Las declaraciones del secretario de Estado de EEUU, Mike Pompeo, sobre el cambio de poder en Venezuela pueden ser vistas como el reconocimiento de Washington de implementar «campañas para desestabilizar la situación en Estados soberanos», afirmó María Zajárova, la portavoz de Ministerio de Exteriores de Rusia. «Usando el poder blando o mediante la provocación y los golpes de Estado, esto se decide de forma distinta según el caso. Y durante décadas, la ‘democracia’ y la ‘estructura democrática’ de los Estados han sido utilizadas por EEUU como un instrumento para generar la situación política interna necesaria para Washington», concluyó Zajárova.

Fue una equivocación, agrega Morales según la versión alemana de la entrevista, “asumir la propuesta del pueblo” y aceptarla “en base al fallo del Tribunal Constitucional”. “Pero el pueblo lo había decidido y yo acepté su propuesta para una cuarta candidatura en el marco de la Constitución”, se justificó.

At the beginning of 2020, I have once again been invited by the Observer Research Foundation, a think tank based in India, to attend the Raisina Dialogue, the most influential forum in South Asia, held every year in New Delhi. After coming across this year’s agenda, I am more impressed with the global vision of Indian elites.
The theme of this years’ Raisina Dialogue is quite postmodern – «21@20: Navigating the Alpha Century.» What does it mean? There is no explanation in the agenda. But according to the theme of each panel discussion, I assume the organizers of the forum might think the year 2020 is the starting point of the 21st century and marks the end of the 20th century, and what’s coming next will be like the first letter of the Greek alphabet – Alpha – which signals a new era.

The Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, has revealed details of his interactions with Trump in the weeks leading up to Soleimani’s assassination in a speech to the Iraqi parliament. He tried to explain several times on live television how Washington had been browbeating him and other Iraqi members of parliament to toe the American line, even threatening to engage in false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the situation, recalling similar modi operandi seen in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and Maidan in 2014. The purpose of such cynicism was to throw Iraq into chaos. Trump believed his drone attack could solve all his problems by frightening his opponents, winning the support of his voters (by equating Soleimani’s assassination to Osama bin Laden’s), and sending a warning to Arab countries of the dangers of deepening their ties with China. Washington has not achieved its hegemonic status through a preference for diplomacy and calm dialogue, and Trump has no intention of departing from this approach.

Trump asesinó a Soleiman, que estaba en Bagdad para colaborar en las conversaciones sauditas en que los iraquíes están mediando, un día después de pedirle el primer ministro iraquí que hiciera lo mismo entre Estados Unidos e Iran. Había acudido a Bagdad a la llamada del Primer Ministro de Irak, en un avión comercial,en clase turista, de cuyo aeropuerto le recogió Abu Mahdi, y otras personas. Todos fueron asesinados. En el discurso, Abdul-Mahdi reveló que Soleimani había viajado a Bagdad para enviar un mensaje de regreso de Irán a Arabia Saudita sobre una propuesta para reducir las tensiones en la región, que Soleimani se reuniría con el Primer Ministro la misma mañana en que fue asesinado. y, lo que es más importante, que días antes Trump había pedido al Primer Ministro iraquí que «desempeñara el papel de mediador» entre Estados Unidos e Irán.

US killed Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a commander of Iraq’s Shia Hashd al-Shaabi, or Popular Mobilization Units, in an early-morning drone strike on Friday. For some forces in Iran and Iraq, Soleimani’s trip to Baghdad was a normal exchange and they regarded the US action against him as «assassination» and an «international terrorist act.» The US is too powerful. Facing a challenge, it tends to believe the use of force is the best choice. But the use of force can only lead to death. It cannot transform people’s will. It’s fair to say the US Middle East policy is a failure. Washington today cares more about how to woo American voters to support the current government. It has little interest in working out a long-term solution to the Middle East problem, but is more willing to conduct short-term operations.

The year 2019 can be described as «the year of populism.» In France, Lebanon and Chile, protesters took to the streets to rally against a fuel tax increase, a social media tax, or subway fare hike. They resorted to violence, which undermined their countries’ rule of law, slowed down reforms and increased the time and costs required to adjust economic and social order.

Bejing is coming to a crossroads where some serious decisions have to be made about its place in the world. A combination of economic and structural problems hound China and contribute to its problems with the world, other than the ongoing trade controversy with the United States. Solving the problem requires a comprehensive approach that we have not yet seen in China or abroad. Chinese savings can no longer drive domestic and international consumption, as international economists had hoped for some two decades, because it is used to support a gargantuan national debt.

La decisión de la OTAN parece abundar en el criterio de que cuanto haga China debe ser interpretado en clave de amenaza. Ya hablemos del ámbito tecnológico o de la seguridad, de su presencia inversora global o sus asociaciones energéticas con determinados países, sus prácticas comerciales o cibernéticas, las rigideces de su sistema político o su espionaje. China es un caso perdido para Occidente, así que debiéramos prepararnos para lo peor. Pero este discurso, que avanza con calzador, no es unánime.

Goldman was asked about what China’s strategy is and what China wants. He talked through his hat with an answer that raised a hot debate online: The Chinese “want to have everybody in the world pay rent to the Chinese Empire. They want to control the key technologies, the finance and the logistics, and make everyone dependent on them. Basically, make everyone else a tenant farmer.” This is a shocking comment. It showed that he did not really know about China, and it also revealed his Jewish mindset that everything is comercial. Goldman must take it for granted that as China is not a Western-style hegemonic country or a Russian-style expansionist country, it must be a Jewish commercialist country. He could not figure out another way in Western history that a country could control the world