Segue nostro Telegram.

Ad ognuno il suo stile

Quando nel settembre del 2022 il Capitano Ibrahim Traoré è salito al potere dopo aver rovesciato la giunta corrotta e filo-occidentale, in seguito alla crisi di insicurezza e instabilità, era chiaro che il nuovo corso avrebbe portato numerose sorprese.

Con il suo governo, Traoré ha avviato una serie di cambiamenti radicali nelle istituzioni statali, rimandando inevitabilmente le elezioni per ricostruire lo Stato e combattere contro le insurrezioni jihadiste che affliggono una parte del territorio nazionale, come anche per emancipare il Paese dall’orbita coloniale ancora presente. Un tentativo che è andato al successo, portando risultati eccezionali.

Ora, il 29 gennaio 2026, la giunta ha emesso un decreto formale che ha sciolto tutte le formazioni politiche registrate nel Pase, incluse quelle che prima erano state sospese ma ancora operative internamente. Con questa decisione, il Burkina Faso ha eliminato l’intero quadro giuridico che regolava partiti, finanziamento, status dell’opposizione e attività politica pluralistica.

Si tratta di una mossa che agli occhi del moralismo occidentale, sempre vittima di se stesso e del doppio standard, pare assurdo, ma in realtà non lo è. Nel mondo stiamo assistendo ad una serie di repentini cambiamenti che dovrebbero farci comprendere che è giunta la fine del vecchio modo di intendere la politica e ciò che è “giusto” o “sbagliato”.

Prendiamo un esempio dal passato, cercando di attualizzarlo, per capire la valenza politica dell’atto di Traoré per il suo popolo e il suo Paese.

Nell’antica Roma, esisteva l’istituzione del dictator, concepita non come forma ordinaria di governo, ma come rimedio eccezionale per fronteggiare situazioni di grave pericolo. Comprendere il suo funzionamento aiuta a cogliere una caratteristica centrale del pensiero politico antico: l’idea che, in momenti di crisi estrema, la sopravvivenza della comunità possa richiedere una temporanea concentrazione del potere.

Nella Repubblica romana il potere ordinario era distribuito tra magistrature annuali e collegiali, in particolare i due consoli, controllati dal Senato e dall’assemblea del popolo. Tuttavia, quando si verificavano emergenze militari, rivolte interne o paralisi istituzionali, il Senato poteva raccomandare la nomina di un politico forte, il dittatore, designato formalmente da uno dei consoli. Egli riceveva l’imperium maius, cioè un’autorità superiore a quella degli altri magistrati, e governava con poteri amplissimi, non soggetti al veto dei tribuni della plebe. La sua carica era però limitata nel tempo, di solito sei mesi, o comunque fino alla risoluzione della crisi.

Sul significato politico della dittatura romana si è soffermato ampiamente Niccolò Machiavelli. Nei Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, egli scrive: «Le dittature furono utilissime alla repubblica romana, e mai furono cagione della sua rovina». Machiavelli osserva che l’istituto, proprio perché regolato e limitato, consentiva di affrontare emergenze senza distruggere l’ordine costituzionale. A suo giudizio, il vero pericolo non è il potere straordinario in sé, ma la sua trasformazione in potere permanente. Per questo distingue tra una dittatura “ordinata dalle leggi” e una presa di potere arbitraria: la prima rafforza lo Stato, la seconda lo sovverte.

Anche  Jean-Jacques Rousseau nel Contratto sociale (libro IV), riconosce la necessità di poteri straordinari in circostanze eccezionali. Scrive: «Vi sono casi nei quali la salvezza della patria esige che si sospenda l’autorità delle leggi». Tuttavia, precisa che tale sospensione deve essere temporanea e finalizzata al ripristino dell’ordine legale. Rousseau guarda proprio all’esempio romano per sostenere che una repubblica può prevedere meccanismi di emergenza senza rinnegare i propri principi, purché resti chiara la finalità: salvare la comunità politica.

Possiamo citare anche Carl Schmitt, celebre giurista e politologo novecentesco, che nel suo testo Teologia politica afferma: «Sovrano è chi decide sullo stato di eccezione». Schmitt distingue tra dittatura commissaria — simile a quella romana, volta a difendere l’ordine costituzionale esistente — e dittatura sovrana, che invece mira a crearne uno nuovo. Nel modello romano, il dittatore era commissario: agiva per ristabilire l’ordine repubblicano, non per fondarne uno diverso. La sua legittimità derivava proprio dall’essere strumento di conservazione dell’ordinamento, non di trasformazione arbitraria.

Il funzionamento concreto della dittatura romana conferma questa impostazione teorica. Il dittatore nominava un Magister Equitum come suo vice, concentrava in sé il comando militare e poteva prendere decisioni rapide senza i consueti passaggi deliberativi. Le altre magistrature restavano formalmente in carica, ma subordinate alla sua autorità. Tuttavia, la consuetudine repubblicana e il limite temporale fungevano da freno strutturale. La dittatura era dunque una parentesi istituzionale prevista dalla costituzione non scritta di Roma. L’importante era che non si trasformasse in una tirannide, cioè un governo dispotico, centralizzato, sottoposto alla volontà del tiranno che andava oltre il perimetro consentito dalla legge. La dittatura romana non nacque come negazione della libertà repubblicana, ma come suo strumento di difesa in tempi eccezionali.

Il problema coloniale e le soluzioni africane

La scelta di sciogliere i vecchi partiti e sindacati in Burkina Faso ha suscitato l’indignazione curiosa di alcuni moralisti, nostri e stranieri. In realtà, però, può essere letta come una mossa prudente volta a “africanizzare” la politica. Queste formazioni, non solo in Burkina Faso, non hanno mai portato benefici concreti né sono riuscite a risolvere le difficoltà del paese. Al contrario, spesso hanno contribuito ad aggravare problemi che avevano promesso di affrontare. Per questo, la direzione intrapresa dal Burkina Faso viene considerata legittima, e non è nemmeno la prima nazione africana ad aver adottato un simile orientamento.

Se si ritiene valido il principio secondo cui “a problemi africani servono soluzioni africane”, allora partiti e sindacati modellati sugli schemi politici europei – percepiti come retaggi del passato coloniale e strumenti della sua prosecuzione neocoloniale – dovrebbero scomparire. Non solo sarebbero inefficaci, ma persino dannosi per il paese che pretendono di governare. Secondo questa visione, non opererebbero nell’interesse della popolazione locale, bensì in quello delle ex potenze coloniali e delle nuove influenze esterne, risultando quindi presenze estranee e poco gradite.

Anche il multipartitismo viene descritto come problematico in diversi contesti africani, poiché alimenterebbe divisioni claniche e tribali. Lo stesso discorso varrebbe per altri paesi che adottano modelli politici e istituzionali importati, poco coerenti con la propria storia e cultura. Ci si chiede quale senso abbiano sistemi e linguaggi politici di impronta occidentale in realtà che non sono né culturalmente né politicamente occidentali. Le divisioni partitiche, dietro etichette ideologiche, finirebbero spesso per ricalcare fratture identitarie, favorendo la frammentazione dello Stato. Sarebbero invece necessari modelli istituzionali espressione autentica della cultura locale, elaborati autonomamente, ma solo dopo aver reciso i legami politico-culturali ereditati dal colonialismo e poi rafforzati dal neocolonialismo.

Secondo questa interpretazione, i vecchi partiti “all’europea” avrebbero gestito lo Stato come una proprietà privata, perseguendo gli interessi delle élite dirigenti e delle loro reti familiari, attraverso sistemi estesi di corruzione. Da un lato avrebbero garantito un regime cleptocratico interno, dall’altro avrebbero assicurato all’ex potenza coloniale e ad altri attori esterni il controllo delle risorse nazionali. Sarebbero stati, dunque, strumenti di trasmissione del neocolonialismo, la cui corruzione costituiva anche un mezzo di pressione e arricchimento a scapito della popolazione.

In questo quadro si inserirebbe anche il fenomeno del terrorismo, descritto non come un vero antagonista della politica “all’europea”, ma come un suo complemento. Partitocrazia neocoloniale e gruppi armati si spartirebbero il territorio in un equilibrio fragile e violento, destinato a protrarsi nel tempo. Il terrorismo paramilitare diventerebbe così uno strumento utile a mantenere il paese in uno stato di instabilità permanente, soprattutto quando il vecchio sistema partitico non era più sufficiente, nemmeno con il ricorso a regimi militari d’emergenza.

Traoré, per quanto assomigli ad un dittatore (secondo una certa stampa occidentale che confonde tirannide e dittatura), è in realtà un politico veramente e pienamente africano. Nella tradizione politica africana — estremamente varia e differenziata da regione a regione, dobbiamo sottolinearlo — si trovano istituti e pratiche che, pur non essendo identici alla dittatura romana, presentano alcune analogie funzionali. Il continente africano non ha mai avuto un unico modello politico, ma una pluralità di sistemi che andavano da monarchie centralizzate a confederazioni, fino a società segmentarie senza potere statale centralizzato.

In diversi regni precoloniali dell’Africa occidentale — come l’Impero del Mali, l’Impero Songhai o il regno degli Ashanti — il sovrano (mansa, askia, asantehene) deteneva un’autorità forte, ma spesso mediata da consigli di anziani, capi clanici o notabili. In tempo di guerra o minaccia esterna, tuttavia, il potere tendeva a centralizzarsi ulteriormente, con una riduzione degli spazi deliberativi ordinari. Nell’attuale Ghana, in passato regno ashanti, l’Asantehene governava insieme a un consiglio di capi, ma in situazioni belliche il comando militare assumeva una posizione predominante e la mobilitazione generale implicava una forma di autorità rafforzata, legittimata non da una sospensione formale delle norme, ma dall’urgenza della sopravvivenza collettiva. Questo tipo di rafforzamento dell’esecutivo ricorda, per funzione, la “dittatura commissaria” descritta da Carl Schmitt: un potere straordinario finalizzato alla difesa dell’ordine esistente, non alla sua distruzione.

L’Impero etiopico, una delle più longeve strutture statali africane, prevedeva un sovrano (negus o negusa nagast) con autorità sacralizzata. Pur esistendo nobiltà regionali e strutture locali, l’imperatore poteva accentrare poteri significativi in momenti di ribellione o minaccia esterna. La legittimità derivava non solo dalla forza, ma da una concezione teologico-politica del potere.

Qui si può notare un parallelismo con l’idea, presente anche nel pensiero europeo, che in momenti di crisi l’unità del comando sia essenziale. A differenza del modello romano, l’eccezionalità non era sempre temporalmente delimitata da un mandato breve: l’autorità era strutturalmente forte, ma poteva intensificarsi in condizioni straordinarie.

L’elemento sottostante a tutte queste varie forme era il ripristino dell’armonia comunitaria, giacché la legittimità del potere non deriva solo dalla legalità formale, ma dalla capacità di mantenere equilibrio tra gruppi, lignaggi e interessi. E questo è un elemento essenziale dello spirito politico africano (che gli europei hanno cercato di distruggere).

Il filosofo politico Kwasi Wiredu ha evidenziato come, in diverse tradizioni dell’Africa occidentale, il consenso fosse il principio guida del governo, ma proprio proprio perché il consenso era fondamentale, quando esso si rompeva gravemente poteva rendersi necessario un intervento deciso per ricomporre l’ordine. L’autorità forte era giustificata non come dominio, ma come mezzo per ristabilire l’equilibrio collettivo e la concentrazione del potere non era vista come valore in sé, ma come strumento temporaneo per evitare la frammentazione della comunità.

Molti altri esempi potremmo citare, ma ne prendiamo qualcuno di più recente. Nel periodo post-indipendenza, diversi leader africani hanno teorizzato forme di governo forte come risposta alla fragilità statale e alle divisioni etniche o regionali. Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana e Julius Nyerere in Tanzania sostennero che il multipartitismo competitivo potesse accentuare divisioni artificiali, mentre un sistema più unitario avrebbe favorito la costruzione nazionale.

Corruzione del sistema, terrorismo dietro le porte, la disastrosa eredità economica del franco francese… In tali condizioni, nel caso del Burkina Faso odierno, non sarebbe stato possibile parlare di autentica democrazia né di sicurezza, con le condizioni lasciate dal vecchio sistema coloniale. Chi oggi denuncia l’insicurezza e l’espansione del terrorismo in questi paesi – ben oltre il Sahel – non lo faceva allora, e le ragioni di questo silenzio sarebbero facilmente intuibili.

L’atto del Capitano Ibrahim Traoré non è l’inizio di un dispotico governo del terrore, bensì un atto esemplare, che lascia la firma nello scenario internazionale e ribadisce ancora una volta che l’Africa è e deve essere pienamente degli africani. Con buon pace del vecchio ordine di potere coloniale occidentale, che dovrebbe piuttosto pensare alla propria disastrosa fine, invece che estendere giudizi e patenti di legittimità nel mondo intero.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), part of the Council of Europe (not the European Union), established in October 2025 a platform for Russians in exile called the Russian Democratic Forces, which is intended to represent a new Russian government-in-exile in Europe.

With little media attention, Europe is attempting to elevate the status of the Russian opposition, while openly admitting that the new, so-called opposition lacks the structure and power to make a significant difference. Above all, they admit that the selection of members for this so-called government-in-exile was fundamentally undemocratic.

Following the formation of a so-called representative delegation of Belarusian democratic forces, the Assembly recently decided to appoint a Russian delegation as well – again, without democratic consultation.

Regarding the Russian Democratic Forces, some individuals were invited to participate in hearings organized by Assembly committees. During these hearings, the discussions focused solely on how these figures could help end what they call “Russia’s war of aggression” and on ways to strengthen sanctions against Russia.

The most absurd claim is their desire to guarantee Russians access to free and independent media in order to counter Russian disinformation. This is reminiscent of the sanctions Europe has imposed on Russian media outlets such as RT, Sputnik, Channel One Russia, etc., and, of course, this geopolitical website, the Strategic Culture Foundation, where this article is published. The new media outlets they propose to establish are, naturally, funded by Europe itself – a platform for the so-called Russian government-in-exile.

They will rely exclusively on European disinformation articles opposing the current Russian government. The Russians in exile, out of fear, will write articles filled with anti-Russian propaganda and criticism, afraid of losing their European residence permits or visas should they write anything positive about Russia.

The absurdity of it all, of course, is that Europe itself has been censoring its own media and journalists since new legislation, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA), was approved. Since February 2025, the EU has officially implemented the 2022 law to combat disinformation, particularly what they call “fake news” originating from Russia.

Or take the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA): This law came into effect in May 2024 and supposedly protects media pluralism and ensures that journalists can work without state interference or abuse of legal process. An example of this absurdity – and the exact opposite of what the EMFA advocates – is the case of German journalist Hüseyin Dogru, who has been completely cut off from funding due to European Union sanctions and can no longer provide for his family’s basic needs while living in Germany. He is accused of spreading disinformation about Russia and Israel.

Another initiative is the so-called European Democracy Shield, presented in November 2025. This initiative aims to protect the EU’s democratic information space from foreign interference and information manipulation. Yet this initiative is now being violated by Europe itself. As they state: “The European Democracy Shield initiative aims to strengthen information integrity in Europe by addressing issues such as disinformation and election interference.” But this is exactly the opposite of what the EU is doing by establishing – by Europeans – a so-called Russian government-in-exile, which, by their own admission, may not have been entirely democratic in its establishment or candidate selection.

After all, it is the European Union itself, through the European Commission, that has established an undemocratic Russian government-in-exile, as they themselves admit. The president of the so-called committee that approves the candidates and the structure of the platform is German, and other committee members come from Spain and Cyprus. Not a single Russian sits on the Assembly’s board.

They even prepared a list of so-called “democratic” candidates promoting the new Russian government-in-exile – a list of “Participants of the Russian Democratic Forces” for the platform. This list is approved exclusively by the Bureau of the Assembly – the European Union, or in this case, the European Commission – based on a proposal from the President of the Assembly, who, as mentioned, is a European citizen of German nationality. The list of potential candidates is submitted to the President of the Assembly in consultation with organizations of the Russian Democratic Forces whose members meet the criteria, and is approved by them.

This is, of course, utterly absurd. Imagine the reverse situation: Russia establishes a committee for, say, Dutch or German citizens in exile, appoints them as the opposition government for the Netherlands and/or Germany, and recognizes them as a government-in-exile in Russia. Perhaps Russia should do this as counter-propaganda – to show Europe and make it clear that their behavior is absurd, undemocratic, and, above all, insane. I can just imagine the headlines in European media and the outrage from European politicians and journalists – full of words like “undemocratic and criminal” – if Russia were to do this!

Among the members of the so-called Russian government-in-exile are names such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the oligarch once convicted in Russia for fraud and theft, who has already served time in a Russian prison, and chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov, who has a far stronger connection to modern-day Azerbaijan or Armenia, having been born and spent his entire childhood in Baku, present-day Azerbaijan.

Another well-known opponent is Vladimir Kara-Murza, who claims to have been poisoned by Putin – similar to the Skripal and Litvinenko cases, or more recently, the allegation that Navalny was poisoned in a Russian prison. He is described as a Russian-British political activist, journalist, author, filmmaker, and a former political prisoner. He is the vice-chairman of Open Russia, an NGO founded by the convicted former oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which promotes civil society and democracy in Russia. In essence, they promote the interests of the US and Europe and advocate for Russia’s subordination to them, running as puppet presidents and governments for the West.

Also part of the new Russian government-in-exile are the deranged members of the provocative punk rock group Pussy Riot, such as Nadya Tolokonnikova. These individuals, eager to attract attention with provocative actions against the Russian Orthodox Church – actions bordering on Satanism (in Europe they are called feminists) – have been condemned in Russia for their behavior. Wikipedia (a Western propaganda tool) even acknowledges that public opinion in Russia is not sympathetic to the band members. They have been labeled an extremist organization in Russia. These are just a few candidates; the rest of those chosen are even less significant or unknown to the Russian people.

Europe is also using ethnic minorities in Russia – such as the Bashkirs, Chuvash, Tatars, Chechens, and many others – to sow division and thus break up Russia, following the example of the Balkanization of the former Yugoslavia. A good example of the propaganda machine targeting ethnic minorities in Russia is the German Center for East European and International Studies, called ZOiS, located in Berlin, Germany.

For instance, a certain PD Dr. Sabine von Löwis has written an article there on “Conflict Dynamics and Border Regions,” which discusses: “The disintegration of the Soviet Union led to the creation of not only the fifteen successor states but also a series of de facto states and peoples.” The goal is likely to drive a wedge between the various groups living in the Russian Federation.

The Russian government-in-exile, as the EU calls it, was established following the example of the Americans, who have appointed puppet presidents and governments worldwide to destabilize the countries they effectively occupy and thus plunder their resources. Russia itself is rich in resources such as gas, oil, and minerals. Some members of Russia’s indigenous peoples, as mentioned above, are also on the list of the so-called Russian government-in-exile. This is a blatant provocation by the EU to drive a wedge between Russians – or at least that is the intent. In recent years, entire sessions have appeared on YouTube proposing to divide Russia along ethnic lines, just as was done with the former Yugoslavia, which is now under the control of Europe and the US.

Recent examples of US regime change, with European assistance, include Syria, Venezuela, the blockade against Cuba, the ongoing destabilization of Greenland, and, of course, the conflict in Ukraine. Russia’s neighbors, such as Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, have also fallen victim to provocations involving regime change and destabilization. This task is now largely reserved for the Europeans – particularly in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia – with US assistance behind the scenes.

But do not think for a moment that Ukraine will be completely abandoned to Europe. The Americans, together with the Europeans, are eyeing the riches, natural resources, and rare earth metals found primarily in the Donbas, which are now largely in Russian hands. Leaving Ukraine to the Europeans is merely a pretext for so-called peace talks.

Times are growing dangerous these days, with an American administration that talks about peace while simultaneously attacking countries, kidnapping presidents, and throwing them in jail. It supports terrorist leaders in Syria and transfers thousands of ISIS terrorists from the Kurdish-controlled al-Hawl camp to Iraq. What will they do with them? Release them for a potential coming war against Iran – an ally of Russia? Hopefully not, but these days, we cannot be sure. The West is in free fall, without rules or morals.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

Delcy Rodríguez, y su hermano, Jorge Rodríguez, son representantes de un sector de la burocracia “tecnocrática” dentro del gobierno y del chavismo, con menor vínculo con la base del partido y con las masas del pueblo. Están más ligados a la maquinaria estatal y parlamentaria.

Diosdado Cabello, en cambio, es el dirigente que recibe la mayor confianza de la base chavista, aquel que encabeza movilizaciones populares, hace agitación, un líder de base carismático y querido por las masas y por los militares. Es más ideológico y programático, y se empeñó en la consolidación de las milicias armadas bolivarianas. Desde hace tiempo se sabe que el fenómeno chavista, un nacionalismo burgués típico de América Latina, tiene como sustento la llamada “unión cívico-militar”. Cabello es el dirigente que personifica esa alianza.

Aunque sea el portavoz de los militares y del “núcleo duro” del chavismo, y de hecho el presidente del PSUV con el secuestro de Maduro, así como el más unánimemente respetado por el pueblo, por el PSUV y por la FANB, hasta hace poco Diosdado no tenía ningún cargo en el gobierno. Cabello solo fue nombrado ministro por Maduro cuando las sanciones de Estados Unidos se endurecieron y cuando la agresión externa se volvió más evidente a partir de las últimas elecciones presidenciales.

La acción criminal del imperialismo estadounidense, apoyada por la infame “comunidad internacional”, hasta ahora no ha logrado romper el equilibrio entre las diferentes alas del chavismo. Tampoco entre la dirección y los militares, ni entre el gobierno y el pueblo.

Nicolás Maduro tenía mayor cercanía con Delcy y Jorge Rodríguez. Ella es considerada por la burocracia como la más apta para la situación actual por ser más flexible, diplomática y negociadora, aunque poco pueda realizar de manera efectiva en las condiciones actuales.

Sin embargo, esto no significa que Diosdado esté siendo relegado, porque, al mismo tiempo que la burocracia chavista necesita a una gobernante con las características más pragmáticas de Delcy para reducir la agresividad del gobierno de Estados Unidos, no puede prescindir de la verdadera protección de los intereses nacionales, que son las fuerzas armadas y la movilización popular, representadas por Cabello.

Debido a su papel “explosivo”, Cabello puede ser un objetivo de las fuerzas de inteligencia de Estados Unidos, del mismo modo que lo fue Maduro. La propia Delcy ya fue amenazada personalmente por Donald Trump.

A pesar de que hasta el momento no se ha producido una modificación significativa en el gobierno bolivariano, los miembros del chavismo saben que la presión económica y militar del imperialismo estadounidense los obliga a “bailar al son de la música”. Venezuela es víctima de una fuerte agresión que puede poner en jaque su soberanía y el proceso revolucionario. Al igual que Hamas, el chavismo fue colocado en una situación semejante a la impuesta a los bolcheviques por el Tratado de Brest-Litovsk. Deben hacerse concesiones delicadas para preservar las victorias alcanzadas, con una visión de largo plazo.

El acuerdo petrolero, en la evaluación de Miguel Jaimes, tiene pros y contras. El lado positivo es que la producción de petróleo será reactivada, el país obtendrá ingresos importantísimos y la imagen de Venezuela “va a cambiar completamente”. El lado negativo es que, bajo Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela tendrá una “democracia tutelada” por Estados Unidos. La parte administrativa de la industria petrolera (inversiones, tributación, inspección, etc.) será controlada por los estadounidenses, así como la extracción y el mantenimiento: las empresas estadounidenses retirarán los equipos que están en Venezuela (piezas especiales de las torres, etc.) para realizar el mantenimiento en Estados Unidos. Venezuela administrará solo una pequeña cuota del dinero.

El especialista en geopolítica del petróleo dice que se seguirá la “fórmula Chevron”: cuesta 15 dólares extraer cada barril de Venezuela. El país no tiene cómo hacerlo, por eso el acuerdo con Chevron fue ventajoso: ella cubre los costos. Sin embargo, esto generará una deuda que Venezuela tendrá que pagar y quedará atrapada en esa deuda. Lo que Estados Unidos hará ahora de forma más clara es que seguirá controlando la industria petrolera venezolana como antes de la llegada de Hugo Chávez al poder, recordando las décadas de 1980 y 1990, cuando el país tenía mucho dinero gracias al petróleo; la economía mejorará, pero estará controlada por los estadounidenses, que ahora también controlarán el dinero que entra en Venezuela y la forma en que Caracas gastará ese dinero.

Él cree que, teniendo esta negociación como primer paso, Venezuela recuperará Citgo, aunque bajo las mismas condiciones del acuerdo petrolero hecho con Trump. Porque Estados Unidos también necesita esa asociación con Citgo: las refinerías de la Costa Este de Estados Unidos están diseñadas para trabajar con el petróleo pesado proveniente de Venezuela y de México.

Algo que Maduro y la propia Delcy creyeron ingenuamente es que Venezuela, debido a determinadas políticas del chavismo en los últimos años, habría supuestamente superado la dependencia del petróleo. Para Jaimes, Venezuela sigue y seguirá siendo dependiente del petróleo, y una prueba es precisamente esta necesidad de hacer un acuerdo desfavorable con Trump.

No es solo la ilusión de la autosuficiencia respecto del petróleo lo que obstaculiza una política realista. También la ilusión de que es posible volverse económicamente independiente del imperialismo. En ese sentido, el chavismo recibirá un choque de realidad y, así lo espero, aprenderá de esta lección, él y sus análogos latinoamericanos.

Por otro lado, la situación no es tan desesperadora como algunos pueden pensar. Los gobiernos pre-Chávez entregaron la economía venezolana a las compañías imperialistas porque eran títeres políticos de las potencias imperialistas. Al chavismo le falta esa característica, incluso a los más moderados.

Además, las enormes movilizaciones populares que están ocurriendo diariamente en las calles de todo el país son un combustible poderoso que puede alimentar la política nacionalista más radical del gobierno, permitiendo una mayor protección frente a futuros ataques del gobierno de Estados Unidos. La invasión del 3 de enero fue la culminación de un largo período de trabajo clandestino de la CIA, con sobornos y cooptaciones combatidos por el chavismo sin todo el vigor necesario. Ahora existe la oportunidad de corregir los problemas de seguridad de la misma manera que Chávez lo había hecho tras el golpe de 2002: pasando un peine fino por toda la estructura militar y policial de Venezuela; pero ahora, ante la gravedad de las traiciones, la situación exige medidas tan enérgicas como un pelotón de fusilamiento de los agentes proimperialistas o la confiscación de la propiedad de los grandes capitalistas que sabotean el país.

Sin eliminar el peligro interno que está poniendo en riesgo la integridad y la soberanía del país, no será posible lidiar favorablemente con las amenazas externas. La fragilidad frente al imperialismo solo puede combatirse de raíz, y eso comienza por la economía interna. El chavismo aún tiene plenas condiciones para revertir el cuadro: por un lado, es necesario negociar con Estados Unidos, y esa tarea le corresponde a Delcy Rodríguez. Por otro, para garantizar un poder de negociación e impedir que el imperialismo siga ganando terreno, es necesario utilizar de manera concreta la unión cívico-militar, más allá de manifestaciones meramente demostrativas.

Por encima de todo, hay que tener claro que Venezuela se encuentra en una situación delicada por haber sido aislada por las maniobras del imperialismo. La movilización de masas no puede contenerse dentro de los límites de las fronteras venezolanas. Son muy pocos los gobiernos latinoamericanos con una mínima disposición de apoyo a los venezolanos; incluso Brasil, el país más importante de la región, está institucionalmente del lado del imperialismo. Solo los pueblos y los trabajadores del continente, unidos, pueden hacer frente a la agresión imperialista, que no tiene a Venezuela como objetivo final, sino la dominación colonial de toda la región.

Así como en Oriente Medio, los pueblos de América Latina necesitan formar un eje de resistencia que no dependa de los gobiernos. En Oriente Medio, el eje gira en torno a Irán, cuya revolución inspira hasta hoy a las grandes masas árabes y musulmanas. Aquí, el eje gira naturalmente en torno a Venezuela, el país más agredido y más combativo frente al saqueo imperialista.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Non-intervento e manipolazione dei risultati elettorali

Le differenze nel modo in cui gli Stati descrivono il principio di non-intervento suggeriscono che potrebbero non essere d’accordo sul fatto che determinate attività di guerra ibrida, in particolare, informatiche, costituiscano una violazione. Come al solito, due pesi e due misure: gli USA pretendono di dettare le regole per il mondo intero, ma nel loro caso c’è sempre una eccezione.

Concentriamoci in particolare sull’ingerenza politica o, utilizzando la terminologia del diritto internazionale e del diritto militare, sulle azioni che influenzano la “scelta di un sistema politico” da parte di uno Stato. A seconda di quanto ampiamente gli Stati definiscono questa sfera protetta della scelta politica, o di quanto ritengono sia necessaria la “coercizione” per costituire un’ingerenza illegale, alcune operazioni informatiche potrebbero essere considerate legittime da alcuni Stati ma illegali da altri.

Tutti gli Stati concorderebbero probabilmente sul fatto che un’operazione informatica che manipola i risultati elettorali, come la violazione dei sistemi di voto elettronico e l’alterazione dei conteggi dei voti, violerebbe la regola di non-intervento. Il buon senso e la logica ci danno conferma: manomettere le elezioni è un atto di ingerenza.

Sul piano formale, anche gli Stati Uniti identificano esplicitamente tale condotta come un esempio di intervento illegale, ed anche considerando lo standard relativamente rigoroso di altri  Paesi (come nell’Europa del Nord) in materia di coercizione, che richiede un comportamento che costringa uno Stato a prendere decisioni che altrimenti non prenderebbe, la manomissione dei risultati elettorali per cambiare il vincitore soddisfa questa soglia, poiché sostituisce direttamente una scelta esterna a quella dello Stato. Un comportamento di questo tipo, effettuato senza consenso, sembrerebbe anche “danneggiare” il sistema politico o “minare” la stabilità politica tutta.

Anche le intrusioni informatiche che interrompono le operazioni governative di un altro Stato, come la penetrazione nei server governativi, sarebbero considerate un intervento illegale secondo la maggior parte delle interpretazioni nazionali. Ne sono un esempio gli attacchi distribuiti di tipo denial-of-service, volti a bloccare l’accesso alle reti sovraccaricandole di traffico. Sebbene queste azioni spesso non causino distruzione fisica e quindi possano non raggiungere il livello di un uso della forza, potrebbero comunque violare il principio di non intervento.

Gli esperti della materia ritengono che tali attività sarebbero illegali se mirassero a imporre un cambiamento politico paralizzando le funzioni governative; se causassero semplicemente un’interruzione senza richiedere concessioni politiche, potrebbero, invece, non costituire una violazione. Al contrario, secondo le interpretazioni adottate da altri Stati, tali operazioni sarebbero comunque illegali. Il Regno Unito e l’Australia menzionano esplicitamente l’interferenza con l’attività parlamentare come intervento illegale, e conclusioni simili potrebbero derivare dall’approccio degli Stati Uniti e dagli standard più ampi applicati da Francia, Iran e Cina.

Recuperiamo un noto fatto di cronaca: durante le elezioni statunitensi del 2016, i giornali scrissero che attori russi avevano ottenuto e divulgato e-mail private appartenenti a John Podesta, presidente della campagna elettorale di Hillary Clinton, un’attività comunemente descritta come doxing. Ido Kilovaty ha definito questa particolare forma di doxing a fini politici come “Doxfare”. Sebbene l’obiettivo apparente della Russia, secondo i media, fosse quello di diffondere informazioni dannose sulla campagna di Clinton a vantaggio di Donald Trump, sono ipotizzabili altri scenari. Ad esempio, uno Stato potrebbe hackerare e divulgare materiale compromettente su alti funzionari di un altro Paese per esercitare pressioni su tale Stato affinché modifichi le sue politiche.

Secondo l’interpretazione più comune del principio di non-intervento, tale condotta sarebbe illegale se le prove dimostrassero che era intesa a influenzare direttamente le decisioni di esclusiva competenza dello Stato bersaglio, come il riconoscimento diplomatico. Anche in assenza di un chiaro collegamento con una specifica richiesta politica, l’effetto intimidatorio di tali azioni potrebbe comunque privare uno Stato del pieno controllo sul proprio processo decisionale, o comunque “danneggiare”, ‘limitare’ o “minare” l’autorità sovrana. Di conseguenza, secondo le interpretazioni maggioritarie, il doxing motivato da ragioni politiche violerebbe probabilmente la regola di non-intervento.

Per gli USA e il Regno Unito, invece, non è esattamente così: il doxing viene considerato come una attività collaterale fintanto che l’origine sono i loro apparati governativi, in quanto non necessariamente diretta a manomettere l’esito politico di elezioni e, quindi, non riconoscibile automaticamente come “intenzione di manomissione”; quando, invece, sono loro le vittime di questa azione ibrida, allora il riconoscimento della intenzione diventa una questione quasi automatica e il nemico viene immediatamente etichettato come attaccante. Sebbene le definizioni più ambigue degli Stati Uniti e del Regno Unito rendano la conclusione meno certa, si potrebbe ragionevolmente sostenere che influenzare le scelte di alti funzionari senza il loro consenso costituisce una forma di interferenza coercitiva in questioni centrali per la sovranità dello Stato.

Campagne di disinformazione occulte e di propaganda aperta

Pur essendo meno coercitive in senso stretto, campagne di disinformazione sofisticate e ben coordinate, finalizzate a modificare il comportamento di un altro Stato, possono comunque violare il principio di non-intervento. Oltre agli attacchi informatici e alla diffusione di email sottratte durante la campagna elettorale del 2016, i cosiddetti “troll” russi condussero un’ampia operazione sui social media volta a diffondere e amplificare notizie false e dannose su Hillary Clinton. Alcuni studiosi hanno sostenuto che tale attività abbia superato il confine tra semplice “propaganda” e vera e propria interferenza coercitiva. La natura clandestina di queste operazioni avrebbe privato l’elettorato statunitense della libertà di scelta, creando una situazione in cui non era possibile valutare correttamente le informazioni ricevute, con il risultato di indebolire e distorcere la capacità di autogoverno.

Secondo l’elevata soglia prevista dalla concezione tradizionale del non-intervento, sarebbe tuttavia complesso dimostrare che simili campagne siano in grado di “costringere” uno Stato a una determinata decisione, ad esempio provando che abbiano effettivamente influenzato l’esito elettorale. Alla luce della posizione iraniana, secondo cui l’invio massivo e diffuso di messaggi agli elettori costituisce un intervento illecito, le campagne di disinformazione rientrerebbero verosimilmente tra le violazioni. Analogamente, esse potrebbero essere considerate come un danno o un indebolimento dei processi elettorali ai sensi delle definizioni più ampie adottate da Francia e Cina. Una dichiarazione dell’ex consulente legale del Dipartimento di Stato statunitense, Brian Egan, qualifica come illecito un intervento che interferisca con la capacità di uno Stato di svolgere elezioni o che ne manipoli i risultati; interpretando in senso estensivo la nozione di “capacità di tenere elezioni”, una campagna coordinata di disinformazione potrebbe quindi violare anche la concezione statunitense del non-intervento. Diversamente, la posizione dell’ex Procuratore generale britannico Wright, più esplicitamente riferita all’alterazione dei risultati elettorali, rende più difficile sostenere che simili campagne rientrino nella nozione britannica di intervento illecito.

Diverso è per le campagne di propaganda dichiarata, che sono meno suscettibili di violare il principio di non-intervento, poiché esiste una prassi consolidata di Stati che cercano di diffondere informazioni o opinioni all’interno di altri Paesi.

Un esempio storico è Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, avviata dagli Stati Uniti durante la Guerra fredda per trasmettere notizie alle popolazioni dei regimi comunisti e tuttora attiva in numerose aree del mondo. Analogamente, Russia Today e Sputnik, così come China Daily e Xinhua, mirano a presentare notizie in modo favorevole, rispettivamente, alla Russia e alla Cina. Numerosi studiosi hanno distinto la propaganda dall’intervento coercitivo, sottolineando che, rispetto alle campagne di disinformazione occulte, i cittadini possono valutare con maggiore consapevolezza la fonte delle informazioni e difficilmente si può sostenere che vengano privati del controllo sulle proprie decisioni. Di conseguenza, le campagne di propaganda aperta — anche quando veicolano informazioni inesatte o esagerate — difficilmente violano le concezioni del non-intervento adottate da Stati Uniti, Regno Unito o Australia, così come la definizione particolarmente restrittiva intesa in Europa.

È vero che si potrebbe sostenere che la propaganda “danneggi” o “indebolisca” la capacità di uno Stato di prendere decisioni sovrane; in particolare, la nozione cinese di “sovranità cibernetica” implica il controllo totale dei flussi informativi all’interno del proprio territorio. Allo stesso modo, si potrebbe argomentare che qualsiasi invio massivo di messaggi agli elettori, indipendentemente dalla loro veridicità, costituisca una violazione secondo la definizione iraniana. Tuttavia, al di là di possibili interpretazioni semantiche, l’ampia prassi statale smentisce l’idea che il principio consuetudinario di non-intervento renda tali attività, in quanto tali, illecite.

L’eccezionalismo americano

Il doxing, però, è un’attività che gli USA conoscono molto bene e si è affermata come prassi e strumenti informale ma incisivo della competizione geopolitica contemporanea. È un’azione sistemica e strategica, ben oltre la semplice esposizione dei singoli individui. Gli USA hanno fatto ricorso a questa pratica soprattutto attraverso fughe di notizie selettive, documenti declassificati, rapporti di intelligence filtrati ai media e indagini giudiziarie con ampia copertura internazionale. ali azioni mirano a colpire élite politiche, militari ed economiche di Stati rivali, esponendone presunte attività illecite, corruzione, violazioni dei diritti umani o legami opachi con reti criminali e terroristiche. In questo modo, il doxing diventa uno strumento di pressione diplomatica e di guerra dell’informazione.

Un aspetto centrale è l’uso dei grandi media occidentali e delle piattaforme digitali come moltiplicatori di impatto. Le informazioni, spesso provenienti da fonti governative statunitensi o da apparati di sicurezza, vengono presentate come rivelazioni investigative indipendenti, contribuendo a costruire narrazioni delegittimanti nei confronti di governi stranieri. Ciò può tradursi in isolamento internazionale, sanzioni economiche, crisi interne o perdita di credibilità politica.

È una power projection non convenzionale, in cui la trasparenza selettiva e l’esposizione pubblica diventano armi geopolitiche. In un sistema internazionale sempre più multipolare, il doxing statale rappresenta quindi una nuova frontiera del conflitto politico, informativo e simbolico, in cui il controllo della narrazione e la gestione delle informazioni diventano elementi centrali della competizione tra potenze.

A queste attività di doxing si affiancano in modo strutturale le pratiche di propaganda aperta e propaganda occulta. La propaganda aperta si manifesta attraverso strumenti ufficiali e dichiarati: dichiarazioni pubbliche di leader politici, documenti strategici, rapporti del Dipartimento di Stato, programmi di promozione della democrazia, finanziamenti a ONG e campagne mediatiche esplicite volte a sostenere determinati valori, modelli istituzionali o alleanze geopolitiche. In questo caso, l’obiettivo è orientare l’opinione pubblica internazionale presentando la visione statunitense come legittima, universale e moralmente superiore. Quella occulta, invece, opera in modo più discreto e difficilmente tracciabile. Essa comprende il sostegno indiretto a media locali, influencer, think tank, attori culturali e politici che veicolano narrazioni favorevoli agli interessi statunitensi senza un’esplicita attribuzione della fonte. Rientrano in questa categoria anche operazioni di information warfare, campagne di framing selettivo delle notizie, amplificazione di conflitti interni e diffusione mirata di contenuti destabilizzanti attraverso piattaforme digitali e social network.

L’interazione tra propaganda e doxing è particolarmente significativa: la pubblicazione di informazioni compromettenti viene spesso accompagnata da una costruzione narrativa che ne indirizza l’interpretazione, trasformando dati e rivelazioni in strumenti di consenso o delegittimazione. In tal modo, gli USA riescono a esercitare un’influenza profonda sugli equilibri politici interni di altri Stati senza ricorrere a interventi militari diretti, consolidando una forma di egemonia informativa che incide sulla sovranità, sull’autonomia decisionale e sulla percezione internazionale dei Paesi coinvolti.

Alan MacLeod

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

One of these groups is Human Rights Activists In Iran, frequently referred to as HRA or HRAI in the media. The group, and its media arm, the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) have become the go-to group of experts for Western media, and are the source of many of the most inflammatory claims and shockingly high casualty figures reported in the press. In the past week alone, their assertions have provided much of the basis for stories in CNN, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, ABC News, Sky News, and The New York Post, among others. And in a passionate plea for leftists to support the protests, Owen Jones wrote in The Guardian Tuesday that HRAI are a “respected” group whose death toll proclamations are “probably significant underestimates.”

Yet what none of these reports mention is that Human Rights Activists In Iran is bankrolled by the Central Intelligence Agency, through its cutout organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

“Independent” NGOs, Brought to You By the CIA

Established in 2006, Human Rights Activists in Iran is based in Fairfax, Virginia, just a stone’s throw away from CIA headquarters in Langley. It describes itself as a “non-political” association of activists dedicated to advancing freedom and rights in Iran. On its website, it notes that, “because the organization seeks to remain independent, it doesn’t accept financial aid from neither political groups nor governments.” Yet, in the same paragraph, it notes that “HRAI has also been accepting donations from National Endowment for Democracy, a non-profit, non-governmental organization in the United States of America.” The level of NED investment into HRAI has been substantial, to say the least; journalist Michael Tracey found that, in 2024 alone, the NED had apportioned well over $900,000 towards the organization.

Another NGO widely cited in recent media reports on the protests is the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran (ABCHRI). The group has been quoted widely, including by The Washington Post, PBS, and ABC News. Like with the HRAI, these reports also fail to disclose the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center’s proximity to the U.S. national security state.

Although it does not mention it in its funding disclaimer, the center is supported by the NED. Last year, the NED described the center as a “partner” organization, and awarded its director, Roya Boroumand, their 2024 Goler T. Butcher medal for democracy promotion.

“Roya and her organization have worked rigorously and objectively to document human rights violations committed by the regime in Iran,” said Amira Maaty, senior director for NED’s Middle East and North Africa programs. “The work of the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center is an indispensable resource for victims to seek justice and hold perpetrators accountable under international law. NED is proud to support Roya and the center in their advocacy for human rights and tireless pursuit of a democratic future for Iran.”

In addition to this, sitting on the center’s board of directors is controversial academic, Francis Fukuyama, a former NED board member and an editor of its “Journal of Democracy” publication.

If anything, the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI) has gone further than HRAI or the ABCHRI. Widely cited across Western media (e.g., The New York Times, The Guardian, USA Today), the CHRI has been the source of many of the goriest and most lurid stories coming out of Iran. A Monday article in The Washington Post, for example, leaned on the CHRI’s expertise to report that Iranian hospitals were being overwhelmed and had even run out of blood to treat the victims of government repression. “A massacre is unfolding. The world must act now to prevent further loss of life,” a CHRI spokesperson said. Given President Trump’s recent threats about U.S. military attacks on Iran, the implications of the statement were clear.

And yet, like with the other NGOs profiled, none of the corporate media outlets citing the Center for Human Rights in Iran noted its close connections to the U.S. national security state. The CHRI – an Iranian human rights group based in New York City and Washington, D.C. – was identified by the government of China as directly funded by the NED.

The claim is far from outlandish, given that CHRI board member, Mehrangiz Kar, is a former Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the NED. And in 2002 at a star-studded gala on Capitol Hill, First Lady Laura Bush and future president Joe Biden presented Kar with the NED’s annual Democracy Award.

A History of Regime Change Ops

The National Endowment for Democracy was created in 1983 by the Reagan administration, after a series of scandals had seriously damaged the image and reputation of the CIA. The Church Committee – a 1975 U.S. Senate investigation into CIA activities – found that the agency had masterminded the assassination of several foreign heads of state, was involved in a massive domestic surveillance campaign against progressive groups, had infiltrated and placed agents in hundreds of U.S. media outlets, and was carrying out shocking mind control experiments on unwilling American participants.

Technically a private entity, although receiving virtually all its funding from the federal government and being staffed by ex-spooks, the NED was created as a way to outsource many of the agency’s most controversial activities, especially overseas regime change operations. “It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA,” Carl Gershman, the NED’s longtime president, said in 1986. NED co-founder Allen Weinstein agreed: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” he told The Washington Post.

Part of the CIA’s mission was to create a worldwide network of media outlets and NGOs that would parrot CIA talking points, passing it off as credible news. As former CIA taskforce leader John Stockwell admitted, “I had propagandists all over the world.” Stockwell went on to describe how he helped flood the world with fake news demonizing Cuba:

We pumped dozens of stories about Cuban atrocities, Cuban rapists [to the media]… We ran [faked] photographs that made almost every newspaper in the country… We didn’t know of one single atrocity committed by the Cubans. It was pure, raw, false propaganda to create an illusion of communists eating babies for breakfast.”

Mike Pompeo, former CIA director, alluded this being active CIA policy. At a 2019 talk at Texas A&M University, he said, “When I was a cadet, what’s the cadet motto at West Point? You will not lie, cheat, or steal or tolerate those who do. I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses [on] it!”

One of the NED’s greatest successes came in 1996, when it successfully swung elections in Russia, spending vast amounts of money to ensure U.S. puppet ruler Boris Yeltsin would remain in power. Yeltsin, who came to power in a 1993 coup that dissolved parliament, was deeply unpopular, and it appeared that the Russian public were ready to vote for a return to Communism. The NED and other American agencies flooded Russia with money and propaganda, ensuring their man remained in power. The story was cataloged in a famous edition of Time magazine, whose title page was emblazoned with the words, “Yanks To The Rescue: the Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win.”

Six years later, the NED provided both the finances and the brains for a briefly successful coup d’état against Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. The NED spent hundreds of thousands of dollars flying coup leaders (such as Marina Corina Machado) back and forth to Washington, D.C. After the coup was overturned and the plot was exposed, NED funding to Machado and her allies actually increased, and the organization has continued to fund her and her political organizations.

The NED would have more luck in Ukraine, playing a key role in the successful 2014 Maidan Revolution that toppled President Viktor Yanukovych and replaced him with a pro-U.S. successor. The Maidan affair followed a tried-and-tested formula, with large numbers of people coming out to protest, and a hardcore of trained paramilitaries carrying out acts of violence aimed at destabilizing the government and provoking a military response.

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (and future NED board member) Victoria Nuland flew to Kiev to signal the U.S. government’s full support of the movement to oust Yanukovych, even handing out cookies to protestors in the city’s main square. A leaked telephone call showed that the new Ukrainian prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, was directly chosen by Nuland. “Yats is the guy,” she can be heard telling U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, citing his experience and friendliness with Washington as key factors. The 2014 Maidan Revolution and its aftermath would lead to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine eight years later.

Just across the border in Belarus, the NED planned similar actions to overthrow President Alexander Lukashenko. At the time of the attempt (2020-2021), the NED was pursuing 40 active projects inside the country.

On a Zoom call infiltrated and covertly recorded by activists, the NED’s senior Europe Program officer, Nina Ognianova, boasted that the groups leading the nationwide demonstrations against Lukashenko were trained by her organization. “We don’t think that this movement that is so impressive and so inspiring came out of nowhere — that it just happened overnight,” she said, noting that the NED had made a “significant contribution” to the protests.

On the same call, NED President Gershman noted that “we support many, many groups, and we have a very, very active program throughout the country, and many of the groups obviously have their partners in exile,” boasting that the Belarusian government was powerless to stop them. “We’re not like Freedom House or NDI [the National Democratic Institute] and the IRI [International Republican Institute]; we don’t have offices. So if we’re not there, they can’t kick us out,” he said, comparing the NED to other U.S. regime change organizations.

The attempted Color Revolution did not succeed, however, as demonstrators were met with large counter-demonstrations, and Lukashenko remains in power to this day. The NED’s actions were a key factor in Lukashenko’s decision to abandon his relationship with the West, and ally Belarus with Russia.

Just months after their failure in Belarus, the NED fomented another regime change attempt, this time in Cuba. The agency spent millions of dollars infiltrating and buying off pliant musical artists, especially in the hip hop community, in an attempt to turn local popular culture against its revolution. Led by Cuban rappers, the U.S. attempted to rally the people into the streets, flooding social media with calls from celebrities and politicians alike to topple the government. This did not translate into boots on the ground, however, and the fiasco was written off sarcastically as the U.S.’ “Bay of Tweets.”

It is precisely for these reasons, therefore, that accepting funding from the NED should be unthinkable for any serious NGO or human rights organization, as so many that do have been front groups for American power and clandestine regime change operations. It is also why the public should be extremely wary about any claims made by organizations on the payroll of a CIA cutout organization, especially those that attempt to hide the fact. Journalists, too, have a duty to scrutinize any statements made by these groups, and inform their readers and viewers about their inherent conflicts of interests.

Targeting Iran

Apart from funding the three U.S.-based human rights NGOs profiled here, the NED is spearheading a myriad of operations targeting the Islamic Republic. According to its 2025 grant listings, there are currently 18 active NED projects for Iran, although the agency does not divulge any of the groups they are working with.

It also refuses to divulge any hard details about these projects, beyond rather bland descriptions that include:

Empowering” a network of “frontline and exiled activists” inside Iran;

“Promoting independent journalism,” and “Establishing media platforms to influence the public;”

“Monitoring and promoting human rights;”

“Fostering internet freedom;”

“Training student leaders inside Iran;”

“Advancing policy analysis, debate, and collective actions on democracy,” and;

“Foster[ing] collaboration between Iranian civil society and political activists on a democratic vision and raise awareness on civic rights within the legal community, the organization will facilitate debate on transition models from authoritarianism to democracy.”

Reading between the lines, the NED is attempting to build up a widespread network of media outlets, NGOs, activists, intellectuals, student leaders and politicians who will all sing from the same hymn sheet, that of “transitioning” from “authoritarianism” (i.e., the current system of government” to “democracy,” (i.e., a U.S.-picked government). In other words: regime change.

Iran, of course, has been in American crosshairs ever since the removal of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi during the Islamic Revolution of 1978-79. Pahlavi himself had been kept in place by the CIA, who engineered a coup against the democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh (1952-53). Mossadegh, a secular liberal reformer, had angered Washington by nationalizing the country’s oil industry, carrying out land reform, and refusing to crush the communist Tudeh Party.

The CIA (the NED’s parent organization), infiltrated Iranian media, paying them to run hysterical anti-Mossadegh content, carried out terror attacks inside Iran, bribed officials to turn against the president, cultivated ties with reactionary elements within the military, and paid protestors to flood the streets at anti-Mossadegh rallies.

The shah reigned for 26 bloody years between 1953 and 1979, until he was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution.

The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, who almost immediately invaded Iran, leading to a bitter, eight-year long conflict that killed at least half a million people. Washington supplied Hussein with a wide range of weapons, including components for chemical weapons used on Iranians, as well as other weapons of mass destruction.

Since 1979, Iran has also been under restrictive American economic sanctions, measures that have severely hindered the country’s development. During his first term, Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal and turned up the economic pressure. The result was a collapse in the value of the Iranian rial, mass unemployment, soaring rents and a doubling of the price of food. Ordinary people lost both their savings and their long-term security.

Throughout this, Trump has constantly threatened Iran with attack, finally following through in June, bombing a host of infrastructure projects inside the country.

A Legitimate Protest?

The current demonstrations began on December 28 as a protest against rising prices. Yet they quickly ballooned into something much bigger, with thousands calling for an overthrow of the government, and even the reinstatement of the monarchy under the son of the shah, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.

They were quickly supported and signal boosted by the U.S. and Israeli national security states. “The Iranian regime is in trouble,” Pompeo announced. “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them…” he added. Israeli media are openly reporting that “foreign elements” (i.e., Israeli) are “arming the protesters in Iran with live weapons, and this is the reason for the hundreds of dead among the regime’s people.”

The Israeli intelligence services confirmed Pompeo’s not-so-cryptic assertion. “Go out together into the streets. The time has come,” the spying agency’s official social media accounts instructed Iranians: “We are with you. Not only from a distance and verbally. We are with you in the field.”

Trump echoed those words. “TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price,” he roared, adding that American “help is on the way.”

Any debate about what Trump meant by “American help” was ended on Monday, when he stated that “If Iran shots [sic] and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue… We are locked and loaded and ready to go.” He also attempted to place an all-out economic blockade, announcing that any country trading with Tehran would face an additional 25% tariff.

All of this, added to the increasing violence of the protests, makes it much harder for Iranians to express themselves politically. What started as a demonstration about the cost of living has spiralled into a huge, openly insurrectionist movement, backed and fomented by the U.S. and Israel. Iranians, of course, have every right to protest, but a wealth of factors have raised the very real possibility that much of the anti-government movement is an inorganic, U.S.-orchestrated attempt at regime change. While Iranians can argue about how they wish to express themselves and what sort of government they want, what is undebatable is that so many of the think tanks and NGOs called upon to provide supposed expert evidence and commentary about these protests are tools of the National Endowment for Democracy.

Original article: mintpressnews.com

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Non-intervention and manipulation of election results

The differences in how states describe the principle of non-intervention suggest that they may disagree on whether certain hybrid warfare activities, particularly cyber activities, constitute a violation. As usual, double standards apply: the U.S. claims to dictate the rules for the whole world, but in its own case there is always an exception.

Let us focus in particular on political interference or, using the terminology of international law and military law, on actions that influence a state’s ‘choice of political system’. Depending on how broadly states define this protected sphere of political choice, or how much ‘coercion’ they consider necessary to constitute illegal interference, some cyber operations may be considered legitimate by some states but illegal by others.

All states would probably agree that a cyber operation that manipulates election results, such as hacking electronic voting systems and altering vote counts, would violate the rule of non-intervention. Common sense and logic confirm this: tampering with elections is an act of interference.

Formally, even the United States explicitly identifies such conduct as an example of illegal intervention, and even considering the relatively strict standard of other countries (such as in Northern Europe) on coercion, which requires behavior that forces a state to make decisions it would not otherwise make, tampering with election results to change the winner meets this threshold, as it directly replaces an external choice with that of the state. Such behavior, carried out without consent, would also appear to “damage” the political system or “undermine” political stability as a whole.

Cyber intrusions that disrupt another state’s government operations, such as hacking into government servers, would also be considered illegal intervention under most national interpretations. Examples include distributed denial-of-service attacks, which aim to block access to networks by overloading them with traffic. Although these actions often do not cause physical destruction and therefore may not reach the level of the use of force, they could still violate the principle of non-intervention.

Experts in the field believe that such activities would be illegal if they were aimed at imposing political change by paralyzing government functions; if they simply caused disruption without demanding political concessions, they might not constitute a violation. Conversely, according to interpretations adopted by other states, such operations would still be illegal. The United Kingdom and Australia explicitly mention interference with parliamentary activity as illegal intervention, and similar conclusions could be drawn from the approach of the United States and the broader standards applied by France, Iran, and China.

Let us recall a well-known news story: during the 2016 U.S. elections, newspapers reported that Russian actors had obtained and disclosed private emails belonging to John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, an activity commonly described as doxing. Ido Kilovaty has defined this particular form of doxing for political purposes as ‘Doxfare’. Although Russia’s apparent goal, according to the media, was to spread damaging information about Clinton’s campaign to the benefit of Donald Trump, other scenarios are conceivable. For example, a state could hack and disclose compromising material about senior officials in another country to pressure that state to change its policies.

According to the most common interpretation of the principle of non-intervention, such conduct would be illegal if evidence showed that it was intended to directly influence decisions that are the exclusive competence of the target state, such as diplomatic recognition. Even in the absence of a clear link to a specific political demand, the intimidating effect of such actions could still deprive a state of full control over its decision-making process, or otherwise ‘damage’, ‘limit’ or ‘undermine’ its sovereign authority. Consequently, according to the majority interpretation, politically motivated doxing would likely violate the rule of non-intervention.

For the U.S. and the UK, however, this is not exactly the case: doxing is considered a collateral activity as long as it originates from their government apparatus, as it is not necessarily aimed at tampering with the political outcome of elections and, therefore, is not automatically recognizable as ‘intent to tamper’; when, on the other hand, they are the victims of this hybrid action, then recognition of intent becomes almost automatic and the enemy is immediately labeled as the attacker. Although the more ambiguous definitions of the United States and the United Kingdom make the conclusion less certain, it could reasonably be argued that influencing the choices of senior officials without their consent constitutes a form of coercive interference in matters central to state sovereignty.

Covert disinformation and overt propaganda campaigns

While less coercive in the strict sense, sophisticated and well-coordinated disinformation campaigns aimed at changing the behavior of another state may still violate the principle of non-intervention. In addition to cyberattacks and the dissemination of emails stolen during the 2016 election campaign, Russian “trolls” conducted a large-scale social media operation aimed at spreading and amplifying false and damaging news about Hillary Clinton. Some scholars have argued that this activity crossed the line between simple “propaganda” and outright coercive interference. The clandestine nature of these operations allegedly deprived the U.S. electorate of their freedom of choice, creating a situation in which it was not possible to properly evaluate the information received, thereby weakening and distorting the capacity for self-government.

However, given the high threshold required by the traditional concept of non-intervention, it would be difficult to prove that such campaigns are capable of “coercing” a state into a particular decision, for example by proving that they actually influenced the election outcome. In light of Iran’s position that the massive and widespread sending of messages to voters constitutes unlawful intervention, disinformation campaigns would likely fall under the category of violations. Similarly, they could be considered as damaging or weakening electoral processes under the broader definitions adopted by France and China. A statement by former U.S. State Department legal adviser Brian Egan qualifies as unlawful any interference that impairs a state’s ability to hold elections or manipulates the results; interpreting the notion of ‘ability to hold elections’ broadly, a coordinated disinformation campaign could therefore also violate the U.S. concept of non-interference. In contrast, the position of former British Attorney General Wright, which refers more explicitly to the alteration of election results, makes it more difficult to argue that such campaigns fall within the British notion of unlawful intervention.

The situation is different for overt propaganda campaigns, which are less likely to violate the principle of non-intervention, as there is an established practice of states seeking to disseminate information or opinions within other countries.

A historical example is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, launched by the United States during the Cold War to broadcast news to the populations of communist regimes and still active in many areas of the world. Similarly, Russia Today and Sputnik, as well as China Daily and Xinhua, aim to present news in a favorable light for Russia and China, respectively. Numerous scholars have distinguished propaganda from coercive intervention, pointing out that, compared to covert disinformation campaigns, citizens can more consciously evaluate the source of information and it is difficult to argue that they are deprived of control over their own decisions. Consequently, open propaganda campaigns—even when they convey inaccurate or exaggerated information—are unlikely to violate the concepts of non-intervention adopted by the United States, the United Kingdom, or Australia, as well as the particularly restrictive definition understood in Europe.

It is true that one could argue that propaganda ‘damages’ or ‘weakens’ a state’s ability to make sovereign decisions; in particular, the Chinese notion of ‘cyber sovereignty’ implies total control of information flows within its territory. Similarly, it could be argued that any mass sending of messages to voters, regardless of their veracity, constitutes a violation according to the Iranian definition. However, beyond possible semantic interpretations, widespread state practice belies the idea that the customary principle of non-intervention makes such activities, as such, unlawful.

American exceptionalism

Doxing, however, is an activity that the U.S. knows very well and has established itself as an informal but effective practice and tool of contemporary geopolitical competition. It is a systemic and strategic action, far beyond the simple exposure of individuals. The U.S. has resorted to this practice mainly through selective leaks, declassified documents, intelligence reports filtered to the media, and judicial investigations with extensive international coverage. These actions aim to target the political, military, and economic elites of rival states, exposing their alleged illegal activities, corruption, human rights violations, or opaque links to criminal and terrorist networks. In this way, doxing becomes a tool of diplomatic pressure and information warfare.

A central aspect is the use of major Western media and digital platforms as multipliers of impact. The information, often coming from U.S. government sources or security agencies, is presented as independent investigative revelations, helping to construct narratives that delegitimize foreign governments. This can result in international isolation, economic sanctions, internal crises, or loss of political credibility.

It is an unconventional form of power projection, in which selective transparency and public exposure become geopolitical weapons. In an increasingly multipolar international system, state doxing therefore represents a new frontier of political, informational, and symbolic conflict, in which control of the narrative and management of information become central elements of competition between powers.

These doxing activities are structurally accompanied by practices of overt and covert propaganda. Overt propaganda manifests itself through official and declared instruments: public statements by political leaders, strategic documents, State Department reports, democracy promotion programs, funding for NGOs, and explicit media campaigns aimed at supporting certain values, institutional models, or geopolitical alliances. In this case, the goal is to shape international public opinion by presenting the U.S. vision as legitimate, universal, and morally superior. Covert propaganda, on the other hand, operates more discreetly and is difficult to trace. It includes indirect support for local media, influencers, think tanks, cultural and political actors who convey narratives favorable to U.S. interests without explicitly attributing the source. This category also includes information warfare operations, selective news framing campaigns, amplification of internal conflicts, and targeted dissemination of destabilizing content through digital platforms and social networks.

The interaction between propaganda and doxing is particularly significant: the publication of compromising information is often accompanied by a narrative construction that directs its interpretation, transforming data and revelations into tools of consensus or delegitimization. In this way, the U.S. is able to exert a profound influence on the internal political balance of other states without resorting to direct military intervention, consolidating a form of information hegemony that affects the sovereignty, decision-making autonomy, and international perception of the countries involved.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Já estamos praticamente acostumados. Apesar de recentemente terem havido muitos protestos falsamente categorizados como revoluções coloridas, quando vemos protestos particularmente violentos e organizados no Irã, de um modo geral, já sabemos que estamos lidando com uma revolução colorida.

As reações ocidentais são tão previsíveis e automáticas que parecem mecânicas. Independentemente das circunstâncias concretas por trás dos eventos, o Ocidente sempre transforma protestos no Irã em algo relativo às “mulheres oprimidas”, mesmo quando não há nenhuma conexão. É como se o Ocidente ainda não tivesse realmente superado o fracasso da última tentativa de revolução colorida em larga escala, em 2022-2023, após o falecimento de Mahsa Amini.

É por isso que apesar das ondas de protestos que se iniciaram em 28 de dezembro terem sido conduzidas por sindicatos e lojistas e estarem relacionadas a problemas concretos recentes, como a crise hídrica causada por anos de mau uso dos aquíferos iranianos e a instabilidade econômica causada por políticas econômicas impensadas do presidente Masoud Pezeshkian, rapidamente se espalharam nas redes sociais imagens mais aptas a dialogarem com o imaginário ocidental distorcido e com os perversos anseios pouco disfarçados por turismo sexual e profanação pornográfica dos corpos das mulheres iranianas.

Agora, porém, é bastante claro que quando nos referimos aos distúrbios no Irã ao longo das últimas 2 semanas, estamos falando necessariamente de duas “ondas” diferentes. Os primeiros dias viram majoritariamente manifestações pequenas e pacíficas. Já a partir do dia 31 de dezembro, porém, alguns pequenos grupos já tentavam invadir delegacias ou ocupar prédios governamentais, bem como tentavam transformar protestos pacíficos em ações violentas. Durante aproximadamente 1 semana esses esforços pareciam pontuais, eram rechaçados pelos manifestantes pacíficos e rapidamente suprimidos – ainda que já começassem a aparecer os casos de linchamento de policiais ou agentes de segurança.

De uma maneira repentina que só pode ser considerada coordenada, porém, elementos mascarados começaram a incendiar mesquitas, lojas, prédios públicos e carros, bem como a fazer uso de armas de fogo e cortantes contra agentes públicos, inclusive bombeiros. Os relatos indicam que 250 mesquitas, mais de 800 lojas, 182 ambulâncias, 265 escolas, 3 bibliotecas e 4 cinemas teriam sido danificados ou destruídos. Pior do que isso, centenas entre policiais, bombeiros, guardas revolucionários e simples transeuntes foram assassinados, alguns deles degolados.

Agora começam a aparecer vídeos mostrando as ações coordenadas e nada espontâneas de elementos mascarados retirando armas de dentro de mochilas e orquestrando a destruição de prédios e o uso de violência contra outras pessoas. A coordenação para essas ações, obviamente, se dava através da internet.

E é aí que podemos testemunhar como se deu a supressão da revolução colorida. Porque assim que o governo iraniano percebeu que as manifestações haviam sido cooptadas por insurgentes atuando de forma coordenada, a internet foi desativada a nível nacional. Qual não foi a surpresa quando, repentinamente, alguns “pontos de luz” começaram a aparecer na “escuridão virtual” iraniana. É que “alguém” estava distribuindo aparatos Starlink para os líderes da revolução colorida.

A partir daí, o governo só precisou rastrear esses poucos usuários de internet e alcançá-los, inclusive em suas casas. Com isso, após identificar os usuários de Starlink, então o governo simplesmente derrubou o sinal do Starlink e em questão de apenas 2 dias os atos de vandalismo e destruição acabaram. O que há de “revolucionário” aqui, fundamentalmente, além da estratégia utilizada, é como o Irã conseguiu derrubar o Starlink.

Alguns dizem que o Irã teria utilizado o sistema russo de guerra eletrônica Murmansk, outros mencionam o sistema russo Tobol, outros alegam o uso de tecnologia chinesa. O que se sabe com certeza, porém, é que foi brilhante o governo iraniano ter simplesmente deixado os terroristas agirem e, inclusive, se conectarem ao Starlink para identificá-los mais facilmente.

Logo em seguida, ademais, o governo convocou a população iraniana para ir às ruas se manifestarem contra os ataques terroristas e em defesa do país. E, de fato, milhões de pessoas foram as ruas. E é importante ressaltar isso para falar sobre a cobertura midiática ocidental de todo esse processo.

O mundo raras vezes viu tanta propaganda absolutamente falaciosa produzida simultaneamente sobre os eventos. As mentiras iam do número de arruaceiros (as mídias ocidentais falavam em milhões, quando em Teerã nunca passaram de 40 mil manifestantes em geral, entre pacíficos e violentos), passando por notícias de que Khamenei teria fugido do país ou que o governo teria perdido o controle e várias cidades. E quando percebeu-se que os subversivos estavam sendo suprimidos, começou a “propaganda negra” em que se acusava o Irã de matar até 20 mil manifestantes, sem que se apresentasse qualquer prova.

Em paralelo, os EUA brandiam ameaças militares contra o Irã. Até subitamente pararem e voltarem atrás, inclusive enfatizando que o governo iraniano teria executado apenas criminosos perigosos que estavam atirando contra a polícia.

O que explica a mudança de comportamento?

Tudo indica que os EUA esperavam que o processo de revolução colorida duraria mais tempo. A ideia seria manter Teerã num tensionamento constante, sendo forçada a usar da violência sem efetivamente conseguir suprimir os inimigos. Com isso, se construiria o casus belli para uma ação militar. Mas o Irã, simplesmente, liquidou as insurgências armadas em questão de poucos dias, antes de permitir que se gerasse “momentum” que permitisse a realização de um ataque militar significativo no Irã, facilitando uma mudança de regime.

O fato de que hoje a polícia iraniana apreendeu 60 mil armas num navio, as quais teriam entrado clandestinamente no país, mostra que se projetou para o Irã um cenário semelhante ao da Líbia ou da Síria. Recordamos aqui, aliás, que na Líbia, a própria embaixada dos EUA atuou como núcleo de tráfico internacional de armas para os rebeldes wahhabis.

Essas armas provavelmente seriam distribuídas para os “manifestantes” num contexto “ideal” de impasse entre o esforço governamental de repressão e o recrudescimento das forças antigoverno, potencialmente radicalizadas pela própria repressão policial, em um movimento dialético.

Sem agentes no chão, não faria sentido empreender uma ação militar contra o Irã. E a tragédia parece ser total para Israel e EUA quanto aos objetivos de mudança de regime. É como se tivessem perdido todos os ativos locais. Sem voltarmos os olhos para a guerra entre Irã e Israel em 2025, recordaremos que os movimentos iniciais envolveram infiltrados utilizando drones para destruir sistemas antiaéreos e radares de perto, mesma tática utilizada num atentado terrorista realizado dentro do território russo.

Com a rápida e eficiente ação iraniana, não havia mais ninguém para desativar as defesas iranianas, ninguém para receber as armas traficadas para tentar transformar o vandalismo em revolta armada, ninguém para se aproveitar do caos causado por um ataque aéreo em massa pela força aérea dos EUA.

A lição iraniana precisa ser aproveitada por todos os países contra-hegemônicos num cenário em que as revoluções coloridas voltam a ser uma ferramenta comum de imposição da vontade do hegemon unipolar.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

1) Donald Trump y la mayoría de los estadounidenses no entienden la Doctrina Monroe

Quiero hacer una apuesta… Apuesto a que el 99 % de los estadounidenses nunca ha leído el discurso que el presidente James Monroe pronunció ante el Congreso de los Estados Unidos el 2 de diciembre de 1823. Como parte de ese discurso, que fue el séptimo discurso anual ante el Congreso de los Estados Unidos, el presidente Monroe esbozó una política que ahora se conoce comúnmente como la Doctrina Monroe.

Comprender lo que realmente dijo el presidente Monroe ha cobrado mayor importancia porque Donald Trump hizo referencia a la Doctrina Monroe para justificar su secuestro del presidente venezolano Maduro.

Voy a demostrarles que el presidente Monroe no dijo nada que pudiera excusar o respaldar la acción de Trump. Por el contrario, Trump se está comportando como uno de los antiguos tiranos coloniales europeos.

Trump no es el primero en malinterpretar la Doctrina Monroe, que ahora se interpreta ampliamente en Estados Unidos como que le da a este país el control del hemisferio occidental y el derecho a tomar medidas contra CUALQUIER gobierno extranjero que tenga relaciones con los países de América Central y del Sur, México y Canadá.

La esencia de la Doctrina Monroe era originalmente una firme declaración de oposición a la colonización europea de América. Lea atentamente lo que dijo Monroe:

En las discusiones a las que ha dado lugar este interés y en los acuerdos por los que pueden terminar, se ha considerado oportuno afirmar, como principio en el que están involucrados los derechos e intereses de los Estados Unidos, que los continentes americanos, por la condición libre e independiente que han asumido y mantienen, no deben considerarse en lo sucesivo como sujetos de futura colonización por parte de ninguna potencia europea.

Todos los presidentes de Estados Unidos del siglo XX, incluido Trump, creen que la Doctrina Monroe otorga a Estados Unidos un veto sobre las relaciones políticas o económicas que cualquier país fuera del hemisferio occidental pueda mantener con Canadá, México y los países de América Central y del Sur.

Pero Monroe se centró en el imperialismo colonial europeo. El presidente Monroe no declaró que Estados Unidos fuera el árbitro definitivo a la hora de decidir si un país de América Central o del Sur podía formar voluntariamente una alianza política o económica con otro país, como China o Rusia.

La preocupación específica de Monroe era mantener a Estados Unidos al margen de las guerras que asolaban Europa en el siglo XIX. Dijo:

Nunca hemos tomado parte en las guerras de las potencias europeas en asuntos que les conciernen, ni es compatible con nuestra política hacerlo. Solo cuando nuestros derechos son invadidos o seriamente amenazados es cuando resentimos las injurias o nos preparamos para nuestra defensa.

Con los movimientos en este hemisferio estamos necesariamente más directamente relacionados, y por causas que deben ser obvias para todos los observadores ilustrados e imparciales…

Por lo tanto, en aras de la franqueza y de las relaciones amistosas que existen entre los Estados Unidos y esas potencias, debemos declarar que consideramos que cualquier intento por su parte de extender su sistema a cualquier parte de este hemisferio es peligroso para nuestra paz y seguridad.

No hemos interferido ni interferiremos en las colonias o dependencias existentes de ninguna potencia europea. Pero con los gobiernos que han declarado su independencia y la mantienen, y cuya independencia hemos reconocido, tras una profunda reflexión y basándonos en principios justos, no podríamos considerar ninguna intervención con el fin de oprimirlos o controlar de cualquier otra manera su destino, por parte de ninguna potencia europea, más que como una manifestación de una disposición hostil hacia los Estados Unidos.

En la guerra entre esos nuevos gobiernos y España, declaramos nuestra neutralidad en el momento de su reconocimiento, y a ella nos hemos adherido y seguiremos adhiriéndonos, siempre que no se produzca ningún cambio que, a juicio de las autoridades competentes de este Gobierno, haga indispensable un cambio correspondiente por parte de los Estados Unidos para su seguridad.

Monroe planteó dos puntos críticos en los dos párrafos anteriores… En primer lugar, Estados Unidos solo actuará si es atacado o amenazado por potencias europeas. Una vez más, su preocupación era mantener a Estados Unidos al margen de las guerras entre las diversas potencias europeas que trataban de asegurar y consolidar sus respectivas ambiciones coloniales.

En segundo lugar, Monroe insistió en que Estados Unidos no interferiría en las colonias o dependencias existentes. Sin embargo, si los pueblos de México, América Central o América del Sur decidían declarar su independencia, como hicieron las 13 colonias británicas el 4 de julio de 1776, cualquier acción militar europea contra esas antiguas colonias se consideraría un ataque a Estados Unidos.

En otras palabras, la política estadounidense propuesta por Monroe daba prioridad a aquellos países americanos que declararan la independencia, con la promesa tácita de que Estados Unidos los apoyaría.

Sin embargo, esto no otorgaba a Estados Unidos el derecho a intervenir unilateralmente en los asuntos políticos de los países de América Central y del Sur, ni le daba poder para llevar a cabo cambios de régimen en esos países simplemente porque no nos gustaran los nuevos gobernantes o la estructura del nuevo gobierno.

Monroe hace entonces una declaración política que todos los presidentes de Estados Unidos de los siglos XX y XXI han ignorado… No interferir en los asuntos internos de otros países:

Nuestra política con respecto a Europa, que fue adoptada en una etapa temprana de las guerras que durante tanto tiempo han agitado esa parte del mundo, sigue siendo la misma, es decir, no interferir en los asuntos internos de ninguna de sus potencias; considerar al gobierno de facto como el gobierno legítimo para nosotros; cultivar relaciones amistosas con él y preservar esas relaciones mediante una política franca, firme y viril, satisfaciendo en todos los casos las justas reivindicaciones de cada potencia, sin someterse a las injurias de ninguna.

Monroe concluyó su esbozo de la Doctrina Monroe haciendo hincapié en que esa sería su política para impedir que los gobiernos extranjeros impusieran por la fuerza sus sistemas políticos a los países del hemisferio occidental:

Es imposible que las potencias aliadas extiendan su sistema político a cualquier parte de cualquiera de los dos continentes sin poner en peligro nuestra paz y felicidad; tampoco puede nadie creer que nuestros hermanos del sur, si se les deja a su aire, lo adoptarían por su propia voluntad.

Por lo tanto, es igualmente imposible que contemplemos con indiferencia tal intervención en cualquiera de sus formas.

Lamentablemente, la Doctrina Monroe ha sido profanada e ignorada por una serie de presidentes, empezando por el presidente Polk en 1848. En lugar de defender a México y a nuestros vecinos de América Central y del Sur de la injerencia extranjera, nos hemos comportado repetidamente como un dictador autoritario.

México declaró su independencia de España el 16 de septiembre de 1810. Treinta y seis años después, Estados Unidos provocó una guerra con México al anexionar Texas y fabricar una crisis fronteriza al servicio de un proyecto expansionista más amplio.

Tal vez deberíamos bautizar este tipo de comportamiento como la Doctrina Polk, es decir, que solo nosotros, Estados Unidos, tenemos derecho a decidir qué tipo de gobierno pueden tener los pueblos y las naciones del hemisferio occidental.

La Doctrina Monroe tenía por objeto combatir la injerencia extranjera de las potencias imperiales… Estados Unidos ha desvirtuado esa doctrina y ahora la utiliza como excusa para alimentar nuestras propias ambiciones imperiales. Venezuela es solo la última víctima.

2) En lo que respecta al petróleo venezolano, Trump está perforando un pozo seco

Me equivoqué. Creía que controlar el petróleo venezolano era el objetivo principal detrás de la decisión de Donald Trump de ordenar el secuestro del presidente venezolano Nicolás Maduro. Después de revisar las cifras reales, queda claro que la creencia de que el petróleo venezolano serviría de amortiguador si el Golfo Pérsico se cerrara como consecuencia de un ataque israelí/estadounidense contra Irán es una completa tontería. Pido disculpas por haber considerado esa hipótesis antes de examinar las cifras reales.

El siguiente gráfico ilustra la realidad:

Si Irán cerrara el estrecho de Ormuz, sería devastador para el mercado mundial del petróleo… El 72 % de la producción de los miembros de la OPEP proviene del Golfo Pérsico. Venezuela, que es miembro de la OPEP, solo produce 700.000 barriles de petróleo al día, lo que representa solo el 2 % de la producción total diaria de la OPEP.

Ahora examinemos la absurda afirmación de Trump de que Estados Unidos, al confiscar el petróleo venezolano, obtendrá una bonanza y reducirá el precio del petróleo. En una publicación en Truth Social (del 7 de enero de 2026), Trump anunció: «Las autoridades provisionales de Venezuela entregarán entre 30 y 50 millones de barriles de petróleo de alta calidad, sancionado, a los Estados Unidos de América».

Añadió que el petróleo se vendería a precio de mercado y que él controlaría los ingresos «para garantizar que se utilicen en beneficio de los pueblos de Venezuela y Estados Unidos». Durante una reunión en la Casa Blanca con ejecutivos petroleros el 9 de enero de 2026, Trump reiteró que Estados Unidos «comenzaría inmediatamente a refinar y vender hasta 50 millones de barriles de crudo venezolano, lo que continuará indefinidamente».

Describió esto como parte de un plan más amplio en el que las empresas estadounidenses invertirían al menos 100.000 millones de dólares para reconstruir la infraestructura energética de Venezuela, lo que podría impulsar la producción a largo plazo y reducir los precios de la energía en Estados Unidos (por ejemplo, con el objetivo de alcanzar los 50 dólares por barril).

Estos son los hechos:

Con la tasa de producción actual de Venezuela, de aproximadamente 700 000 a 1 millón de barriles por día (bpd), el suministro de 50 millones de barriles de petróleo a Estados Unidos llevaría 71,4 días, suponiendo que toda la producción diaria se dedicara a este suministro.

Ahora calculemos la producción total de barriles de petróleo al día de todos los países de la OPEP y no pertenecientes a la OPEP durante esos mismos 71,4 días… el mundo produciría unos 7170 millones de barriles de petróleo crudo, de los cuales Venezuela contribuiría con aproximadamente 49,7 millones de barriles, es decir, el 0,693 % del total mundial.

¡Qué delirio! ¿De verdad Trump y sus asesores creen que un país que produce poco más del 0,5 % de la producción mundial de petróleo va a influir en el precio? Eso no va a suceder.

¿Qué hay de la promesa de Trump de invertir 100 millones de dólares para reconstruir la infraestructura petrolera de Venezuela? Aquí hay un análisis de ese escenario realizado por la empresa Goehring and Rozencwajg:

Cuando Hugo Chávez saltó a la fama a principios de la década de 2000, Venezuela decidió nacionalizar sus activos petroleros, lo que provocó la retirada de la mayoría de los productores occidentales. La empresa petrolera nacional, PDVSA, sufrió entonces una huelga debilitante en 2002-2003, que redujo drásticamente la producción. Tras el fin de la huelga, la producción experimentó una recuperación temporal, alcanzando aproximadamente 3,3 millones de barriles diarios en 2006. Ese año marcó otro punto de inflexión: se reescribieron o anularon los contratos, se desplomó el gasto de capital y la mano de obra cualificada comenzó a abandonar el país. En 2015, la producción había caído a 2,8 millones de barriles diarios, antes de entrar en un declive mucho más pronunciado. Según los datos más recientes de la AIE, la producción venezolana se sitúa ahora cerca de los 800 000 barriles diarios, lo que supone una caída de casi el 80 % con respecto a los niveles observados en 2000.

A la luz de los acontecimientos recientes, muchos inversores han comenzado a preguntarse cuánto tardará la producción venezolana en recuperarse. Consideramos que esta línea de pensamiento es prematura. Gran parte de la infraestructura instalada a finales de la década de 1990 y principios de la de 2000 ha sido desmantelada o desguazada desde entonces, a medida que el país se sumía en una grave pobreza. Durante la huelga de PDVSA hace dos décadas, la interrupción fue breve y se produjo mientras el tejido económico en general permanecía relativamente intacto. Como resultado, la infraestructura sobrevivió prácticamente intacta, lo que permitió la recuperación de la producción. Las circunstancias actuales se parecen poco a aquel episodio anterior.

Reiniciar la producción de petróleo pesado venezolano requeriría una inversión de capital a una escala extraordinaria. A modo de ejemplo ilustrativo, un documento antiguo de la industria indica que las grandes petroleras gastaron aproximadamente 23.000 millones de dólares en 2010 para poner en marcha una capacidad de 600.000 barriles diarios de petróleo pesado, lo que supone unos 40.000 dólares por barril fluido.

Para ser alguien que ha construido su reputación como un astuto hombre de negocios, Donald Trump está demostrando su ignorancia en lo que respecta al petróleo y al mercado petrolero.

Publicado originalmente por  Sonar21

Traducción:  Geopolíticarugiente

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Ooh look at me I’m sticking it to the man by supporting the same agendas as the US State Department. I’m being punk rock by regurgitating the same war propaganda talking points as John Bolton.

Is there anything more undignified than “leftists” and “anarchists” who cheer on the fall of empire-targeted governments even as the empire moves war machinery into place?

Ooh look at me I’m sticking it to the man by supporting the same agendas as the US State Department. I’m being punk rock by regurgitating the same war propaganda talking points as John Bolton. I’m fighting the power by backing the foreign policy objectives of the most powerful empire that has ever existed.

Fucking embarrassing, man.

If you want to have a serious political outlook it is necessary to have a more layered understanding of the world than “tyranny bad”, because as westerners we ourselves are ruled by the most tyrannical power structure on earth. That power structure ceaselessly targets the few remaining states that have successfully resisted being absorbed into its globe-spanning power umbrella like Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, and Cuba. Those states have successfully resisted being absorbed into the imperial blob exactly because they have strong governments that don’t hesitate to exert control to stomp out all the imperial operations and infiltrations which would otherwise have overthrown them.

This doesn’t mean these governments are wonderful and flawless, it just means they possess the qualities that enable a state to resist the empire’s coups, proxy conflicts, color revolutions and foreign influence operations. If your only analysis of state power dynamics is “tyranny bad”, then you will naturally find yourself in opposition to the unabsorbed states and (whether you admit it or not) on the side of the most tyrannical regime on earth — namely the US-centralized western empire.

No other power structure has spent the 21st century slaughtering people by the millions in wars of aggression around the world, attacking civilian populations with deadly starvation sanctions, staging coups, instigating proxy conflicts, and circling the planet with hundreds of military bases. Only the US empire is doing that. Dominating the entire planet with murderous brute force is as tyrannical as it gets. If this isn’t true, then nothing is.

If you want to have a serious political worldview, you need to get real about this. The premise that the fall of an authoritarian government is always inherently positive has no place in the understanding of a grown adult, especially if that grown adult happens to live in the core of the western empire, and especially if that empire is presently working to orchestrate the overthrow of the government in question.

The more power structures are absorbed into the empire, the larger and more powerful the empire becomes. Desiring their absorption is desiring more power for the US empire.

And you can lie to yourself and say that you don’t want Iran to be absorbed into the control of the US empire, you just want its people to live in a free and democratic country. But we both know that’s not going to happen. Once the strength of the Iranian government has been collapsed there will be a power vacuum that is filled by whatever faction is able to secure control, and the strongest faction will be whichever one is backed by the US and its allies. There is no organic faction within Iran that is strong enough to stand against the installation of a US puppet regime at this time, besides the one that presently exists.

That’s the reality of the situation. It’s not ideal, but it is reality. You can choose to be real about reality, or you can choose to psychologically compartmentalize away from it and tell yourself a bunch of fairly tales about a global people’s revolution which just coincidentally happens to be starting in all the countries the US empire hates most. I personally find the latter undignified, self-debasing, and power-serving.

Original article:  caitlinjohnstone.com.au

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The Western media are assisting the descent into barbarism through their well-honed lies and pandering to the imperialist thuggery of Trump’s regime.

After all, America’s Supreme Leader, Donald Trump, boasted about kidnapping Venezuela’s president and declaring last week that he considers himself above international law, and there was no Western media criticism, never mind condemnation. So, who knows what thoughts are ricocheting around Trump’s delusional, megalomaniac mind?

The Western media are no check on abuse of power, as they laughably claim to be. They are cheerleading for more.

Trump is promising that American military help is on the way to Iranian protesters to “Make Iran Great Again.”

Only seven months ago, the U.S. president launched a “beautiful” blitzkrieg on Iran, bombing the country’s three civilian nuclear sites. That illegal aggression was carried out in conjunction with Israeli air strikes despite Trump supposedly at the time conducting exploratory negotiations with Tehran.

Trump is warning of further military intervention “to protect” Iranian gangs who have taken to violent protests on the streets of Tehran and other cities over the past three weeks. The Iranian government said any military action by the United States will mean all-out war against U.S. interests across the Middle East, including critical oil supplies.

The trouble with delusion is that there’s no stopping it; it’s self-reinforcing. Trump’s Delta Force abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and killing of hundreds of people on land and at sea reinforce his delusion of impunity and omnipotence.

The Western news media are also fueling the false narrative that Iran is collapsing and that Trump can cosplay as the shining knight riding to the rescue.

All the U.S. and European mainstream media are peddling the narrative that the “Iranian regime” is facing its final days because, allegedly, it is losing its corrupt authoritarian control. British and German politicians are saying the Islamic Republic is going down. European parliaments are refusing to recognize diplomatic norms with Iran.

Violent seditionists in Iran are recognized and legitimized above the sovereign government.

None of the Western corporate-controlled media reported accurately on the much greater mass demonstrations that took place this week in Tehran and other major cities that were in support of the country’s government and denouncing regime-change interference in its internal affairs.

The Western media have distorted initial, relatively small public protests over deteriorating economic conditions and soaring inflation as representing a definitive challenge to the Iranian government. This is wishful thinking that belies orchestration by Western media. The protests in Iran that began on December 28 rapidly turned violent with armed mobs attacking public buildings and security forces.

Hundreds of people, including security officers, have been killed over the past two weeks. Buildings have been torched in arson attacks. And still the Western media lionize protesters as peaceful and unarmed. It’s the classic Western psychological operation, as was seen in the CIA-backed violent coup in Ukraine in 2014.

The Iranian authorities and Iranian media claim that foreign agitators have exploited the initial protests over economic grievances to fan violent chaos.

Former CIA director Mike Pompeo has crowed about Israeli Mossad agents fomenting the disturbances.

The Western media do not explain the background to chronic economic hardships in Iran as a result of “crippling sanctions” that the United States and its Western partners have imposed illegally on and off for four decades since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Western aggression against Iran is simply normalized as an acceptable prerogative for American and European governments.

The Western news media have been facilitating criminal aggression against Iran for decades, with their non-stop propaganda demonizing alleged Iranian state terrorism, alleged nuclear weapons ambitions, and an alleged theocratic tyranny.

It never occurs to the likes of the New York Times, CBS, the BBC or the Guardian that Iran is periodically targeted for regime change by the United States and its Western partners. Well, perhaps, that is too benign a reading. It does occur to these media, but they dutifully bury the facts and instead peddle the self-serving false narrative of a “popular uprising against the regime.”

The Western media have been loyally serving Western imperialist crimes for a long time. In 1953, the first foreign regime-change operation in the postwar era took place in Iran. The United States and Britain destabilized the elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh because he dared to nationalize the country’s oil industry, which London, in particular, had plundered for decades.

The regime change ushered in the dictatorship of the Shah, who ruled with a brutal iron fist under the watch of the American CIA and Britain’s MI6. The Shah was eventually overthrown in the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The monarch’s son, Reza Shah, living in luxury exile in the U.S., is currently calling for Trump to invade Iran for regime change.

The American and British media enabled the 1953 CIA and MI6 coup d’état against Iranian democracy by smearing the Mossadegh government, claiming that it was overseeing chaos and anarchy, claims that are echoed today in Western reporting on Iran. The violence is not blamed on gun-wielding and Molotov-cocktail-throwing mobs. Western media have attributed all deaths to the government, and Western parliaments follow suit by cutting ties with Tehran.

In 1953, the CIA and MI6 mobilized, bribed, and directed street gangs to run amok in Tehran, killing civilians and police officers. The deliberate objective, then, as it is now, is for Washington and London to make Iran ungovernable and precipitate the overthrow of the government. The Shah was installed as the ruler to do the bidding of American and British interests until his despotic reign was overthrown 17 years later by a popular uprising.

What’s going on today in Iran is a replay of a long-running dirty game that the Western states and their propaganda media have been imposing on that country for nearly eight decades. The dirty game of regime change keeps being repeated, not just in Iran but in countless other countries around the world, because the U.S. and its Western partners are given impunity by the Western media, dutifully laundering the dirty business.

The U.S. and its Western lackeys have been involved in up to 100 regime change operations since 1953, and that’s not including overt illegal wars. No other state comes close to this record of criminality. No wonder the world seems to be in such chaos and lawlessness. The Western media has sped the descent into barbarism.

Finian Cunningham is coauthor of Killing Democracy: Western Imperialism’s Legacy of Regime Change and Media Manipulation