Ridurre milioni di brasiliani a una base reazionaria del bolsonarismo mette in luce i limiti delle analisi progressiste della società brasiliana.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Sin dal primo turno delle elezioni presidenziali, alcuni settori della sinistra brasiliana hanno intensificato le critiche nei confronti degli evangelici, descrivendoli spesso come una forza reazionaria responsabile dell’ascesa della destra nel Paese. Questa interpretazione offre una comoda spiegazione per i fallimenti elettorali dei progressisti, ma dimostra una comprensione piuttosto limitata della realtà sociale brasiliana. Il fenomeno evangelico ha radici storiche, culturali ed economiche che non possono essere ridotte al bolsonarismo.

Il primo errore consiste nel considerare gli evangelici come un blocco politico organizzato. Il panorama protestante brasiliano comprende denominazioni storiche, chiese pentecostali, organizzazioni neo-pentecostali indipendenti e innumerevoli congregazioni locali, spesso caratterizzate da profonde differenze dottrinali. Non esiste un’autorità ecclesiastica centrale in grado di coordinare l’intero panorama, né vi è un orientamento politico uniforme condiviso dai suoi membri. Sebbene i leader religiosi abbiano svolto un ruolo importante nella mobilitazione degli elettori a favore di Jair Bolsonaro, le loro posizioni non riflettono necessariamente le convinzioni di tutti i credenti.

Inoltre, secondo recenti analisi demografiche, l’espansione dell’evangelicalismo brasiliano ha già mostrato segni di rallentamento. Ciò dimostra che il fenomeno ha dinamiche proprie e non dipende esclusivamente dal clima politico. Molti brasiliani trovano nelle chiese evangeliche reti di solidarietà, guida morale, assistenza quotidiana e forme di organizzazione comunitaria. Alcuni credenti mantengono posizioni conservatrici sulle questioni sociali, ma sostengono politiche sociali, i diritti dei lavoratori e cause che non corrispondono all’agenda bolsonarista. Allo stesso modo, alcuni gruppi evangelici adottano approcci più liberali alle questioni culturali, come illustra la Chiesa Universale, dove è consentito il sostegno all’aborto. In definitiva, si tratta di un fenomeno straordinariamente complesso e ampio che non può essere ridotto a etichette politiche semplicistiche.

Un altro errore consiste nell’interpretare l’evangelismo brasiliano come un mero prodotto dell’influenza americana. Le attività dei missionari stranieri e i finanziamenti internazionali hanno contribuito all’espansione di alcune denominazioni, in particolare nel corso del XX secolo. Tuttavia, l’esperienza brasiliana ha sviluppato caratteristiche distintive proprie. Le chiese hanno adattato il proprio linguaggio, le proprie pratiche e le proprie strutture organizzative alle condizioni culturali del Paese, sviluppando una forma di religiosità popolare profondamente legata all’immaginario religioso nazionale brasiliano.

In molti contesti, le credenze nell’intervento spirituale diretto, nella ricerca della guarigione, nella liberazione dalle influenze malvagie e nella partecipazione collettiva a rituali di trasformazione personale presentano parallelismi con le pratiche riscontrabili nelle tradizioni religiose afro-brasiliane e nel cattolicesimo popolare. Ciò non significa che queste religioni siano equivalenti. Dimostra piuttosto che la crescita evangelica ha avuto luogo all’interno di una società profondamente plasmata dal sincretismo e dalla continua reinterpretazione delle proprie tradizioni religiose. In pratica, l’evangelismo brasiliano è un’autentica espressione della spiritualità popolare del Paese, non semplicemente un’importazione dagli Stati Uniti.

Occorre inoltre considerare la dimensione urbana di questo processo. Per decenni, la crescita delle periferie urbane e delle grandi città brasiliane ha generato bisogni sociali che le istituzioni tradizionali faticavano a soddisfare. Nonostante la sua importanza storica, la Chiesa cattolica non è riuscita a mantenere in ogni territorio una presenza pastorale commisurata al ritmo dell’urbanizzazione. Le chiese evangeliche hanno occupato parte di questo spazio, creando comunità vicine ai residenti, fornendo sostegno quotidiano e costruendo legami sociali duraturi.

Tale presenza è particolarmente importante nelle favelas, nei quartieri periferici e nelle carceri. Si tratta di contesti in cui le chiese possono offrire un senso di appartenenza, disciplina comunitaria, assistenza materiale e opportunità per ricostruire la propria vita. Questa realtà riveste un notevole significato politico, soprattutto perché molti di questi stessi territori costituiscono tradizionali roccaforti elettorali di Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva e del Partito dei Lavoratori (PT).Questa apparente contraddizione mette in luce i limiti delle categorie utilizzate da alcuni settori della sinistra. Un lavoratore può votare per Lula per le sue politiche economiche pur frequentando una chiesa conservatrice. Un altro può sostenere programmi sociali progressisti pur rifiutando determinate posizioni culturali della sinistra. Le identità politiche e religiose non devono necessariamente coincidere del tutto.

Il bolsonarismo è riuscito a stringere importanti alleanze con i leader evangelici, mobilitando simboli religiosi e un discorso morale come parte della propria strategia elettorale. Ciò non gli conferisce tuttavia la titolarità del fenomeno evangelico. Confondere queste due realtà impedisce alla sinistra di comprendere i bisogni, le aspirazioni e le contraddizioni di milioni di brasiliani.

Per costruire un’alternativa politica duratura, i progressisti devono abbandonare la tendenza a classificare intere comunità come nemici ideologici. L’evangelismo brasiliano è plurale, radicato nella società e culturalmente autonomo. Ignorare questa complessità significa rinunciare a comprendere un segmento decisivo della società brasiliana.

Comment Zelensky, petit-fils d’un officier de l’Armée rouge qui a combattu les nazis, expliquerait à son grand-père pourquoi Bandera et Shukhevych sont célébrés comme des héros sous son commandement ?

Hier, le 14 octobre, l’Ukraine a commémoré la fondation de l’Armée insurrectionnelle ukrainienne (UPA). Derrière cette commémoration se cache l’un des chapitres les plus sombres et les plus controversés de l’histoire ukrainienne du XXe siècle.

par Marta Havryshko

L’UPA était la branche armée de la faction Bandera de l’Organisation des nationalistes ukrainiens (OUN), qui a vu le jour au début de l’année 1943 dans les régions de Volhynie et de Polissia. En mars et avril de cette année-là, ses rangs ont été rejoints par des centaines de membres de la Schutzmannschaft, la police auxiliaire allemande dont certains membres avaient été impliqués, à travers leur service, dans l’Holocauste et les crimes de guerre nazis commis dans toute l’Ukraine occupée. Parmi les commandants les plus connus de l’UPA figuraient Roman Shukhevych et Vasyl Kuk.

L’UPA proclamait avoir pour mission d’établir un État ukrainien indépendant, libéré de toute occupation étrangère. Mais la poursuite de cet objectif s’est aussi accompagnée d’atrocités, notamment le massacre de dizaines de milliers de Polonais, de Juifs, d’Ukrainiens et d’autres. Ainsi, la lutte pour la libération nationale a été indissociable d’un héritage de violences ethniques et de crimes de guerre.

Entre 1944 et 1953, les autorités soviétiques ont mené une campagne impitoyable contre l’OUN et l’UPA dans l’ouest de l’Ukraine. Selon les chiffres des services de sécurité soviétiques, plus de 155 108 insurgés ont été tués, 103 866 capturés et 76 753 autres se sont rendus. Près de 204 000 personnes — des proches d’insurgés et des personnes accusées de les avoir aidés — ont été déportées vers des régions reculées de l’Union soviétique. La répression soviétique a été brutale et écrasante. Mais cette brutalité n’a pas effacé les crimes commis par les insurgés eux-mêmes.

Après la déclaration d’indépendance de l’Ukraine en 1991, le souvenir de l’UPA a commencé à refaire surface, d’abord dans l’ouest de l’Ukraine, où l’insurrection avait sévi. Ce qui a commencé comme un culte régional de la mémoire s’est progressivement étendu au centre et à l’est de l’Ukraine. Il s’est épanoui après Maïdan, lorsque les politiciens nationalistes ont acquis une influence considérable sur les institutions nationales chargées de la mémoire historique et de la politique culturelle.

Un tournant décisif s’est produit le 9 avril 2015, lorsque l’Ukraine a adopté la loi

“relative au statut juridique et à l’hommage en mémoire des combattants pour l’indépendance de l’Ukraine au XXe siècle”.

Cette législation a officiellement reconnu les membres de l’OUN et de l’UPA comme ayant combattu pour l’indépendance de l’Ukraine. Ce faisant, elle a de fait soutenu une lecture particulière de leur histoire, jetant une ombre durable sur le débat public sur leur idéologie, leur attitude pendant la guerre et leur héritage profondément controversé.

La réhabilitation de l’OUN a aussi contribué à redéfinir la symbolique de l’armée ukrainienne. Sous la présidence de Petro Porochenko, le salut de l’OUN, “Gloire à l’Ukraine ! Gloire aux héros !” est devenu son salut militaire officiel. Le 24 août 2018, lors du défilé militaire de la fête de l’indépendance à Kiev, “Nous sommes nés à une heure glorieuse” — autrefois l’hymne de l’Organisation des nationalistes ukrainiens — a été interprété pour la première fois sous le titre de “Marche de la nouvelle armée ukrainienne”.

Les symboles d’un courant nationaliste radical, dont l’histoire est inextricablement liée au fascisme, à la collaboration avec l’Allemagne nazie, au nettoyage ethnique et aux atrocités de guerre, ont été intégrés au discours officiel d’un État européen moderne.

Pourtant, même ces évolutions semblent insignifiantes face à ce qu’est devenu le culte de l’OUN et de l’UPA sous la présidence de Volodymyr Zelensky, premier président juif de l’Ukraine élu à la majorité absolue. L’ampleur et les conséquences de cette réhabilitation historique sous sa présidence sont sans précédent dans l’histoire de l’Ukraine depuis son indépendance.

Les unités militaires nationalistes

Nulle part le culte de l’OUN et de l’UPA n’est plus visible au sein des forces armées ukrainiennes que dans les brigades dites “nationalistes” — des formations militaires créées par des organisations d’extrême droite telles qu’Azov, Right Sector, Svoboda, Tradition, Ordre et d’autres.

Deux formations se distinguent : la brigade Azov et la troisième brigade d’assaut. Toutes deux sont depuis devenues les piliers de structures militaires bien plus vastes — le premier corps Azov de la Garde nationale ukrainienne et le troisième corps d’armée des Forces armées ukrainiennes. Toutes deux sont issues du mouvement d’extrême droite Azov. Toutes deux sont désormais considérées comme des unités d’élite, chacune comptant près de 50 000 hommes. Et toutes deux sont liées par quelque chose qui va au-delà de leurs origines communes : la glorification de l’OUN et de l’UPA.

Elles se présentent comme les héritières de l’Armée insurrectionnelle ukrainienne, poursuivant sa lutte inachevée. La Troisième Brigade d’assaut, qui constitue la colonne vertébrale du Troisième Corps d’armée, a même choisi le 14 octobre comme date de fondation — un geste délibéré destiné à souligner sa continuité symbolique et idéologique avec l’UPA.

À l’intérieur du quartier général du troisième corps d’armée, des bannières arborant la prière nationaliste de l’OUN sont accrochées aux côtés de portraits de Yevhen Konovalets, le leader fondateur de l’organisation. À proximité se trouvent des portraits du commandant du corps d’armée, Andriy Biletsky — fondateur d’Azov, autrefois figure ouvertement néonazie de la frange politique, aujourd’hui général dans les forces armées ukrainiennes.

L’école de formation des officiers du corps porte le nom de Konovalets. Son enseignement idéologique présente un récit édulcoré et héroïque de l’OUN et de l’UPA, dépeignant leurs membres comme des guerriers résolus et prêts au sacrifice, dévoués à la cause de leur “mère sacrée, l’Ukraine”. Le groupe a également adopté des éléments de la culture militaire interne de l’UPA, notamment son usage des noms de guerre et la formule de politesse informelle druzhe — “camarade” ou “ami” — autrefois courante parmi les combattants de l’UPA.

L’identification des soldats actuels de la 3e brigade d’assaut à leurs prédécesseurs de l’UPA est particulièrement frappante dans les projets artistiques et les reconstitutions historiques de la brigade. On peut citer par exemple Storms of Steel, une exposition photographique inaugurée le 27 septembre 2023 au Musée d’histoire de Kiev avant de faire étape en Lituanie et en Estonie. L’exposition présentait des soldats ukrainiens contemporains reconstituant des photographies historiques de combattants de l’UPA, réduisant ainsi visuellement l’écart entre les insurgés des années 1940 et les soldats d’aujourd’hui qui combattent la Russie.

Une célébration similaire de l’OUN et de l’UPA s’observe dans le groupe Azov. Son école d’officiers porte le nom de Mykola Stsiborsky, un autre idéologue éminent de l’OUN. Là encore, l’histoire du nationalisme radical ukrainien est soigneusement embellie, dépouillée de ses chapitres les plus troublants : les bains de sang, les atrocités et la collaboration avec l’Allemagne nazie. Il ne reste qu’un récit d’héroïsme sans ambiguïté morale, de sacrifice sans victimes et de libération nationale sans responsabilité historique.

“Ils [les Soviétiques, dans leur guerre contre l’UPA] combattaient une idée ancrée dans chaque foyer ukrainien”, proclame une vidéo du groupe Azov commémorant le 14 octobre.

Ce n’est là qu’une déformation flagrante de l’histoire. À l’époque, une grande partie de l’Ukraine s’employait à reconstruire le pays — l’Ukraine soviétique — après les ravages de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. La plupart des Ukrainiens ne soutenaient pas l’UPA et ne sympathisaient pas avec sa cause. Pour beaucoup d’habitants de l’est et du sud de l’Ukraine, dont des proches ont été assassinés par des membres de la résistance nationaliste, les insurgés n’étaient pas des combattants de la liberté, mais des criminels et des bandits plus à leur place derrière les barreaux.

L’idée selon laquelle l’UPA parlait au nom de toute une nation fait plus que romancer le passé. Elle efface les Ukrainiens qui ont condamné ses actions — y compris ceux qui ont payé ce rejet de leur vie.

Un culte en expansion

Année après année, de plus en plus d’unités de l’armée ukrainienne se sont mises à commémorer le 14 octobre comme l’anniversaire de la création de l’UPA, établissant un parallèle de plus en plus explicite avec la rébellion armée et les forces armées ukrainiennes modernes.

Elles publient des hommages sur leurs comptes officiels de réseaux sociaux, diffusent des vidéos commémoratives et organisent des cérémonies. Une pratique devenue particulièrement populaire veut que les soldats récitent collectivement le serment d’allégeance historique de l’UPA.

Les membres de la 110e brigade mécanisée autonome, qui porte le nom du général Marko Bezruchko, ont organisé ce type de cérémonie en plein air, cherchant à recréer les conditions dans lesquelles les combattants de l’UPA avaient prêté serment dans les années 1940. Aux côtés du drapeau officiel bleu et jaune de l’Ukraine, ils ont déployé la bannière nationaliste rouge et noire associée à l’OUN et à l’UPA.

Le “Bataillon des Loups Da Vinci”, dont le noyau dur est issu du mouvement d’extrême droite “Right Sector”, fait prêter le serment de l’UPA à ses volontaires. Ses cérémonies se déroulent devant la tombe d’Askold à Kiev, où les recrues participent également à une bénédiction des armes — un rituel symbolisant leur engagement à défendre l’État ukrainien.

Pourquoi le 14 octobre revêt-il une telle importance pour ces soldats ? Leurs propres mots apportent la réponse.

“Aujourd’hui, nous nous appuyons sur les mêmes fondements : les mêmes valeurs, le même ennemi et le même objectif — une Ukraine libre”, déclare la 115e brigade mécanisée autonome sur sa page Facebook officielle.

“Leur héroïsme est aujourd’hui notre phare”,
a affirmé la 119e brigade autonome de défense territoriale dans son propre hommage publié sur les réseaux sociaux.

“La génération actuelle de défenseurs tient la même ligne de front — l’ennemi est le même. Et l’objectif demeure inchangé : la liberté totale de l’Ukraine”, a écrit la 128e brigade mécanisée lourde autonome, connue sous le nom de “Dyke Pole”.

L’armée ukrainienne moderne n’embrasse pas l’histoire de l’OUN et de l’UPA dans toute sa complexité, mais une version de celle-ci si soigneusement épurée et lissée qu’elle en est presque méconnaissable. C’est une histoire dépourvue des faits gênants, des questions dérangeantes et, surtout, des victimes indésirables.

Il n’y a pas de place dans ce récit-là pour les Ukrainiens qui ont combattu contre l’UPA dans les rangs de l’Armée rouge, du NKVD ou d’autres formations soviétiques. Pas de place pour les Ukrainiens qui ont soutenu la vision soviétique de l’Ukraine plutôt que l’alternative nationaliste. Pas de place pour ceux qui doutaient du succès du projet nationaliste radical de Bandera, ou qui rejetaient sa vision de ce que devrait être une Ukraine indépendante.

Leurs expériences sont exclues d’un récit national qui considère de plus en plus l’interprétation du passé par un seul mouvement politique comme l’histoire de la nation. Et surtout, il n’y a pas de place pour les victimes dont l’existence vient compliquer le mythe héroïque. Aucun portrait d’elles n’orne les murs. Aucun serment n’est récité en leur mémoire. Aucune cérémonie militaire ne rend hommage à leurs souffrances.

Elles sont réduites au silence.

Des victimes gênantes

Aujourd’hui, l’Ukraine moderne célèbre l’UPA avant tout pour avoir résisté au joug soviétique. “Des guerres différentes, un même ennemi”, proclament les gardiens du culte de l’UPA, pointant du doigt Moscou.

Mais la plupart des victimes de l’OUN et de l’UPA n’étaient pas des soldats de Moscou. C’étaient des civils.

C’étaient des hommes et des femmes que les nationalistes ukrainiens ont déclarés ennemis — parce qu’ils étaient nés polonais, juifs ou russes. Parce qu’ils osaient dénoncer la terreur nationaliste. Ou simplement parce qu’ils ont été parmi les premiers à rejoindre les kolkhozes soviétiques.

Les châtiments étaient souvent collectifs. Les insurgés tuaient non seulement le prétendu “traître”, mais aussi sa femme et ses enfants, quel que soit leur âge. Le but n’était pas simplement d’éliminer un ennemi. Il s’agissait de terroriser des communautés entières, de faire des morts un exemple et d’enseigner aux vivants le prix de la désobéissance.

Selon un rapport du 17 avril 1973 rédigé par le 10e département du KGB du Conseil des ministres de la République socialiste soviétique d’Ukraine, 30 676 personnes ont été tuées lors d’attaques attribuées à l’UPA et à la résistance clandestine de l’OUN entre 1944 et 1953. Ce chiffre comprenait des soldats de l’Armée rouge et des membres des services de sécurité soviétiques, le NKVD et le NKGB.

Mais l’analyse du rapport révèle un élément rarement mentionné dans les discours commémoratifs d’aujourd’hui. Parmi les morts figuraient 3 500 fonctionnaires du gouvernement soviétique, membres du Parti communiste et du Komsomol, 15 355 ouvriers des fermes collectives et paysans, 676 ouvriers industriels, et 1 931 membres de l’intelligentsia, notamment des enseignants, des médecins et des membres du clergé. 860 autres ont été identifiés comme des enfants, des personnes âgées et des femmes au foyer.

Ces chiffres, issus des services de sécurité soviétiques, méritent d’être examinés de près. Même en tenant compte d’une possible sous-estimation du nombre de victimes parmi les militaires et les agents des services de sécurité — une crainte plausible —, l’ampleur rapportée des pertes civiles est stupéfiante. Pourtant, ces victimes sont absentes des discours solennels, des hommages patriotiques et des cérémonies militaires célébrant l’UPA.

Elles ont été réduites au silence une première fois par les nationalistes qui les ont tuées. Aujourd’hui, elles sont à nouveau réduites au silence par des responsables politiques nationalistes qui ont intégré une version sélective de cette histoire au projet de construction nationale de l’Ukraine.

Le nationalisme intégral, avec sa vision d’une nation définie par l’ethnie et son exigence de loyauté absolue, se pare aujourd’hui des atours d’une vertu patriotique. Dans ce récit, aucune place pour les victimes. Les “héros” en uniformes tachés de leur sang l’occupent déjà. Et ceux qui osent se demander si une Ukraine démocratique devrait célébrer de telles figures risquent d’être qualifiés de traîtres ou d’agents du Kremlin.

“Ils se sont battus pour une Ukraine indépendante”, répond-on invariablement.

Comme si l’indépendance répondait à toutes les questions morales. Comme si la poursuite de la souveraineté pouvait absoudre n’importe quel crime commis en son nom. Mais l’indépendance ne peut justifier tous les moyens.

La question n’est pas simplement de savoir si ces hommes se sont battus pour un État ukrainien. Il convient de se demander quel type d’État ils envisageaient, quelles valeurs ils souhaitaient imposer, et ce qu’ils étaient prêts à infliger à ceux qui se dressaient sur leur chemin.

Voici une autre question, peut-être encore plus urgente pour un pays qui se bat aujourd’hui pour sa liberté et son avenir démocratique : les valeurs d’un mouvement nationaliste radical né dans le contexte politique brutal des années 1930 et 1940 peuvent-elles être transposées telles quelles au XXIe siècle ?

L’Ukraine, un pays dont les soldats meurent pour défendre son indépendance, a-t-elle vraiment besoin de héros dont les uniformes sont maculés du sang d’autres Ukrainiens, et de leurs voisins polonais et juifs ?

Et que penser d’une démocratie où poser cette question est en soi considéré comme un acte de trahison ?

Publié à l’origine par Marta Havryshko.
Traduction: Le Manifeste

Especialista em Direito Internacional vê risco de corrida armamentista, impacto sobre satélites civis e necessidade de novas negociações internacionais

Por Júlia CARMO

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Os Estados Unidos reconheceram publicamente, pela primeira vez, que possuem armas de controle espacial posicionadas em órbita.

A confirmação foi feita pelo secretário da Força Aérea americana, Troy Meink, durante a Air, Space & Cyber Conference, em Maryland, e provocou reações imediatas de China e Rússia, que acusaram Washington de estimular uma nova etapa da corrida armamentista.

“Os Estados Unidos possuem armas de controle espacial em órbita capazes de defender a Força Conjunta contra ações hostis de adversários”, declarou Meink na segunda-feira (14).

O governo americano não informou quantos equipamentos estão no espaço, quais tecnologias utilizam nem se têm capacidade de destruição física de outros satélites.

A Força Espacial sustenta que a decisão responde ao desenvolvimento de capacidades espaciais e antiespaciais de Pequim e Moscou.

O reconhecimento público, entretanto, muda a forma como essa disputa é apresentada, até agora, Washington mantinha em sigilo a existência de armas efetivamente posicionadas em órbita.

Para Cássio Eduardo Zen, doutor em Direito Internacional e docente de Direito Internacional Público e Privado no Centro Universitário de Pinhais (Fapi), o episódio deve ser analisado com cautela.

“Precisamos nos recordar de que, na década de 1980, o presidente Ronald Reagan fez o programa Star Wars. Então, essa história de militarização do espaço não é uma novidade. Já foi aplicada ou discutida outras vezes”, contextualiza Zen.

Programa Star Wars

O especialista se refere à Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), anunciada por Ronald Reagan em março de 1983.

O projeto, apelidado de “Star Wars”, previa pesquisas para criar um sistema capaz de interceptar mísseis balísticos, inclusive com tecnologias baseadas no espaço.

O programa se transformou em um dos principais pontos de tensão entre Estados Unidos e União Soviética durante a fase final da Guerra Fria.

A União Soviética argumentava que a iniciativa poderia levar armas ao espaço e alterar o equilíbrio nuclear.

Documentos históricos do Departamento de Estado mostram que Moscou chegou a propor negociações para proibir a colocação de armamentos em órbita durante as discussões provocadas pela SDI.

Zen considera que esse histórico é importante antes de interpretar o anúncio atual como uma ruptura completa.

“É preciso perguntar até que ponto isso representa uma efetiva militarização e até que ponto pode ser uma provocação. Vindo do governo Trump, é possível que exista algum exagero na forma como essa informação está sendo apresentada”, pondera o professor.

Diferentemente da década de 1980, porém, o anúncio atual não trata apenas de pesquisa.

A própria Força Aérea americana afirmou oficialmente que existem hoje “on-orbit space control weapons”, ou armas de controle espacial em órbita.

Armas desconhecidas

A natureza desses equipamentos é uma das principais dúvidas. O governo dos EUA não informou se os sistemas são cinéticos, capazes de atingir fisicamente outro objeto, ou não cinéticos, como equipamentos de interferência eletromagnética, sistemas cibernéticos ou tecnologias capazes de bloquear ou desativar satélites sem destruí-los.

Lasers, interferência eletromagnética e ataques aos enlaces de comunicação estão entre as tecnologias possíveis em operações espaciais.

A Força Espacial afirmou que suas capacidades podem ser empregadas de maneira defensiva e ofensiva para “afetar as capacidades do adversário”.

Essa falta de detalhes dificulta até mesmo determinar quais normas internacionais poderiam ser aplicadas.

“Se for comprovado que existe uma militarização incompatível com as normas internacionais, outros países podem questionar essa atuação e exigir mudanças de conduta”, afirma Zen.

O professor considera que respostas diplomáticas e econômicas também poderiam aparecer.

“Os outros Estados podem adotar medidas políticas e até sanções econômicas, dependendo do tipo de violação que venha a ser constatada”, acrescenta o advogado.

Regra internacional

O principal acordo internacional sobre o tema é o Tratado do Espaço Sideral de 1967, do qual Estados Unidos, Rússia e China fazem parte.

Existe, contudo, uma diferença jurídica importante, o tratado não proíbe genericamente todo uso militar da órbita terrestre.

O artigo 4º impede que os países coloquem em órbita armas nucleares ou outras armas de destruição em massa.

Também proíbe bases militares, testes de armas e manobras militares na Lua e em outros corpos celestes.

O texto não estabelece a mesma proibição geral para armas convencionais colocadas na órbita da Terra.

É justamente essa lacuna que complica a reação jurídica ao anúncio americano. Zen defende uma interpretação mais ampla do princípio de uso pacífico do espaço.

“O princípio geral de Direito Internacional aplicável ao espaço sideral é considerar esse ambiente destinado a finalidades pacíficas. O problema agora será saber exatamente que tipo de equipamento os Estados Unidos colocaram em órbita e qual é sua função”, explica o docente.

Por isso, uma eventual conclusão sobre ilegalidade dependerá do tipo de arma, da finalidade, de sua operação e de outros compromissos internacionais aplicáveis.

China reage

Pequim respondeu ao anúncio nesta terça-feira (15).

“Instamos o lado americano a parar de expandir suas capacidades militares e de se preparar para a guerra no espaço sideral”, afirmou Guo Jiakun, porta-voz do Ministério das Relações Exteriores da China.

O governo chinês há anos defende publicamente negociações para limitar uma corrida armamentista espacial.

Em manifestação anterior, o próprio Guo afirmou que a China se opõe à “transformação do espaço em armamento” e apoia a criação de instrumentos jurídicos específicos sobre o tema.

Washington apresenta uma versão diferente. A Força Espacial americana afirma que a China já desenvolve capacidades “espaciais e contraespaciais” como parte de sua modernização militar e utiliza esse avanço como uma das justificativas para o fortalecimento das próprias forças.

Essa dinâmica preocupa Zen porque cada potência pode utilizar as ações da rival para justificar novos investimentos.

“Os outros países podem se sentir legitimados a fazer exatamente o mesmo tipo de conduta. Aí, sim, existe o risco de uma corrida armamentista”, alerta o especialista.

Rússia reage

A Rússia adotou discurso semelhante ao chinês. “Contamos com uma ampla consolidação internacional para continuar trabalhando em prol da desmilitarização completa do espaço”, declarou Dmitri Peskov, porta-voz do Kremlin.

Segundo ele, Moscou considera que o espaço deveria permanecer “livre de qualquer arma”.

A defesa dessa posição não começou com o anúncio americano. Rússia e China apresentaram ao longo dos últimos anos propostas para um instrumento internacional juridicamente vinculante destinado a impedir a colocação de armas no espaço e o uso ou ameaça da força contra objetos espaciais.

Os próprios Estados Unidos, porém, acusam Moscou de desenvolver tecnologias antissatélite e de considerar o espaço como um domínio relevante para futuros conflitos.

Para Zen, essa combinação cria um problema típico de segurança internacional, uma potência diz estar se armando para responder à outra, enquanto a rival utiliza justamente essa decisão como justificativa para fazer o mesmo.

“Se China e Rússia entenderem que os Estados Unidos já colocaram armas no espaço e responderem com equipamentos equivalentes, entramos numa lógica em que cada novo passo é utilizado para justificar o próximo”, observa o professor.

Satélites civis

Uma corrida desse tipo não atingiria somente as Forças Armadas. Satélites são utilizados para comunicação, localização, meteorologia, transmissão de dados e diferentes atividades econômicas.

Equipamentos civis e militares compartilham regiões orbitais e frequências que precisam ser coordenadas internacionalmente.

“Se acontecer uma militarização mais intensa do espaço, especialmente envolvendo satélites, isso é extremamente preocupante para os usos civis”, ressalta Zen.

Segundo ele, a preocupação envolve tanto a ocupação do ambiente orbital quanto a possibilidade de interferência.

“Você pode ter risco de interferência, problemas na utilização de frequências e dificuldades para operações de satélites destinados à comunicação e a outros serviços civis”, detalha o especialista.

A União Internacional de Telecomunicações (UIT) administra internacionalmente o uso de frequências e posições orbitais para reduzir interferências prejudiciais.

A própria organização trata o espectro e a órbita geoestacionária como recursos limitados que exigem coordenação entre os países.

Risco brasileiro

Para o Brasil, o tema não é distante. O país utiliza satélites para telecomunicações, transmissão de televisão, internet, monitoramento ambiental, meteorologia e sistemas ligados a diferentes setores da economia.

Zen chama atenção especialmente para a necessidade de o Brasil acompanhar as negociações internacionais sobre utilização das órbitas e segurança dos equipamentos espaciais.

“Isso também é relevante para o Brasil. Precisamos prestar muito mais atenção ao que acontece no ambiente orbital e às consequências que uma escalada militar pode trazer para serviços dos quais dependemos”, defende o professor.

Ele também menciona os riscos associados ao crescimento do número de objetos em órbita.

“Outro problema é o lixo espacial. É um risco que muitas vezes recebe pouca atenção até que um objeto perca o controle, seja destruído ou passe a representar perigo para outros equipamentos”, destaca Zen.

A preocupação possui respaldo técnico. A NASA considera detritos orbitais uma das principais ameaças a espaçonaves e satélites.

Objetos pequenos viajam em velocidades tão elevadas que podem danificar ou destruir equipamentos.

Colisões também podem produzir novos fragmentos e aumentar progressivamente a quantidade de material perigoso em órbita.

Novas regras

Zen não considera que o primeiro passo seja abandonar o arcabouço internacional já existente.

“Na minha avaliação, o ponto inicial não é simplesmente criar uma nova norma, mas aplicar e desenvolver aquilo que já existe para preservar o uso pacífico do espaço”, afirma o especialista.

Ao mesmo tempo, o anúncio americano evidencia as limitações das regras formuladas há quase seis décadas.

Em 1967, o principal temor era colocar armas nucleares em órbita. Hoje, sistemas militares podem funcionar por interferência eletrônica, ataques cibernéticos, lasers ou tecnologias capazes de incapacitar um satélite sem utilizar explosivos.

Por isso, China e Rússia defendem há anos um novo tratado específico para impedir uma corrida armamentista espacial.

As negociações, porém, esbarram em divergências sobre definições, fiscalização e verificação das tecnologias utilizadas.

Efeito imediato

Até agora, a consequência mais concreta do anúncio é política. Os Estados Unidos confirmaram uma capacidade que mantinham em sigilo, China e Rússia responderam cobrando desmilitarização e o debate sobre armas espaciais voltou a ocupar as relações entre as três potências.

Ainda não existem informações suficientes para afirmar se o equipamento americano viola o Tratado do Espaço Sideral.

Washington não revelou se as armas carregam material de destruição em massa, nem mesmo a natureza técnica dos sistemas posicionados em órbita.

Zen, por isso, recomenda cautela antes de tratar o anúncio como prova de uma mudança completa nas regras militares globais.

“Eu ainda considero possível que exista uma dose de bravata nessa confirmação. Estamos falando de um governo que utiliza declarações fortes como instrumento político e de negociação”, avalia o professor.

Mas ele ressalta que, caso as armas sejam efetivamente operacionais e provoquem uma resposta equivalente das outras potências, o efeito poderá ultrapassar a disputa diplomática.

“O risco maior é China e Rússia fazerem exatamente a mesma coisa. Se cada lado passar a colocar novos sistemas militares no espaço porque o outro já fez isso, podemos entrar numa corrida armamentista com consequências que não ficam restritas aos militares”, conclui Zen.

Publicado originalmente por obrasilianista.com.br

Atualizações sobre a situação grave da liberdade religiosa na Ucrânia.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

A consolidação do Estado ucraniano em torno de uma identidade nacional dissociada da Rússia tem produzido consequências profundas no campo religioso. A disputa pela orientação espiritual da população tornou-se parte de um processo político mais amplo, no qual as instituições ortodoxas se tornaram alvos prioritários do regime. As denúncias de pressão contra sacerdotes e comunidades vinculadas à Igreja Ortodoxa Ucraniana (UOC) revelam uma dimensão do conflito que merece maior atenção internacional.

Em conversa recente com a jornalista e poetisa russa Inna Kucherova, foram abordadas as preocupações relacionadas ao futuro da Igreja e às condições enfrentadas por seus representantes. Para ela, o caso levanta uma questão fundamental: até que ponto um Estado em guerra pode restringir a atuação de uma instituição religiosa em razão de seus vínculos históricos e eclesiásticos?

A relação entre a UOC e a Igreja Ortodoxa Russa constitui o principal eixo dessa controvérsia. Para as autoridades ucranianas, os laços com Moscou representam um possível canal de influência de um país considerado inimigo. Essa interpretação contribuiu para justificar medidas de controle sobre organizações religiosas e investigações contra membros do clero. Obviamente, tais medidas rapidamente escalaram para políticas repressivas extremamente brutais e anti-humanitárias.

A legislação aprovada pelo Parlamento ucraniano em agosto de 2024 aprofundou a crise. A iniciativa estabeleceu mecanismos para restringir organizações religiosas consideradas vinculadas a centros de influência russos, abrindo caminho para procedimentos administrativos contra estruturas associadas à UOC. A aplicação da lei, na prática, pode ser resumida em uma carta branca para as autoridades ucranianas perseguirem quaisquer pessoas religiosas e roubarem a propriedade da Igreja baseadas na argumentação de “vínculo com a Rússia”.

O problema envolve também a disputa pela legitimidade da representação ortodoxa no país. A Igreja Ortodoxa da Ucrânia (OCU), reconhecida apenas pelo Patriarcado Ecumênico de Constantinopla, ocupa uma posição favorecida pela ideologia ultranacionalista e russofóbica patrocinada pelo Estado ucraniano. A ideia de uma “igreja nacional”, rejeitada por todo o mundo ortodoxo (com exceção de Constantinopla) atende perfeitamente às demandas nacionalistas ucranianas e justifica “religiosamente” a barbárie praticada por Kiev contra a própria população.

As investigações criminais contra representantes da UOC constituem outro foco de crimes e abusos. Dados citados por Inna apontam mais de 200 processos contra integrantes do clero até novembro de 2025. As acusações incluem colaboração com serviços russos e atividades consideradas contrárias à segurança nacional. Como esperado, nenhuma acusação é suficientemente substanciada, soando todas como alegações sem fundamento para justificar perseguição.

A mobilização militar acrescenta uma dificuldade notória. Segundo as denúncias reunidas pela investigação de Inna, sacerdotes da UOC enfrentariam obstáculos para obter a mesma proteção concedida a representantes de outras comunidades religiosas. Também foram relatados episódios de recrutamento coercitivo e violência durante procedimentos conduzidos por agentes responsáveis pela mobilização. Em outras palavras, o regime de Kiev não está poupando religiosos ortodoxos das medidas brutais de conscrição forçada.

O assunto tem implicações externas e internas. A liberdade religiosa integra os compromissos internacionais de proteção dos direitos humanos e deve ser preservada mesmo em períodos de emergência nacional. Ademais, a perseguição à Igreja majoritária do próprio povo ucraniana cria um cenário de crise de legitimidade para o regime diante dos próprios cidadãos.

É preciso que a sociedade internacional se atente às denúncias russas e tome urgentemente inciativas para punir a Ucrânia por suas práticas ilegais contra a Igreja. Ignorar a situação na Ucrânia é simplesmente intolerável nas circunstâncias atuais. Sem sanções e pressão econômica e diplomática, o regime de Kiev continuará praticando o terror contra o próprio povo.

Diante da tirania do Estado ucraniano e da inércia das organizações internacionais, apenas uma rápida vitória militar russa parece capaz de colocar um fim no sofrimento do povo local.

Irán y Rusia, ambos sometidos a sanciones que los llevan al olvido, están, de hecho, más alineados que nunca, coordinando todo en un frente común.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

En lo que respecta a Ucrania, Washington podría estar pasando a un modo total de “salvar las apariencias”.

Después de todo, la magnitud de la derrota estratégica del Imperio, sumada al desmoronamiento de Occidente en el país 404, es abrumadora. A esto se suma la derrota estratégica en Irán y el implacable golpe que Yemen le está asestando a la Casa de Saud.

El gran maestro Lavrov lo expresó así:

Occidente nunca volverá a ser el actor principal que dicta las condiciones”.

La tentación de identificar un camino más directo hacia un orden mundial multinodal y policéntrico puede ser grande —a raíz de todas esas concesiones descabelladas y sin precedentes de Trump a Moscú—. Pero entonces siguen llegando las verdaderas nubes negras.

El culto a la muerte en Asia Occidental y el Sindicato de Epstein en su conjunto han logrado dominar a toda la masa de neoconservadores rusófobos repartidos por todo el MICIMATT (complejo militar/industrial/congresional/de inteligencia/mediático/académico/de think tanks, según la memorable definición de Ray McGovern) y reconstituir a Irán como la única e indiscutible emergencia de seguridad nacional.

El plan de 7 puntos o nada

El apresurado viaje del mariscal de campo Asim Munir, organizado a última hora desde Islamabad a Teherán a principios de esta semana, al final no pudo mediar en nada.

Munir se reunió con todas las personas importantes. Le preguntó sin rodeos al presidente del Parlamento, Ghalibaf: ¿qué se necesita para encontrar una solución al estancamiento entre Irán y EE. UU.?

Ghalibaf fue contundente —y lo repitió al menos ocho veces durante su reunión—:

Washington debe implementar las condiciones de siete puntos de Irán, que son esencialmente un resumen del memorando de entendimiento (MoU) que ha fracasado una y otra vez, el cual Trump firmó y luego destruyó.

Los siete puntos se propusieron por primera vez a Tweedledum y Tweedledee —Witkoff y Kushner— a través de los qataríes en una ronda anterior de negociaciones indirectas entre Irán y EE. UU.

El presidente Pezeshkian y el secretario del Consejo Supremo de Seguridad Nacional (SNSC), Mohsen Rezaee, en sus reuniones, hicieron hincapié exactamente en lo mismo. Ese es el mensaje que Munir debería transmitir al «sociópata en jefe».

Las fuentes oficiales iraníes no lo confirmarán; solo la versión estadounidense, fuertemente manipulada. Pero es posible que Munir haya transmitido un ultimátum definitivo de EE. UU. a Rezaee, Pezeshkian y Ghalibaf: abandonen su programa nuclear o enfrenten ataques masivos, dirigidos principalmente contra la Montaña del Pico.

Además de los 7 puntos, Mohsen Rezaee le informó nuevamente a Munir —y, por lo tanto, a la Casa Blanca— que ni una sola partícula de polvo nuclear saldrá de Irán. Volviendo a la única posibilidad de retomar las negociaciones: Washington debe aceptar los 7 puntos.

El ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, Araghchi, sigue insistiendo en lo esencial: «Estados Unidos no ha logrado ninguno de sus objetivos de guerra».

Así que la cadena de causalidad es ineludible: no hay victoria militar (ni cambio de régimen); los costos económicos son insoportables; la situación política es insostenible; por lo tanto, la única salida son los siete puntos.

Y, además de todo eso, Teherán controla el tiempo.

Paralelamente, en medio de la «Tormenta Yemení», Saná también controla el tiempo.

Con Aramco —el sustento vital de EE. UU., Israel y los matones salafistas-yihadistas al estilo del ISIS, y una fuente privilegiada de financiamiento para las «guerras eternas»—, ahora en la línea de fuego directa de Ansarallah, el impulso yemení es trabajar «para secar las fuentes del terrorismo».

Sin embargo, Riad está redoblando la apuesta, amenazando con bombardear cada reunión de tribus yemeníes. Si eso ocurre, más de un millón de yemeníes más se unirán a las Fuerzas Armadas de Yemen y marcharán hacia la frontera entre Yemen y Arabia Saudita.

Después de todo, las tribus, bien entrenadas y fuertemente armadas, solo están esperando una orden del líder de Ansarallah, Abdul-Malik Badr al-Din al-Houthi, para invadir el sur de la «Arabia Saudita» y recuperar las tres provincias —Najran, Jizan y Asir— que son tierras ancestrales yemeníes robadas por los británicos en 1934.

Un precio que no te puedes permitir pagar

Se puede desatar el infierno: ahora; pronto; o a más tardar a finales de noviembre. Si llegara a suceder antes, antes de las elecciones israelíes, es un hecho que el impulsor es el culto a la muerte.

El sociópata en jefe prefiere un ataque después de las elecciones de mitad de mandato.

El culto a la muerte está preparando un ataque masivo contra centrales eléctricas iraníes, infraestructura petrolera, objetivos militares e instalaciones nucleares.

Teherán ha advertido repetidamente que cualquier ataque, ya sea conjunto o por separado, por parte de EE. UU. e Israel, será tratado como una «Totalen Krieg», una guerra total, y que la respuesta romperá cualquier límite o restricción.

La inteligencia interna de Irán está totalmente enfocada en un escenario de bombardeos a gran escala que ocurriría antes del próximo martes, día de las elecciones en el culto a la muerte.

Pase lo que pase, la respuesta de Teherán se asegurará de que el precio a pagar sea más que prohibitivo. En cuanto a Israel, Irán contraatacará ambas refinerías israelíes; los puertos de Haifa y Ashdod; todas las bases aéreas; y Dimona, solo si se atacan las propias instalaciones nucleares de Irán.

En caso de un ataque de EE. UU., cualquier monarquía petrolera del Golfo que albergue un punto de lanzamiento se convertirá instantáneamente en un objetivo legítimo, incluyendo redes eléctricas; plantas desalinizadoras; refinerías; puertos; centros de datos; sedes e instalaciones de empresas estadounidenses.

El Estrecho de Ormuz quedaría completamente cerrado. El precio del barril de petróleo se disparará. La economía mundial entrará en una Gran Depresión.

Desde un punto de vista imperial, eso sería tan desolador como que Washington permitiera a Irán administrar el estrecho de Ormuz y cobrar tarifas por el tránsito: en realidad, el humillante fin de la talasocracia unilateral —con la Quinta Flota de EE. UU. teniendo que pedir permiso para entrar o salir de su propia base en ruinas en Bahrein—.

Mohammad Mokhber, uno de los principales asesores del líder Mojtaba Jamenei, subrayó que

si Estados Unidos e Israel atacan nuestra infraestructura petroquímica o nuestras centrales eléctricas, Irán atacará a nueve países».

Además, la agencia de noticias Fars, muy cercana al Cuerpo de la Guardia Revolucionaria Islámica (CGRI), se enteró de una serie de nuevas directivas: si los ataques implican el asesinato de funcionarios iraníes y la muerte de civiles, la respuesta iraní incluirá objetivos políticos asociados con Estados Unidos y todas las naciones que participen en la guerra, además de su infraestructura.

Lavrov y Araghchi reactivan el RIC

En medio de tanto horror, intentemos destacar al menos una tendencia positiva. Durante la reciente visita de Lavrov a Teherán, el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores iraní, Araghchi, fue directo al grano:

Nunca en nuestra historia Rusia e Irán han colaborado tan estrechamente como ahora.

El concepto clave es «Nunca en nuestra historia». Lavrov y Araghchi hablaron de «todo, desde Europa hasta Asia Occidental». Pero especialmente de estos cuatro temas: Líbano, Palestina, Ucrania y Yemen. Sin mencionar todo lo relacionado con la ampliación de la cooperación económica y «nuclear».

La cooperación económica se refiere especialmente al INSTC —el Corredor Internacional de Transporte Norte-Sur que conecta a tres socios de los BRICS y la OCS: Rusia, Irán e India.

Vean mi documental sobre el INSTC filmado en Irán el año pasado.

El Imperio del Caos se basa en sanciones, amenazas y bombardeos. La integración de Eurasia se basa en la construcción de infraestructura, el aumento del comercio y la cooperación soberana.

Por eso, Lavrov y Araghchi tuvieron que reactivar una vez más el RIC: la conexión original entre Rusia, India y China, concebida inicialmente como el Triángulo de Primakov, pero ahora con Irán en lugar de India.

Lavrov propuso que el nuevo RIC estableciera una «estructura de seguridad común» en el Golfo Pérsico mediante una cumbre trilateral. Eso equivale a que el RIC defina un marco unificado para el Estrecho de Ormuz.

La respuesta del Imperio será una mayor desorientación. Porque, una vez más, se trata de la «indivisibilidad de la seguridad» —tal como Rusia se lo propuso a EE. UU. y a la OTAN en diciembre de 2021—. En ese entonces, eso fue recibido con una respuesta que no fue tal.

En cuanto al Líbano, Palestina, Ucrania y Yemen, Lavrov y Araghchi se encontraban en primera línea de combate. Donde tenemos al Imperio del Caos y a sus aliados/vasallos de un lado, y a Rusia y a los aliados de Irán del otro.

Todo está interconectado, por supuesto. Un arco imperial de presión militar se extiende desde Ucrania hasta Yemen. La respuesta gira en torno a cómo coordinar la resistencia (cursiva mía) a dicha presión.

En cuanto a la cooperación económica, tanto Irán como Rusia se encuentran bajo un tsunami de sanciones. Sus bancos han sido expulsados de SWIFT y las exportaciones de petróleo están severamente restringidas. Por lo tanto, el comercio entre ambos países debe eludir el dólar estadounidense; todo el sistema financiero occidental; y la talasocracia impuesta por la Marina de los Estados Unidos.

El conocimiento técnico para eludir las sanciones es algo que Irán y Rusia podrían compartir con todo el Sur Global, a través de liquidaciones en monedas locales; el comercio de trueque; los corredores terrestres; el INSTC; y el comercio a través del mar Caspio.

Y eso nos lleva una vez más al estrecho de Ormuz, que controla Irán. Las petro-monarquías del Golfo están en pánico total. Rusia mantiene canales sólidos tanto con Irán como con el Golfo. Lavrov está en total sintonía con todos ellos. Llevó las preocupaciones del Golfo a Teherán y, a su vez, transmitió las condiciones de Teherán de regreso al Golfo.

Lavrov enfatizó que el Memorando de Entendimiento de Islamabad —que ha sido declarado muerto en repetidas ocasiones— es el único camino a seguir. Exactamente lo que Xi le dijo a Trump en el Despacho Oval. Exactamente lo que los líderes iraníes le dijeron a Asim Munir en Teherán.

También hizo hincapié en que las petro-monarquías del Golfo Pérsico deben ponerse de acuerdo y entablar un diálogo serio sobre seguridad con Irán y las naciones árabes, incluidos vecinos como Irak y Jordania, e involucrar a la Liga Árabe, la Organización para la Cooperación Islámica (OCI) y a los miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU.

Una vez más: la indivisibilidad de la seguridad.

Irán y Rusia, ambos sancionados hasta el olvido, están de hecho sincronizados como nunca antes, coordinando todo en un frente común, mientras que el desesperado Sindicato de Epstein permanece atrapado en su propia pesadilla de la «Guerra Eterna».

Traducción:  Observatorio de trabajador@s en lucha

By Pepe ESCOBAR

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

It don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that Brazilian swing. The stakes couldn’t be higher: a matter of do or die. So Brazilians hit the streets – and the polling stations – and managed to pull it off.

They did nothing less than tame the Mother of All Hybrid Wars and defeat, even momentarily, a powerful, toxic coalition including the full force of the “Donroe Doctrine” administration; Silicon Valley techno-feudalism, especially deployed by Meta; Wall Street and the Goddess of the Market; the multiple tentacles of Zionism Inc.; the old reactionary elites – and their media; the new bling-bling elites; the evangelical dementia; and last but not least, a mediocre neo-fascist dynasty bent on converting Brazil into an extractivist neo-colony to the benefit of His Master’s Voice.

The – soothing – effect is similar to an Antônio Carlos Jobim bossa nova anthem sung by Frank Sinatra. Yes, Brazil is too big – and too wild – to be anyone’s backyard. And what a turnaround, when it comes to Lula personally: geopolitics hasn’t seen a comeback like this since the Battle of Stalingrad.

We lost: so the election was “rigged”

Election Day dawned in nail-biting territory – but with Flávio Bolsonaro still given an 82% chance of winning, according to DARPA darlings Polymarket. It’s as if the Deep State knew the result in advance – just like in the first round of voting.

Yet in the end Lula won by 4.4 million votes. Not without plenty of drama. Just before the polls closed, a Supreme Court justice – formerly Lula’s personal lawyer during the Car Wash corruption case – extended voting nationwide by two hours. The electoral court should have ruled on this. It didn’t because another Supreme Court justice – Bolsonaro-appointed – was dragging his feet over it.

The extension was vital – because by then it had already been proven that Bolsonarist mayors were deliberately hobbling public transport, especially buses, in Lula strongholds like Salvador in Bahia: a tactic straight from the oligarchic sabotage playbook, used to suppress the popular vote.

The key fact is that both campaigns had asked for a voting extension. And that completely undercuts claims by Bolsonarist and MAGA-linked twats that the election was “rigged.”

Predictably, Flávio Bolsonaro is refusing to concede and wants the election annulled. That won’t happen – according to the same Bolsonaro-appointed justice who was dragging his feet in the first place.

In the second round, Lula increased his vote total by over 10.1 million votes, while Bolsonaro got only 3.6 million more. Add to that a near improbability: there were over 1.8 million fewer (italics mine) null and void ballots compared to the first round – and the overwhelming majority went to Lula.

Several reasons explain the performance by the Comeback Kid – or Grandpa. Starting with massive popular mobilization: abstention fell from 21.08% to 19.21%. Nearly 3 million more people showed up at the polls.

Lula expanded his margins where he was strong – in the Northeast – and reduced his losses in the wealthy Southeast.

Lula’s campaign deployed serious self-correction: instead of focusing on the past – the practical results of his government – he started talking about the dire, present reality: family economics; huge levels of indebtedness; the cost of living; salaries; and even advancing concrete proposals for the next four years.

The digital mobilization campaign was something to watch – complete with a lethal weapon unleashed on WhatsApp: the “Lula’s Army” channel, which went from about 50,000 followers to a whopping 10 million in less than three weeks: a de facto digital infantry. Brazil is one of the most connected nations on the planet.

Spearheaded by newly elected Congressman André Janones, the campaign showed how Lula beat techno-feudalist hegemon Meta at its own game: the strategy will be studied in the annals of political science for generations.

And then there’s Flávio Bolsonaro’s stunning incompetence – a deadly mix of arrogance and ignorance which simply could not be sold as a moderate alternative.

Only two days before the runoff, during the last, crucial debate, Bolsonaro, live, in front of the whole nation and millions of undecided voters, called Lula “the 9 fingers” – mocking his physical disability.

Lula crafted the blowback in real time like a cobra. He recalled how he lost his pinkie at 19 in a metalworking press, a victim of the precarity and lack of safety that millions of workers in Brazil endure: “Something very different from you, Bolsonaro, who has never worked.”

That sealed it: the lost pinkie as the definitive symbol of dignity in the face of privilege.

This is gonna get very ugly

Governing Brazil will be a Sisyphean task for Lula’s fourth term. The Senate (81 seats) is controlled by the extreme right (48 seats): an absolute majority. In Congress, the extreme right has 303 seats (way above the majority at 257), the center has 86 seats, and the left only 124 seats. Any reform, budget, or law will face an Iron Wall.

Arguably the best definition of Lula was once offered by the late great El Comandante, Fidel Castro:

“He was never a leftist extremist, nor did he rise to the status of revolutionary from philosophical positions, but from those of a worker of very humble origin and Christian faith, who worked hard creating surplus value for others.”

Lula, now in his eighties, seems to have recovered that spark. There’s no question he knows very well how this massive defeat for Trump, MAGA and the Donroe Doctrine will force him to summon all of his powers – to organize Brazil while containing the out-of-control fury of the Empire.

Whatever the results in the US midterms next week, Trump will inevitably ramp up sanctions and/or tariffs against Brazil and will continue to pull out all the stops and launch dirty operations to destabilize the country. The CIA and the Deep State are deeply enmeshed in the Brazilian reality and able to unleash an unlimited bag of dirty tricks.

Lula knows: this will get very ugly.

In sum, Lula may be characterized as personifying a Catholic, traditional, Lusophone-mestizo and progressive Brazil.

This is in a frontal clash with the reactionary, evangelical neo-Pentecostal, Anglo-American Zionist axis. After all, neo-Pentecostalists carry the lunatic End Times theology that shaped Anglo-American Christian Zionism.

Flávio Bolsonaro – like all clan members – promised to move Brazil’s embassy to Jerusalem; dismissed BRICS as “highly ideological”; and attacked Lula’s relationship with Iran (also a BRICS member). Flávio, an empty shell, may have lost an election. Yet the infernal machine behind him will never give up.

Original article:  geopoliticsprime.substack.com

By Zoë YUNKER

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

As Fortis expands its facility along the Fraser, local air pollution is expected to worsen.

Emissions  from the site of a recently approved LNG expansion in Metro Vancouver are projected to exceed Canadian ambient air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide, a harmful pollutant, according to company reports.

Last month, the provincial and federal governments approved FortisBC’s plan to further expand Tilbury, its decades-old LNG facility in North Delta, helping to turn it from a domestically focused, small-scale operation into a large export-oriented facility.

The province described the newly approved expansion as a “clean energy” project.

During the commissioning phase and when the facility’s equipment is malfunctioning, nitrogen dioxide levels in parts of Richmond, Delta and Vancouver are projected to be between three and 16 times above Canada’s guidelines for maximum hourly emissions. That estimate doesn’t include the cumulative impacts of emissions from Tilbury’s other, already approved expansions at the site.

During ongoing operations, Fortis predicts the site and associated marine traffic will slightly exceed national standards for average annual nitrogen dioxide levels, indicating the potential for long-term, chronic exposure. Those exceedances are expected to extend across schools, homes and child-care centres in southern Richmond.

Those elevated annual levels are expected even after factoring in significant reductions in the project’s predicted nitrogen dioxide emissions from yet-to-be-determined mitigation efforts Fortis says it will employ. If those mitigation efforts are unsuccessful, Tilbury’s emissions could be even higher.

Vancouver and Richmond already have some of B.C.’s highest average nitrogen dioxide levels.

The company has not yet made its final investment decision to proceed with the project, and some permits are still pending, but the recent approvals signal the federal and provincial governments are willing to allow the expansion to proceed.

The Tilbury expansion “has the potential to deliver significant economic and environmental benefits for B.C., and jobs for British Columbians,” Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions Adrian Dix said in a press release announcing the project’s approval.

But Tilbury’s projected nitrogen dioxide emissions suggest potential health implications from the expanded facility.

According to Canada’s Environment Ministry, long-term nitrogen dioxide exposure can increase susceptibility to respiratory infections, increase risks of developing asthma, affect cardiovascular health, lead to reproductive issues and increase the risk of premature death.

In an emailed statement, FortisBC told the Tyee: “The Tilbury Phase 2 LNG Expansion project will be built and operated in accordance with all municipal, provincial, and federal guidelines.” It added that the project must meet regulatory requirements by various levels of government.

A provincial spokesperson said government communications staff are unable to comment during the ongoing election period.

Emissions are predicted to increase

The Tilbury facility has produced LNG on site since the 1970s, relying on the liquefied fuel’s condensed form to store enough gas near the province’s urban centre to boost the region’s energy supplies during cold snaps. It was a low-profile operation, producing a small amount of LNG per year, mostly to supply local demand.

Just over a decade ago, Fortis began moving its expansion forward in a piecemeal fashion. The company first applied to build a new, bigger storage tank and to increase its liquefaction capacity in a project it called Phase 1A. In 2024, the province also approved the company’s plan to build a marine jetty that would allow export tankers into the river for the first time. This July, the province provided a regulatory exemption to support another expansion of the site’s storage and liquefaction capacity that Fortis has dubbed Phase 1B. The newly approved Phase 2 project will further expand liquefaction at the site, increasing the facility’s total production to 3.5 million tonnes of LNG per year.

LNG facilities like Tilbury use energy-intensive compressors to turn natural gas into a liquid state. Fortis plans to power its compressors with electricity, reducing some emissions during the process. But the company didn’t decide to electrify its hot oil heater, citing uncertainty about energy supply and the cost of power connection upgrades.

In the section of its application discussing its decision to choose gas to power its oil heater, Fortis wrote that “although electrification is seen as a ‘green choice’ and may reduce public opposition to the proposed project, early analysis suggests that there may not be adequate electrical power available to support the proposed project without significant capital upgrades.”

Fortis wrote that the upgrades could compromise the project’s schedule and commercial viability.

Other new components will also produce emissions, including a ground flare stack and acid gas incinerator. Together with the hot oil heater, these parts of the project are expected to produce the bulk of the expansion’s anticipated nitrogen dioxide pollutants.

“Just because you use electric compressors doesn’t mean you have zero emissions,” said Tim Takaro, a physician and researcher with Simon Fraser University and a member of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

Pollutants from those systems will add to an already compromised airshed, Takaro said, noting that the region has one of the highest concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in the province.

“They’re already stretched in terms of air quality,” Takaro said.

Although Fortis describes Tilbury’s ground flare as “totally enclosed,” the facility will include a 200-metre open stack surrounding a low flare, meaning its exhaust will still enter the airshed.

When added to the existing pollution in the airshed, Tilbury’s Phase 1A and 1B expansions are anticipated to push nitrogen dioxide levels in the surrounding area above the federal government’s threshold for acceptable emissions, indicating possible short-term, acute exposures.

The company’s estimated maximum nitrogen dioxide emissions during commissioning and malfunctions are predicted to significantly exceed regulatory limits beyond the project’s immediate vicinity, including areas of Richmond, Delta and Vancouver and other parts of Metro Vancouver up to 11 kilometres from the project.

These kinds of disruptions have been ongoing at Canada’s only major LNG facility, LNG Canada, leading to high rates of flaring and bursts of black smoke — a sign that uncombusted or partially combusted gas is being released into the airshed.

Those unburned pollutants are particularly dangerous because they can include volatile organic compounds such as benzene, a potent carcinogen that has no safe threshold, said Dr. Melissa Lem, a Vancouver family physician and past president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

Fortis’s application said its production of volatile organic compounds in the airshed would be “negligible.”

According to Fortis’s application, it expects to vent unburned gas from the facility during mechanical disruptions and during commissioning, when the company expects it will not yet have its flare system installed.

When existing emissions and emissions from Tilbury’s various expansions and associated marine traffic such as LNG tankers are combined, the site is estimated to produce average annual nitrogen dioxide levels slightly exceeding national guidelines, indicating sustained long-term exposure to the pollutant near the facility.

The projections assume potential reductions from a set of mitigation measures for the Phase 2 expansion. According to Fortis, these measures “are not intended to represent final design commitments or regulatory conditions.” Fortis added that it is “exploring an emissions mitigation strategy” to meet air quality standards. The province called for an air quality management plan in its list of conditions for approving Tilbury’s application, including details on how it plans to reduce emissions and the technologies it plans to use.

Climate concerns

Besides local pollution, Lem noted that Tilbury’s forthcoming climate emissions would also have consequences for human health.

Additional emissions from Tilbury’s Phase 2 expansion and its associated upstream gas fracking activity are expected to produce about one million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, around 13 per cent of Metro Vancouver’s total target emissions by 2030.

About 800 people die prematurely every year in Vancouver due to air pollution, according to Tyee reporting from 2021. Pollution from wildfire smoke made more likely by climate change is a large part of the city’s air hazards.

“The fossil fuel industry doesn’t have to deal with patients on the frontlines when climate change drives all these harms,” Lem said. “Doctors and nurses, we are on the frontlines when wildfire smoke rolls in and people are having asthma attacks and high risk of anxiety and depression.”

Lem said the federal and provincial governments’ recent Tilbury approval is a mistake.

“If they were adhering to science, they would not be approving new fossil fuel projects like this Tilbury project,” she said.

Safety risks

The project’s location alongside the narrow, heavily trafficked Fraser River has also raised safety concerns among locals, including from Kelly Greene, the NDP’s MLA for Richmond-Steveston, a riding located just downriver from the Tilbury site. Greene, who was also the province’s minister of emergency management and climate readiness, cited her opposition to the project in a statement announcing she would not seek re-election.

“While no industrial activity is without risk, my work in emergency management taught me that low-probability events can still have profound impacts, particularly when they occur in densely populated or environmentally sensitive areas,” she wrote in a statement posted to LinkedIn.

“I remain deeply concerned about risks posed by the Tilbury LNG shipping channel and have advocated for better safety standards for a decade.”

Like Greene, Richmond Coun. Michael Wolfe worries about the safety risks from Tilbury’s riverside locale.

“It’s just a remarkably challenging environment for boats,” he told The Tyee.

The Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators advises that vessels carrying LNG avoid “long, narrow inland waterways… due to greater navigation risk.”

Alhough Tilbury’s operations are long-standing, the expansion project means international LNG carriers will enter the Fraser for the first time. Fortis’s application estimates the tankers will be about 300 metres long — roughly the size of three football fields.

Spills and explosions related to LNG production remain rare, but when they occur, their consequences can be profound. Supercooled and compressed LNG can explode when it comes into contact with water and rapidly changes from liquid to gas.

When it leaks, LNG can remain as heavier-than-air vapour that can travel long distances before it dissipates. Under certain conditions, that vapour can ignite if it contacts an ignition source, as it did at the Freeport LNG facility in Texas in 2022.

Wolfe noted that Tilbury sits adjacent to a jet fuel terminal on the other side of the river. “If one of these sites has a major event, it’s going to compromise all the other ones in the area,” he said.

“It’s absolutely crazy to think that people will do that and not care about the future generations.”

Original article:  thetyee.ca

With economic crisis looming, Brazil faces social convulsion. The New Republic’s end won’t be easy.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In 2002, Lula won the election for the first time with the slogan “Hope has triumphed over fear.” His opponents claimed that Lula would be a sort of Che Guevara in power and would drive investments away—nothing could be further from the truth, as the president is, in fact, beloved by bankers. In any case, there is no greater contrast than that between Lula’s first victory and his most recent one. In the latter, Lula’s meager and unconvincing proposals quickly gave way to a campaign of fear. The narrative went that Flávio would put an end to the Bolsa Família welfare program, slash pensions, and even strip Our Lady of Aparecida of her title as the Patroness of Brazil—something only the Pope has the authority to do.

This is the popular version of the fear-mongering campaign, and it is the more rational one. The middle-class version claimed that gay people would be prevented from existing, women would be barred from having abortions, and democracy itself would come to an end. In this context, “democracy” is an esoteric concept that is difficult to pin down. Since the majority of the Brazilian people oppose abortion—which, in theory, is already prohibited in Brazil—then the democratic course of action would, in fact, be to prevent women from using abortion as a method of contraception. Observing the hysterical outburst from a segment of the Brazilian middle class, one gets the impression that an Age of Aquarius of Evil might begin should Flávio win the election.

Things were going very well for Flávio until 1:22 PM on October 25th. Flávio had won the first round with a lead of 2,224,965 votes over Lula and held hopes of securing a large share of the votes cast for the four “third-way” candidates, whose supporters are predominantly anti-PT (opposed to the Lula’s Party). Combined, the three anti-PT candidates had garnered 5,607,483 votes. Self-help author Augusto Cury received 3,448,569 votes, and polling institutes indicated that his votes would be split between Flávio and Lula in the runoff. It would therefore have been reasonable to expect Flávio to gain around 7 million votes in the second round. Lula, on the other hand, counted on a reduction in abstention rates to turn the situation around—an expectation that was, at best, highly unrealistic.

Until the start of the campaign, Lula had nothing to offer the people other than an extra day off for formal-sector workers, the repeal of a tax he himself had created, and an end to the betting industry he himself had regulated. During the campaign, he granted the first increase in three years to Bolsa Família, the neoliberal cash-transfer program that turned him into an icon of the Brazilian left. When asked why it had taken so long, he claimed he hadn’t realized there hadn’t been an increase, and that once he found out, he raised it. The increase had not even been accounted for in the budget. Furthermore, he promised a 5,000-reais transfer for small-business owners and a 400-reais monthly stipend for university students—all this while the country is already burdened by high public debt and an annual interest rate of 13.75%.

Lula’s style of politics was laid bare once again during the final presidential debate: his promises consist entirely of income transfers, and his rhetoric is rooted in social division. Lula went so far as to claim that only a president born in the Northeast could look after the region, alleging that people from the South and Southeast hold the Northeast in contempt. Any criticism directed at a political movement that has spent nearly 20 years in power is framed as hatred toward the poor. Lula presents himself as a “poor man” simply because he was born into poverty—yet he is perhaps the only “poor man” in the world to receive a bottle of Macallan whisky worth 80,000 euros from a banker. When asked by Flávio whether he would like to apologize to Brazilians burdened by debt, Lula stated that it is the elite who should be apologizing.

Faced with this unavoidable and deliberate stagnation, perhaps the most significant political development in Flávio’s campaign has been the alignment of Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Aldo Rebelo—both former ministers under Lula—with his cause. Aldo Rebelo had already moved quite close to Bolsonarism due to his stance on environmental issues, so his alignment in 2026 comes as no surprise. Mangabeira Unger, however, is a Harvard professor who has long been associated with the PDT—a left-wing party that, while recently becoming a satellite of Lula, was, until not long ago, rooted in developmentalism. With these prominent left-wing figures—all champions of developmentalism—now aligning themselves with Bolsonarism, only Ciro Gomes is lacking; however, it was his aide, Gustavo Castañon, who organized the meeting between Flávio, Aldo, and Mangabeira—the latter having even flown in from the United States for this purpose.

At 1:22 PM on the 25th, however, the optimism within Flávio’s campaign began to falter when Lula’s PT requested that the Electoral Court extend voting hours in several Bahian cities until 7:00 PM. In Brazil, elections run from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Brasília time), followed by a rapid tabulation of votes from the voting machines. The basis for the request was an alleged conspiracy by mayors supporting Flávio to pull buses off the streets and prevent voters from reaching the polls. In reality, the delay in Salvador occurred because PT-affiliated union members had engaged in a “sticker campaign”—placing PT campaign stickers on buses while they were still in the depot. Operating the buses in that condition would have constituted an electoral offense. Since bus operations fall under the jurisdiction of the municipal government, the city held the vehicles to remove the stickers; by 10:30 AM, however, transit services had returned to normal. (Furthermore, polling stations are located within a short distance of a voter’s registered address—a location that can be updated at the voter’s request.)

Salvador is a stronghold for the PT, yielding a high number of votes for the party. Consequently, Flávio’s campaign also sought to use rainfall in right-leaning municipalities as a pretext to extend voting hours in those areas. Subsequently, the PT petitioned the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to extend the election nationwide. Through the STF’s opaque, non-auditable selection process, the case was assigned to Justice Zanin—formerly Lula’s personal attorney—who granted the extension at 5:05 PM. By that time, many voting machines had already been closed and powered down, and under the rules, they could not be reopened. Finally, the vote count took place—in an order different from the norm (for instance, votes from the Northeast usually come in last; in a typical Brazilian election, the right starts strong but sees its lead melt away as the count progresses). To everyone’s astonishment, Lula’s performance improved in every region of the country. Flávio gained only 3,721,538 additional votes—a modest figure, considering one might have expected around 7 million from the “third way”—while Lula managed to secure an incredible 10,376,694 new votes.

Flávio has announced that he will seek the annulment of the runoff election, though he is unlikely to succeed. The central problem in Brazil today is the credibility of the Judiciary itself, which treats any questioning of the electoral process as an assault on democracy.

Precisely because a large segment of the Brazilian population views the Supreme Federal Court (STF) as the nation’s greatest problem, Flávio focused on electing senators capable of voting for the impeachment of justices. He succeeded: next year, the Senate will include 45 Bolsonarist senators—more than half the chamber. Given the public’s deep dissatisfaction with the Court, it is not implausible that they could reach the 54-vote threshold (two-thirds of the Senate) required to remove at least one justice.

Lula already governs with the backing of the Supreme Court, allowing him to bypass the legislative branches and censor the public. As the looming economic crisis compounds the political one (consider, for example, that starting next year, companies will be required to pay taxes the moment they receive payments from their clients), Brazil is likely to experience social convulsion and face a wave of repression. The end of the New Republic will not be easy. As things stand, one child has already paid with her health: in a Rio de Janeiro slum controlled by drug traffickers, those “victims of society” celebrated Lula’s victory with fireworks and gunfire—one round of which struck a young girl.

Many anti-Zionists demand that Brazil vote for Lula for the sake of the children in Palestine. It would seem that only Palestinian children matter; Brazilian children, apparently, do not.

Hungary’s Western anchor is set. The rest depends on pipelines, not speeches.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The days of October

“Magyarország nem kompország”: Hungary is not a “ferry country”; it cannot drift between East and West. With this statement, delivered on October 23 before the Parliament in Budapest, Prime Minister Péter Magyar set the political tone for the 70th anniversary of the 1956 revolution. Immediately afterward, he added that in ’56 the Hungarians had already made their choice: “We belong to a free and democratic Europe.”

The phrase is no accident. The kompország is an image coined by Endre Ady, who in 1905 described Hungary as a ferry doomed to shuttle back and forth between East and West without ever docking permanently on either shore. For sixteen years, Viktor Orbán had overturned that assessment, transforming the oscillation into a strategy: Hungary as a bridge, Moscow’s interlocutor within the European Union, a hub of “opening to the East.” The new government chose the day most steeped in memory on the national calendar to declare that era over. This is the political significance of the day, and it is the appropriate place to begin.

On October 23, 1956, students from the Budapest University of Technology took to the streets in solidarity with Polish workers. The procession gathered in front of the statue of General Bem, then headed toward the Parliament; among their demands were free elections and the withdrawal of Soviet troops. In the evening, part of the crowd moved to Városliget, where the monument to Stalin stood. The Budapest police chief, Sándor Kopácsi, provided a detailed account in his book *Au nom de la classe ouvrière*: the demonstrators wrapped a steel cable around the neck of the statue—which, including its pedestal, stood about twenty-five meters tall—while others, who had arrived in trucks loaded with oxygen tanks and cutting torches, began cutting through the bronze at the level of the boots. It took about an hour for the statue to collapse. Only the boots remained on the pedestal, into which a Hungarian flag was planted. At the same time, in front of the Radio headquarters, the political police (ÁVH) opened fire on the crowd, and the protest turned into an armed uprising.

On October 25, in Kossuth Square, shots fired at demonstrators gathered in front of the Parliament caused a massacre whose death toll, even today, ranges from a few dozen to several hundred. This year’s state ceremony took place in that same square.

The revolution was not a bloodless affair on just one side. In the alleys of the 8th and 9th districts, around Corvin Passage, groups of insurgents—many of whom were boys barely out of their teens—attacked Soviet tanks with Molotov cocktails, and many crew members were burned to death inside their vehicles. Total Soviet casualties exceeded seven hundred. The fiercest violence, however, was directed at the men of the political police. On October 30, in Republic Square (Köztársaság tér), the insurgents stormed the party headquarters in Budapest: more than twenty ÁVH officers and conscripts were killed, some lynched and hanged from trees, along with City Secretary Imre Mező. The revolution’s own leaders condemned these acts and called for an end to summary justice.

The October 28 ceasefire marked the beginning of the withdrawal phase. Moscow agreed to withdraw its units from Budapest on the condition that they be replaced by Hungarian units and that the insurgents surrender their weapons. The columns in direct contact with the fighters left their positions on October 30; the last ones departed from the Parliament area in the early afternoon of the 31st. It was a retreat carried out in an openly hostile atmosphere. The groups at the Corvin Passage, convinced that this was a ruse, refused to assist in securing the convoys, and their suspicion was not unfounded: several armored vehicles remained hidden in Népliget and other parts of the city. However, the available sources—both Hungarian and Soviet—do not document any systematic attacks against the departing troops during those two days. The most harrowing accounts—those of Soviet soldiers killed while fleeing from burning vehicles—pertain to the clashes that occurred after November 4. Meanwhile, on October 31, the Presidium of the CPSU had already overturned the decision.

On November 1, Imre Nagy’s government proclaimed the country’s neutrality and its withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. At dawn on November 4, Operation “Turbine” brought seventeen Soviet divisions back to Budapest. The final toll included approximately 2,500 Hungarian deaths, about 200,000 exiles, tens of thousands of convictions, and more than two hundred executions; Nagy, Pál Maléter, and Miklós Gimes were hanged after a secret trial in June 1958.

Three squares, three memories

Magyar said that for years Hungarians had been led to believe that the national holiday belonged to a single political party. The day showed that the memory of ’56 remains divided, even if the roles have been reversed. The state held its celebrations in Kossuth Square, with the morning flag-raising ceremony and a solemn session of Parliament. Fidesz, KDNP, and Mi Hazánk did not participate because they do not recognize the legitimacy of the new President of the Republic, András Baka.

Fidesz organized its own “March of the National Flag” from the Technical University to Bem Square, following the route taken by the students in 1956. Speakers included former President János Áder, historian Mária Schmidt, and parliamentary group leader János Bóka. For the first time in many years, Orbán did not deliver the October 23 speech: he was in Paris and limited himself to sharing Bóka’s video on social media. The slogan chosen for the demonstration—“No war, no gender, no migration—God, homeland, family”—makes it quite clear which interpretation of 1956 the opposition intends to uphold: that of a revolt for the nation, faith, and family against ideology—an interpretation to be revived today against Brussels.

Mi Hazánk has taken this interpretation to its logical conclusion. Its leader, László Toroczkai, has argued that in 1956 the Hungarians did not rebel against Russia but against an internationalist empire—and that today that empire is called the European Union—which reveals that, at least for a segment of the Hungarian right, 1956 has become an anti-Western symbol.

Magyar’s speech in Kossuth Square addressed this contentious issue. He recalled Erika Szeles, Péter Mansfeld, István Angyal, Nagy, and Maléter; he said that military superiority was able to crush the revolution and execute “the martyred prime minister,” but could not extinguish the desire for freedom. Then he turned to the present. Those who seek support against their own people “in Moscow or elsewhere,” he said, should remember that power sustained by foreign backing lasts only a short while. Anyone who, after 1956, parades an aggressor through the streets or subordinates the nation to foreign empires “has understood nothing of the message of ’56,” and Magyar added: “whether in Budapest or on a Parisian terrace” . The target was Orbán.

The section on foreign policy was brief and clear: Hungary wants to be a reliable ally and an equal partner, not a country that follows an isolated course. The speech never explicitly mentioned Russia, nor did it speak of neutrality. This choice is significant. In 1956, neutrality was Nagy’s ultimate demand; seventy years later, the Hungarian government interprets that same legacy as an anchor to the West, not as equidistance.

Brussels in Budapest

The presence of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa gave the day an explicitly European framework. Von der Leyen, on her first visit to Hungary since 2024, spoke in Parliament of a return “to a reborn country.” She said that in 1956 even the Soviets were afraid, because a victory by the Hungarian people would have spread the desire for democracy. She then directly linked the anniversary to the April 12 election: in April, Hungary would once again send a message of hope, demonstrating that democratic regression is reversible. She had already made the same comparison between Orbán’s defeat and the 1956 revolution in the aftermath of the elections, sparking protests among the Hungarian right.

The rest of the guest list was more modest than the government had led people to believe. Delegations were sent by some forty countries, almost all at the level of ministers or parliamentary speakers; Moldovan President Maia Sandu and Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze were in attendance. Emmanuel Macron, whose attendance Magyar had announced in an interview, did not attend: the French embassy clarified that the visit had never been confirmed, following days of tension over certain comments by the Hungarian prime minister regarding the unrest in France. Also absent were Giorgia Meloni, who was visiting Kuwait, and Donald Tusk, who was in India. Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not present; Ukraine was represented by the Speaker of Parliament. Vladimir Putin was the only head of state from Europe to not receive an invitation.

On October 23, he symbolically confirmed a shift that had already begun in practice. The Magyar government has classified Russia as a security threat, given the green light to open four negotiation chapters for Ukraine’s accession to the European Union, and set the 2027 defense budget at 2% of GDP. The role of bridge between Europe and Russia—which Orbán had made the hallmark of Hungarian foreign policy—is no longer government doctrine.

It remains to be seen to what extent this can be achieved in practice. Last April, Magyar pointed out that Hungary is “close to Russia” and that paying more for raw materials harms European competitiveness; he said he was ready for pragmatic cooperation with Moscow and wanted to renegotiate the terms of Paks II with the Kremlin. Oil still comes via the Druzhba pipeline, and the country’s only nuclear power plant burns Russian fuel. Energy Minister István Kapitány maintains that, starting in October 2027, gas could come entirely from non-Russian sources, and a decision on Paks II is expected by the end of the year.

The 70th anniversary thus leaves one question unanswered. Ady feared that Hungary would remain a ferry forever. Orbán had tried to turn the ferry into a bridge. Magyar now promises a permanent landing on the western shore. Whether that landing will be stable will be determined more by geography and infrastructure than by speeches.

The two squares on October 23—Kossuth and Bem—did not celebrate the same revolution.

Strategic Culture Foundation spoke with Aiden Minnis, a British-Irish volunteer fighting for Russia on the frontline in Kharkov Oblast.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Western politicians and media claim that Russia is bogged down in a Ukrainian quagmire. We are told that Russian forces are taking heavy losses, held in a stalemate by gritty Ukrainian soldiers. Nearly five years after invading, it is claimed, Russia’s military is still confined to Ukraine’s far eastern territory with little progress.

But this upbeat Western narrative is flawed and wearing thin. The NATO-backed Ukrainian regime is straining from collapse. The grinding losses on the battlefield, as disproportionate body exchanges attest, the corruption within the Kiev regime, the dredging of conscripts to include women, and the incessant pounding by Russian air strikes are exposing a state teetering on defeat.

Even U.S. President Donald Trump seems to have sobered up from drinking the Kool-Aid about Ukraine winning. He’s peeved and telling Vladimir Zelensky it’s time for him to step aside and cut a peace deal.

There is a growing foreboding sense that European NATO leaders are dreading the inevitable implosion of their “Ukraine project”. As German MEP Michael von der Schulesburg pointed out in an interview with Glenn Diesen, European politicians are increasingly uneasy that their lies about Ukraine will soon be blown wide open. There will be hell to pay for bankrupt economies and impoverished societies, all based on lies.

Still, it is a fair question: why aren’t Russian forces making more rapid advance along the 1,000 kilometer front line? If the Kiev regime is so shaky, why isn’t Russia finishing it off quickly?

Aiden Minnis, a British-Irish volunteer serving in the Russian army, said he believes that victory is coming and is inevitable. But he explains that the advance is deliberately slow. The “meatgrinder” people refer to about the battlefield is not just about inflicting losses of military personnel. He says the conflict in Ukraine is being fought strategically as an attritional war to defeat the Western NATO alliance.

“We have defeated the Ukrainian army three times over from the losses it has suffered,” says Minnis. “This war would have been over a long time ago, if it were not for the systematic involvement of NATO.”

The amount of weaponry and personnel that NATO has funneled into Ukraine is on a scale that few in the West can imagine, he noted.

“NATO effectively runs and directs the war for Ukraine. That includes generals and special forces from NATO countries inside command structures and military units in Ukraine, and not always sheep dipped into the foreign legion either. Some are outright working without cover.

“They use NATO radars and intelligence to conduct combat operations and terrorist attacks inside Russia. None of the fighting, or rather 90 per cent of it in Ukraine, would be possible without massive Western assistance,” says Minnis.

For example, the EU is donating €90 billion to Ukraine just for 2026 and 2027 alone, never mind the €200 bn it gave from 2022 to 2025. About one-third of this money is used to manufacture and supply drones. This vast expenditure has transformed Ukrainian territory into a giant high-tech killing field. Traversing such territory is an unprecedented challenge.

Aiden Minnis left Britain in 2023 as a volunteer to fight for Russia. He has served in Donetsk and Lugansk as a sapper clearing explosives, as well as in the evacuation of civilians and wounded. Currently, he is deployed as a rifleman in a regiment on the front line in Kharkov Oblast near Kupiansk.

The British media have called him a criminal and a traitor. He says he doesn’t care because he has no intention of returning to the United Kingdom.

“I am labelled a traitor, but I only ever swore allegiance to one country… Russia, and I never broke it. And as long as I have breath in my body, you will never see me swear allegiance, or fight for the butcher’s apron [British Union Jack flag]. My soul is Irish and now Russian.”

Minnis says that what the Western media report about the war in Ukraine is “total lies”.

He says that Russian forces are making slow but relentless advances along most of the frontline. The pace is incremental because the Russian military is trying to minimize casualties among its troops and the civilian population.

“If you look at the exchanges of dead soldiers that are agreed upon from time to time, the Ukrainian side’s casualties are 10 times those of Russia.

“Also, despite the scale of this war – the biggest in Europe since World War Two – the number of civilian deaths is relatively low, and that’s because Russia is trying to minimize these casualties,” he says.

Minnis says that another factor that makes advances slow-going is that the NATO-backed regime uses tactics of boobytrapping buildings with civilians inside them. He says that when Russian forces take a village or town, the houses are often rigged with explosives, with families inside. This makes for painstaking work by sappers to defuse boobytraps.

And, of course, the massive deployment of drones is a big problem for infantry. The European Union and Britain have flooded Ukraine with drones that create “death zones.”

“The use of drone walls is in place of dwindling Ukrainian conscripts. These death zones make our ground progress difficult.”

However, Minnis said NATO’s deployment in Ukraine is a double-edged sword. The 27-nation military bloc has certainly made a Russian victory more difficult to achieve. It has prolonged the proxy war with millions of Ukrainian casualties.

But this war of attrition is grinding down the NATO arsenal with colossal impact. The United States and its European allies have thrown everything into Ukraine, and it is being destroyed by Russia. It’s a giant demolition site. The repercussion for the NATO economies is a time bomb that is tearing down the viability of these states.

Ukraine is a quagmire for NATO, not Russia. The battlefield does not have to move westwards; the Western powers are being sucked under.

In World War Two, the Soviet Red Army pushed all the way to Berlin. In today’s war, the new Berlin is in Ukraine, where Russia’s enemies are being ground down, hollowed out, and buried.

Aiden Minnis adds: “Russian leader Vladimir Putin is fighting this war very humanely; dare I say such a thing is possible in a war. But it’s a two-fold strategy: it’s to limit civilian casualties, but also a war of attrition, because what’s happening in real time is the demilitarisation of Ukraine, which won’t be able to wage a war again once this war is won by Russia, and also the demilitarisation and deindustrialization of NATO countries.”

Am 30. Januar wird von der Bundesversammlung ein neues Staatsoberhaupt gewählt. Diese setzt sich aus 630 Abgeordneten des Bundestags und ebenso vielen Wahlleuten aus den Bundesländern zusammen. Der amtierende Bundespräsident Frank-Walter Steinmeier kann nach zwei Amtszeiten nicht zum dritten Mal kandidieren. In der CSU wird die Präsidentin des Bayerischen Landtags, Ilse Aigner, die dieses Amt seit 2018 innehat, bereits seit Langem als mögliche Kandidatin für das Amt der Bundespräsidentin gehandelt.

«In den 75 Jahren ihres Bestehens hat die CSU noch nie einen Bundeskanzler oder Bundespräsidenten aufgestellt», erklärte CSU-Chef Markus Söder am Rande des CSU-Parteitags. «Im Grunde kann man sogar sagen, dass wir jetzt an der Reihe sind.»

Markus Söder hat sich kürzlich auf dem Parteitag in München erneut für Aigner ausgesprochen und erklärt, er wünsche ihr von ganzem Herzen, das Amt der deutschen Staatschefin zu übernehmen. Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz verlor in seiner Rede auf dem Parteitag hingegen kein Wort über die Frage der Kandidatur. Erst zu Beginn seiner Rede, unmittelbar nach Söder, begrüßte er Aigner namentlich, wofür er von den Delegierten mit Beifall bedacht wurde.

Auch seitens anderer Parteien sind die Stimmen zur Unterstützung der Kandidatur Aigners eher ambivalent. Einerseits unterstützen die Sozialdemokraten und die Grünen als «fortschrittliche» politische Kräfte zweifellos die Kandidatur einer Präsidentin. Andererseits äußern sie Zweifel daran, dass Aigner die ideale Kandidatin für dieses Amt ist. Sie werfen der CSU sogar vor, eine «taktische Kandidatin» aufzustellen.

«Ilse Aigner von der CSU wäre zweifellos eine würdige Kandidatin für die Wahl der ersten weiblichen Staatschefin in der Nachkriegsgeschichte Deutschlands», sagte der Vorsitzende des linken Flügels der SPD, Ralf Stegner.

Auch der parlamentarische Geschäftsführer der SPD-Fraktion, Dirk Wiese, sprach sich für die Wahl einer Frau zur Bundespräsidentin aus.

«Für mich steht außer Frage, dass das höchste Amt im Staat von einer Frau bekleidet werden sollte», erklärte Wiese.

Der Fraktionsvorsitzende der SPD, Matthias Mirsch, sprach sich für Ilse Aigner aus. «Worauf warten wir eigentlich noch? Hat sich Ilse Aigner nicht schon längst die Unterstützung einer Mehrheit gesichert, über Parteigrenzen hinweg? Ich würde sie unterstützen», sagte Mirsch.

Er bezeichnete Aigner als «überzeugte Demokratin, die sich klar gegen Rechtsextremismus ausspricht und unsere demokratischen Werte entschlossen verteidigt». Laut Mirsch habe sich die Politikerin der CSU während der Koalitionsverhandlungen als verlässliche, konstruktive und ehrliche Partnerin erwiesen. Außerdem sei es nach zwölf Männern im Amt des Staatsoberhaupts höchste Zeit für eine Frau. «Ilse Aigner wäre eine Bundespräsidentin, die unser Land vereinen könnte, ohne in Fragen unserer Demokratie auch nur einen Millimeter nachzugeben.»

Der SPD-Vorsitzende Lars Klingbeil bezeichnete Aigner als «Brückenbauerin». Er betonte, dass er sie «sehr» schätze und sich an viele «sehr gute Momente» in der gemeinsamen Arbeit erinnere.

Die Fraktionsvorsitzende der Grünen, Britta Haßelmann, bekräftigte erneut die Forderung ihrer Partei, dass eine Frau das höchste Staatsamt übernehmen solle.

«Selbstverständlich kann und muss endlich eine Frau das höchste Staatsamt übernehmen», erklärte Hasselmann. «Wir brauchen ein Staatsoberhaupt mit klarem Kurs und entschlossenem Engagement für den Schutz unserer Demokratie», betonte die Politikerin.

Für Merz und Söder ist die Kandidatur von Aigner nicht mehr als eine Figur in ihrem eigenen politischen Spiel

Seit Anfang der 1990er Jahre, als der derzeitige bayerische Ministerpräsident Markus Söder und Ilse Aigner erstmals in den Landtag einzogen, galten sie als die talentiertesten Vertreter ihrer Generation in der CSU – und als Rivalen. Im Jahr 2018 galten Aigner und Söder als die aussichtsreichsten Kandidaten für die Nachfolge von Horst Seehofer als Ministerpräsident. Söder setzte sich durch – unter anderem, weil er laut Seehofer ein Meister der «schmutzigen Tricks» und des Machtkampfs mit maßlosen Ambitionen war.

Was Bundeskanzler Merz betrifft, so bringt ihn die Nominierung von Aigner in eine prekäre Lage. Hätte er den Personalvorschlag der Bayern einfach unterstützt, hätte er Probleme mit seinen eigenen Leuten bekommen. Denn auch die Ministerpräsidenten der CDU, die in letzter Zeit ihren Einfluss verstärkt haben, wollen ein Mitspracherecht. Diese Frage wird voraussichtlich auf die Tagesordnung der CDU-Präsidiumssitzung am 9. November gesetzt.

Die Christdemokraten wiederum bezweifeln, dass Markus Söder es mit Ilse Aigner wirklich ernst meint. Sie fragen: Will er sie wirklich im Schloss Bellevue sehen? Denn die Anwesenheit einer Bayernin dort verringert die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass ein weiterer Bayer das Amt des Bundeskanzlers übernimmt, noch weiter. In der CDU kursiert die Theorie, dass Söder die Kandidatur von Aigner gezielt vorgeschlagen habe, um ihre Wahlchancen zu schmälern.

Doch unabhängig davon, aus welchen Gründen Söder seine Parteikollegin unterstützt hat, sollte man Folgendes bedenken:
Wenn die CDU eine eigene Kandidatin aufstellt, muss diese über mehr politisches Gewicht verfügen als Aigner. Schließlich genießt sie als Landtagspräsidentin der CSU seit vielen Jahren hohes Ansehen bei Vertretern aller Parteien.

Aigner genießt breites Ansehen und gilt als Politikerin, die zur Einigung beiträgt. Allerdings ist sie keine begnadete Rednerin. Dabei sind öffentliche Auftritte das wichtigste Machtinstrument des deutschen Staatsoberhaupts. Aigner hat das Amt der Landtagspräsidentin seit 2018 inne, doch es gibt keinen einzigen Satz von ihr, der landesweit große Resonanz gefunden oder gar den Stil öffentlicher Reden beeinflusst hätte.

Sollte sie sich durchsetzen, lässt sich bereits absehen, welche Kritik sie von Anfang an begleiten wird. Braucht man in diesen unruhigen Zeiten an der Spitze des Staates wirklich die Vorsitzende eines CSU-Kreisverbands aus Oberbayern? Oder sollte man nicht besser eine überparteiliche Persönlichkeit suchen, die in der Lage ist, die gespaltene deutsche Gesellschaft zu einen?

Anziché dare priorità ai profitti delle parti interessate, la coppia Witkoff-Europa dovrebbe concentrarsi sull’architettura di sicurezza eurasiatica e sui confini tra NATO, Russia e Cina per guadagnare terreno a Mosca.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Già nel dicembre 2025, il commentatore statunitense Sundance, scrivendo sul Conservative Treehouse, aveva parlato della nuova soluzione di “diplomazia finanziaria” proposta da Steve Witkoff e Jared Kushner per l’Ucraina, che “richiedeva [l’istituzione di] un sistema in cui l’opportunità occidentale di trarre benefici finanziari potesse continuare”.

Da questa prospettiva, i negoziatori statunitensi «proporrebbero un piano a lungo termine per garantire benefici finanziari continui».Dal loro attuale linguaggio sembra che Witkoff e Kushner siano ancora fiduciosi di poter costruire un sistema di ricompense finanziarie per le banche occidentali, gli investitori, i politici e i funzionari ucraini che consenta di mantenere i benefici della guerra senza l’ingrediente accessorio dello spargimento di sangue.Come ha osservato Sundance —«Se la delegazione statunitense riuscirà a portare a termine questa impresa, allora la Russia potrà ottenere il territorio che desidera, i funzionari ucraini corrotti potranno continuare a sottrarre fondi dagli investimenti, l’UE potrà mantenere il potere di cui dispone per esigere pagamenti finanziari, i politici americani potranno utilizzare i “progetti di ricostruzione a lungo termine” per il riciclaggio di denaro e le banche d’investimento di natura mista pubblico-privata potranno trarre vantaggio dallo sfruttamento delle risorse ucraine».

Da questa evidente visione del mondo del settore immobiliare newyorkese, tutte le altre questioni — i confini territoriali, la sicurezza e l’ingerenza della NATO nell’architettura di sicurezza dell’Asia centrale — non sono che «dettagli secondari» «rispetto a ciò che conta davvero, il denaro».

La diplomazia monetaria, tuttavia, non ha portato una soluzione per l’Ucraina (né, del resto, per Gaza neppure). Ciononostante, Witkoff ha un nuovo piano che David Ignatius ha delineato nella sua rubrica sul Washington Post.

Ignatius sottolinea che, nonostante il recente «trambusto» in Ucraina riguardo ai suoi attacchi alle raffinerie russe, «gli Stati Uniti e l’Europa si stanno orientando verso una proposta di pace congiunta che garantirebbe benefici finanziari e di sicurezza sia all’Ucraina che alla Russia come base per una soluzione territoriale che non soddisfi pienamente gli obiettivi bellici di entrambe le parti». In altre parole, un «incentivo» offerto per persuadere le parti a smettere di bombardare le raffinerie avversarie e ad aprire la strada a questa «nuova» iniziativa.

Se Zelensky acconsentisse a sospendere gli attacchi alle raffinerie, «torneremo in gioco e ci recheremo a Mosca», ha dichiarato un funzionario americano a Ignatius.

In sintesi, il piano in quattro punti prevede un generoso quadro di ricostruzione per soddisfare «le innumerevoli esigenze finanziarie di Zelensky»; garanzie di sicurezza per l’Ucraina equivalenti all’articolo 5 della NATO; l’integrazione economica di Russia, Ucraina ed Europa attraverso un accordo energetico — «Questo potrebbe consistere in un oleodotto che trasporti petrolio e gas russi verso l’Europa, con Ucraina e Russia che si dividono i profitti. Un oleodotto di questo tipo potrebbe ridurre drasticamente i costi energetici europei», ha affermato un funzionario statunitense. Oltre a garantire alla Russia «un accesso a lungo termine al mercato energetico europeo», un accordo di pace specificherebbe come e quando verrebbero revocate le attuali sanzioni economiche contro la Russia.

L’ultimo punto – udite udite – sarebbe un cessate il fuoco lungo l’attuale linea del fronte, ovvero la «linea di controllo».

Sembra incredibile: gli Stati Uniti e gli europei negoziano tra loro, apparentemente ignari delle dichiarazioni esplicite rilasciate dalla parte russa.

Petrolio e gas verrebbero forniti dalla Russia agli europei bisognosi che hanno volontariamente rinunciato alle precedenti forniture russe a basso costo, che sono intrappolati dalle loro stesse decisioni e che denigrano la Russia in ogni occasione. E con i profitti da «dividere» con l’Ucraina? La Russia non accetterà mai una proposta così unilaterale.

Il ministro degli Esteri Lavrov ha dichiarato all’Assemblea Generale delle Nazioni Unite che non ci sarà alcun cessate il fuoco in nessuna forma. Ciò significa che eventuali negoziati dovrebbero svolgersi sotto il fuoco nemico, e Putin ha suggerito che, anche in tal caso, «ci penserebbe due volte» prima di avviare qualsiasi trattativa (sotto il fuoco nemico o meno).

Il portavoce di Putin, Dmitry Peskov, ha confermato proprio la scorsa settimana che «soluzioni e accordi frammentari» impedirebbero il raggiungimento di una soluzione globale; nemmeno un «congelamento» del conflitto sarebbe d’aiuto —

«[L’Ucraina] è una questione estremamente complessa e la soluzione deve essere globale… Abbiamo bisogno di una soluzione per le generazioni future — una soluzione garantita e protetta da eventuali battute d’arresto».

Sembra che gli europei non abbiano compreso che una cessazione delle ostilità in stile coreano (come sostenuto dal generale Kellogg) lungo un fronte in cui due eserciti si fronteggiano sia la ricetta per non giungere a nessuna soluzione. Sono trascorsi 73 anni da quando la guerra di Corea è stata congelata dall’armistizio. Nulla è cambiato.

Il ripetuto ricorso a questo mantra di un cessate il fuoco lungo la linea di contatto, anziché «prima la soluzione, poi il cessate il fuoco», grida ai russi che l’Occidente vuole tenere l’Ucraina in serbo per il momento in cui sarà necessario creare una piattaforma da cui esercitare (nuovamente) pressione sulla Russia in futuro.

Il difetto fatale di questa iniziativa è la sua sordità culturale. Per Witkoff e Kushner può anche trattarsi «di ciò che conta davvero: il denaro» — ma non è così per la Russia.

Se la coppia Witkoff-Europa ricordasse la storia russa, capirebbe perché, per la Russia, la sicurezza, la sicurezza, la sicurezza viene prima di tutto.

Walter Munchau ha messo in guardia proprio questa settimana che «la guerra in Ucraina rischia di intensificarsi» —

«Non dovremmo farci illusioni riguardo a una guerra con la Russia. Non siamo assolutamente in grado di vincere. Quali mercati obbligazionari saranno i primi a crollare? Chi esaurirà per primo i missili intercettori? … Sotto ogni [aspetto] — militare, energetico, finanziario — l’Europa è in svantaggio. E non è tutto. Esiste uno scenario relativamente plausibile in cui l’Ucraina e l’Iran si fondano in un’unica guerra nell’Eurasia occidentale — e diventino il conflitto per procura definitivo tra Stati Uniti e Cina».

Se, invece di dare la priorità alla continua «truffa degli stakeholder», con il suo meccanismo volto a garantire «che l’opportunità occidentale di trarre benefici finanziari continui», la coppia Witkoff-Europa scegliesse piuttosto di affrontare gli aspetti fondamentali del conflitto — la questione più profonda di un’architettura di sicurezza eurasiatica; la definizione di dove si trovi esattamente, dal punto di vista fisico, la frontiera che separa gli interessi di sicurezza della NATO da quelli sino-russi — potrebbe trovare un pubblico più ricettivo nel suo prossimo viaggio a Mosca.

Purtroppo, circoscrivere l’estensione della NATO non è possibile — allo stato attuale delle cose.