثير أيّ منطقة أخرى في العالم.

ب أما التحدي الأهمّ، حسب ترتيب الأولويات من قبله، فيتمثل في محاربة الاتجار بالمخدرات وأعمال العصابات الإجرامية، المحلية – في دول أميركا الجنوبية – او تلك العابرة للحدود.

ج محاربة الوجود أو النفوذ المتزايد لكلّ من الصين وروسيا وإيران في أميركا الجنوبية.

من هنا فإنّ مواجهة الحملة التي بدأتها واشنطن، ضدّ الدولة الوطنية في فنزويلا ورئيسها البوليفاري، لن تكون سهلة ولا جولة صراع قصيرة وسريعة، وإنما ستكون مواجهة طويلة ومتجذرة وشاملة، تستخدم فيها الولايات المتحدة كافة الأسلحة والأدوات التي في حوزتها وهي كثيرة. مما يعني انّ الولايات المتحدة لن تعمد الى تنفيذ محاولة غزو فاشلة، كتلك التي نفّذتها في خليج الخنازير في كوبا بتاريخ 17/4/1962، وانما ستقوم بمواصلة الضغط الاقتصادي والمالي والحصار الخانق، الى جانب تنفيذ عمليات تخريبية واسعة ضدّ أهداف اقتصادية /نفطية / وكذلك ضدّ مراكز عسكرية وأمنية، معتمدة في ذلك على الإمكانيات اللوجستية لقواعدها العسكرية، الموجودة في كل من كولومبيا والبيرو المجاورتين لفنزويلا، وذلك لإشاعة الفوضى الشاملة في البلاد، تمهيداً لاستيلاء عملاء الولايات المتحدة في المعارضة الفنزويلية – المنقسمة على نفسها – على الحكم وإعادة سيطرة شركات النفط والتعدين الأميركية على ثروات فنزويلا وتكريس كون أميركا الجنوبية حديقة للولايات المتحدة الأميركية، وبالتالي التسبّب في عرقلة التعاون البنّاء والمثمر بين الثلاثي الصيني الروسي الإيراني ودول تلك القارة في الحدّ الأدنى.

وهذا أمر يستدعي:

تعميق وتوثيق التعاون بين الدول الثلاث، لإيجاد استراتيجية مشتركة لمواجهة المشروع الأميركي القاضي بإسقاط قارة أميركا الجنوبية، وبشكل سريع جداً، ينطلق من ضرورة تعزيز الصمود الاقتصادي لحكومة فنزويلا الوطنية.

– الأخذ بعين الاعتبار أنّ الدور الأوروبي، في هذه الازمة، هو دور الذيل التابع والذي ظهر واضحاً في المواقف التي اتخذتها الدول الأوروبية من الانقلاب واعتراف معظمها بمنفذ الانقلاب الأميركي الفاشل. هذا الموقف الذي يتساوق تماماً مع عقيدة الرئيس الأميركي السابق، جيمس مونرو 1923، الذي أعلن فيه أنّ الغرب أميركا الشمالية والجنوبية هو منطقة نفوذ للولايات المتحدة .

– تعزيز دعم التنظيمات والمجموعات والأحزاب اليسارية والتقدمية في عموم القارة، حتى لو كانت تبدو غير فاعلة حالياً، وذلك لأنّ ما يجري هناك هو حلقة من حلقات الصراع الجيوسياسي الدولي التي يجب أن تعطى حقها، والتي انْ تمكنت الولايات المتحدة بنتيجتها من تثبيت سيطرتها على أميركا الجنوبية، فإنّ ذلك سيعني توسيع السيطرة البحرية الأميركية في المحيطين الأطلسي والهادئ الأمر الذي سيلحق ضرراً استراتيجياً كبيراً بالنشاط البحري الصيني والروسي كما الإيراني أيضاً.

– لذا فإنّ المطلوب الآن، الى جانب الدعم الاقتصادي الواسع لحكومة الرئيس مادورو، هو البدء بالحشد السياسي الاستراتيجي، في قارة أميركا الجنوبية، تمهيداً لاستعادة المراكز القيادية، التي سقطت في أيدي الولايات المتحدة، في عدد من دول القارة، وهو أمر ليس مستحيلاً وإنما يحتاج الى قراءة دقيقة، للظروف الموضوعية في تلك الدول، والاستفادة من الإمكانيات المتوفرة، لدى الثلاثي الصيني الروسي الإيراني، واستثمارها سياسياً على المدى البعيد، وبأقصى درجات الكفاءة لضمان تحقيق النجاح على المدى المتوسط والبعيد.

بعدنا طيبين، قولوا الله.

Related Videos

Related Articles

 

Venezuela Crisis: U.S. Has Painted Itself Into Corner

South Fronts

29.01.2019 

Introduction

Venezuela has the dubious fortune of being located on the continent of South America, which the United States has treated under the so-called “Monroe Doctrine” as its exclusive zone of political, economic, and military influence. In practical terms it meant that whenever a Latin American government pursued a policy at odds with Washington’s preferences, it would be subjected to measures ranging from economic sanctions to outright military invasion.

Latin America became one of the many battlefields of the Cold War when several countries sought to leave the US shadow and align themselves with USSR. The US retaliation was harsh, and included the support for the brutal military coup in Chile, training of “death squads” in Honduras and El Salvador, support for the so-called Contras in Nicaragua, not to mention the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Once the Cold War was over, however, a relative peace settled over the region, with Cuba remaining the only hold-out against US power. Even the coming to power of soft Marxist “pink wave” governments in Venezuela and Bolivia did not seem to overly ruffle Washington’s feathers. But the current escalation of the US campaign against Venezuela suggests a revival of US activism in the region.

“Energy Dominance”

One might as well cut to the chase and state the obvious: Venezuela is not only a member of OPEC, it is also a country with the world’s largest known oil reserves dwarfing those even of Saudi Arabia. It is no coincidence that pretty much every country that has been on the US “hit list” in the last decade or so—Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela—is a major producer of hydrocarbons. Given that the global economy is utterly dependent on steady provision of hydrocarbons, US political control over these countries means a stranglehold over major industrial competitors to the United States, namely the EU and China. It also creates US jobs, once US oil companies establish control over the country’s oil fields. At the very least, should the effort to place the country under indirect US control fail, plunging it into chaos removes a competitor to struggling domestic US oil producers.

Monroe Doctrine Returns

The timing of the US escalation closely follows the visit by Russian Tu-160 strategic bombers to Venezuela during which the possibility of creating a Russian military base in the country was discussed by some media outlets. Given that Russia has by now established through the Syrian example that once Russian troops arrive in a country they are unlikely to leave no matter how great the US pressure, Washington may have decided to step up the pressure in the hopes of not only Russia but it’s other major competitor, China, from establishing themselves more firmly in the country. Russia’s Rosneft already has considerable presence in the Venezuela, assisting it with the development of its oil potential, and China has also made a number of investments in the country, though its economic footprint remains modest. Moreover, the US aggression against Venezuela sends a signal to the nearby Nicaragua, also a country facing increasing US political pressure, against pursuing a project of building a canal linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans with China’s support.

Thus far US actions consisted of economic sanctions and apparent coordination of coup attempts to be carried out by elements within Venezuela’s military and security forces. It is still difficult to make out what the Trump Administration’s recognition of Juan Guaido, the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, as the country’s “interim president” was supposed to represent. Even by the standards of Trump’s current foreign policy team of Pompeo and Bolton, “recognition” of a claimant to supreme executive office who does not actually occupy said office is unprecedented. Not even in the case of Syria, where the US has been far more directly involved in attempting to overthrown its legitimate government, was any opposition leader “recognized” as the official representative of the country itself. Therefore one may conclude Guaido’s “recognition” was supposed to follow the military coup which Guaido probably promised and Washington clearly expected. It is also difficult to say whether Guaido overestimated the degree of his support within the military or outright lied to his American sponsors. Either way, the US intelligence community has once again failed at providing an accurate assessment of the situation within a country, as Venezuela’s military rallied around President Maduro.

Bay of Pigs 2

United States has thus painted itself into a corner. Guaido’s recognition, which was moreover coordinated with the bulk of Latin America’s countries and with the European Union (which likewise points to a wider though failed conspiracy to overthrow Venezuela’s government) cannot very well be walked back. Maduro’s continued presidency has now become a challenge to US power at least as great as Assad’s. One can therefore expect stepped up US efforts to overthrow Venezuela’s government, though it remains to be seen how far the US is willing to go. An outright US military invasion appears unlikely at the moment. The most recent such effort has been in Panama during the George H.W. Bush administration, a far smaller and easier to control country. There is no evidence of US intelligence services training Venezuelan expats in the manner of the “Bay of Pigs” invasion force or the Nicaraguan contras. However, Venezuela is bordered by two countries ruled by far-right politicians closely allied to the United States, Brazil and Colombia. In the wake of the failed US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and with the US military retooling itself for great power confrontations, the US modus operandi in the past several years has been to use proxy armies. These may take the form of non-state actors funded and armed by US intelligence agencies or of friendly states, as in the case of Saudi Arabia’s invasion of Yemen. One could readily imagine the Yemen model used against Venezuela, but this time with a “Brazil-led” coalition doing Washington’s dirty work.

Bargaining Chip?

Last but not least, one must consider the possibility of Venezuela being treated as a bargaining chip in some sort of negotiation with Russia and/or China in the delineation of the great powers’ spheres of influence. This would mark a de-facto return to the policy of compensations wherein the balance of power is preserved by major powers ceding parts of their empires to others in exchange for gains elsewhere. Thus, for example, Washington could approach Moscow and  offer a “Venezuela for Syria” or even “Venezuela for Ukraine” bargain. While not out of the realm of possibility, it remains a difficult course of action to imagine for two reasons. The first is that there is little awareness of the limits of US power in Washington itself. The expectation is still of powering through any opposition. The second is that even if the offer were made, it would probably not be accepted in Moscow. Apart from the cost to Russia’s international image, the US at this point has very low credibility and trustworthiness.

Related News

%d bloggers like this: