MILEI LIKE ZELENSKY?

Receiving in these times, US loan from Trump Administracion, is not free of charge. It is similar to the situation faced by Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelensky last February when he was under siege by the American leader, in order to exchange its "rare earths" by arms, for continuing the war against Russia. 

 

Now, Argentina of Javier Milei probably needs an urgent financial help from Washington but instead of a swap or other kind of support, national government is ready to auction everything, including our sovereignty? 

SOME DOUBTS IN THE TRUMP CABINET 

THE "COALITION OF DRONES" AGAIN

 

Once again, leaders of European Union sanctioned and "demonized" Russia, because of drones fall in Pd and Baltic States. But Russia has no any motivation to entering in war with NATO neighbours.

MY RT INTERVIEW

SCOTT RITTER AND GEORGE GALLOWAY ABOUT THE FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS

MARY ELISE SAROTTE, NATO AND RUSSIA 

WHEN THE WISE MEN KNEW TO TALK ABOUT CRUCIAL ISSUES

Sometimes, I believe that in our "posttruth era", human beings have lost the capabilities to talk in a civilized manner and maybe, agree, though their differences. 

By then, it is necessary to rescue from You Tube, two relevant dialogues. One, between the British philosopher John Gray and the American intellectual and former officer of the Reagan Administration, Francis Fukuyama, talking inside the liberal tradition,about the Russian President Vladimir Putin.  

Here is this interesting debate.

And, secondly, I present a diplomatic meeting between former Chancellor of Reagan Administration, George Schultz and the last Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachov.  

This is the link.

Certainly, times of Cold War and ideologival battles are over but war winds threaten the whole world, so, listening those wise men, maybe brings reason and another spirit to fight with the menace.

 

GERMANY IN CHAINS

During the last personal meeting of our Club, September 17th, Former Argentine Ambassador Pedro Von Eyken  exposed his point of view about a comparison between Germans and Russians, through the lens of History. 

Here, you can read about a topic that we discussed last Wednesday, with Mr. Von Eyhen, how German democracy was functioning the last three decades and maybe, this is an article that represents my thought.

BY KONSTANTIN VON HOFFMEISTER

 LINK: https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/germany-in-chains

 

Germany drags a weight across its soul, a colossal anchor created from rubble and tribunals. The nation lives inside a mirror where every reflection shows a shadow in uniform. Every law scribbled across paper bows before that image. The Grundgesetz (Basic Law) speaks of liberty, but the words are an incantation written by the victors, a charm against resurrection. Citizens march through streets lined with cameras and prosecutors. Speak too freely and you summon phantoms; the phantoms do not vanish, they call the police. This is the fake democracy of chains.

The guilt complex has grown into a sacred totem. Schools feed it daily, churches kneel before it, newspapers chant it. The totem requires sacrifice: expression must bleed. To question, to laugh, to remember differently: that is profanation. The state protects the totem with penal codes sharper than swords. The soul of Germany is pressed flat under this idol, the way wheat is ground into powder for bread. The idol is fed endlessly, and yet its hunger grows.

Every decade, politicians perform ritual penance, speaking with grave lips about responsibility that can never end. They tell children they are heirs of darkness. They tell poets their language must tread carefully. They tell comedians that certain laughter carries punishment. An eternal courtroom stretches across the landscape, and every citizen is both a defendant and a witness. The process never closes; the sentence is permanent.

Free speech becomes a decorative mask in this theater. Article 5 of the Grundgesetz holds the mask high: “There shall be no censorship.” Yet beneath the mask lies a courtroom docket filled with names, charges, and sentences. Speak of history with the wrong intonation and you are marked. Display symbols with the wrong geometry and you are marked. The promise of “freedom” is ritual theater; the reality is a litany of prohibition.

Germany’s intellectuals live in a paradox. They proclaim openness, diversity of voices, and endless tolerance. Yet the chorus must always sing the same hymn of guilt. Dissonance is heresy. The universities hum with this dogma. Students learn early: some books are doors to prison and some phrases are stones too hot to touch. Ideas are filed into categories of safe and unsafe, usable and radioactive. Knowledge becomes a minefield patrolled by guardians of memory.

The guilt complex does not dissolve with time; it mutates into ideology. It travels into debates on immigration, identity, and Europe. Every argument carries a subterranean current: Germany must atone, Germany must atone again, Germany must atone forever. Policies bend towards submission, and speech bends with them. When people resist, they are labeled ghosts of the past, reminders of the forbidden era. The past is treated as a demon that must be exorcised daily, so the priests of democracy wave their censuring torches across public discourse.

The myth of guilt becomes an industry. Museums, foundations, institutes, and memorials multiply. Each demands reverence, each consumes state funds, and each produces literature reminding citizens of their inherited debt. The culture of remembrance becomes the culture of constraint. Freedom is traded for contrition. Speech is shackled in the name of “healing,” but the wound is never allowed to close. A healed wound would silence the industry, and so it must stay open, bleeding in perpetuity.

Germany’s citizens live with two tongues. One tongue speaks in public, careful, filtered, and adorned with the proper rituals. The other tongue whispers in kitchens, pubs, and encrypted channels. The public tongue feeds the system; the private tongue keeps a fragment of truth alive. This dual speech corrodes trust, as neighbors wonder which tongue you truly speak with. Surveillance grows, suspicion grows, and the air thickens with self-censorship.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Americans wave flags and declare speech absolute. Germany watches with envy and terror. Envy, because such liberty radiates vitality. Terror, because such liberty might awaken the sleeping forces of history. The German elite insists: America does not understand, Germany cannot follow. So the divide grows: between a people who crave release and a leadership that fears resurrection.

The guilt complex is an iron garment. Every German wears it at birth, stitched by the schools, reinforced by the courts, and decorated by the media. To remove it is unthinkable. To question its weight is dangerous. Yet the garment suffocates. Artists gasp under it, thinkers shrivel under it, and ordinary citizens stumble beneath it. Freedom struggles to breathe inside this garment, but the garment clings tighter with every movement.

The cycle becomes circular: guilt demands silence, silence produces resentment, and resentment strengthens the guardians of guilt, who demand more silence. Germany spins inside this circle endlessly. The promise of free speech becomes a ritual chant at the center of the circle, a chant no one believes but everyone repeats. The contradiction is sacred. The lie is sacred.

Germany once produced poets who bent language into worlds, philosophers who split reality with words, and revolutionaries who forged destiny with speeches. Now the poets must sign disclaimers, the philosophers must submit footnotes, and the revolutionaries must censor their own manifestos. Speech becomes anemic, stripped of fire. Yet beneath the surface, pressure builds. History has shown: pressure always finds cracks.

The guilt complex seeks to bury the past beneath prohibitions, yet by obsessively policing the past, it keeps the past alive. Citizens who would forget are reminded daily; citizens who would forgive are forbidden to. The state that claims to protect democracy builds walls around thought, as if ideas were contraband. A democracy that fears words is a democracy chained to fear.

The chains clatter across the cobblestones of Berlin, across the classrooms of Munich, and across the stages of Hamburg. Germany carries them with solemn pride, as if chains themselves were proof of virtue. Yet chains, however polished, remain chains. Speech under chains is a dull refrain. True freedom does not live in Germany; it waits at the margins, in exile, and in dreams of another dawn.

GLENN DIESEN ABOUT GERMANY 

FILM ABOUT THE END OF EASTERN GERMANY 

L'EXTREME DROITE DE L'ALLEMAGNE 

LA GIRA DE XI-JINPING POR EUROPA

Xi Jinping en Francia, Hungría y Serbia: 10 claves para explicar un viaje sorprendente

POR PHILLIPE LE CORRE, LE GRAND CONTINENT, 7 de mayo de 2024.

1 – La China de Xi y la Unión Europea: una relación que necesita reparación Para entender el contexto general de la relación entre China y la Unión, debemos remontarnos al periodo prepandémico. Aunque el régimen centró gran parte de su atención en sí mismo desde principios de 2020 y en la pandemia de Covid, 2019 había sido especialmente significativo desde el punto de vista de la relación con Europa. En primer lugar, Xi Jinping viajó a Francia, donde se reunió con el presidente Macron, la canciller Merkel y el presidente de la Comisión Europea, Jean-Claude Juncker, juntos, lo que ya era de por sí una novedad importante. Pero también había estado en Italia para firmar un Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) con el entonces gobierno italiano sobre las Nuevas Rutas de la Seda, que hace unos meses el gobierno de Meloni decidió oficial —y discretamente— no renovar. El año 2019 es doblemente decisivo en este sentido: es cuando Europa decide establecer una política hacia China y trazar los inicios de una estrategia1 que califique la relación con Pekín a través del tríptico socio, competidor económico, rival sistémico. Para la Unión, esta línea de pensamiento fue un factor estructurante durante los años de la pandemia y, a pesar del acercamiento de Pekín con Italia, esta secuencia puede considerarse a posteriori como un momento de unidad europea. Por parte china, en cambio, la visita conjunta a Macron y Merkel —la única hasta la fecha que ha reunido a Xi y a los líderes de las dos mayores economías de la Unión— no produjo los efectos esperados. Todo cambia a partir de 2020. China, que inicialmente había pensado que podría restar importancia a la pandemia, cierra sus fronteras durante casi tres años y corta los vínculos no digitales con la mayoría de los líderes y países del mundo. Esta estrategia tuvo un efecto muy negativo en la imagen de China, sobre todo en Europa. Tanto más cuanto que vino acompañada de una campaña de propaganda y desinformación que, en última instancia, resultó contraproducente. Desde el punto de vista de China, los últimos cinco años han sido muy importantes precisamente por esa larga pausa y porque la agenda se volvió a centrar inmediatamente en la guerra de Ucrania con la visita de Putin en febrero de 2022 y el apoyo tácito de China a la invasión rusa. 

 

2 – El pivote 2020: el fin de la luna de miel Desde el punto de vista de la relación con la Unión, es como si esos cinco años hubieran contado el doble o el triple del lado chino: se pasó de una luna de miel entre Occidente —sobre todo las empresas europeas y occidentales en general, pero también un cierto número de gobiernos occidentales que en última instancia se beneficiaron de esta relación— y China, a una situación mucho más frágil. Conviene recordar que, en aquel momento, muchos países de Europa del Este, Escandinavia, Italia y Grecia, donde se encuentra una enorme inversión china en el puerto del Pireo, estaban directamente en el punto de mira económico de Pekín. Incluso Alemania es un imán para los inversores chinos, que adquirieron una de las principales empresas de robótica del mundo, Kuka, en 2016. Y los líderes europeos están tomando nota. En este sentido, 2019, y más aún 2020, será la culminación de un proceso de varios años en el que se están poniendo en marcha herramientas para defender a Europa de injerencias e inversiones chinas en sectores sensibles como la tecnología y las infraestructuras. Durante mucho tiempo, China creyó en la estrategia de la «luna de miel» con Europa. Ya en 2004 consideraba positiva la gran ampliación del mercado común europeo, sin duda porque ya intuía que la multipolaridad le daría un nuevo y poderoso interlocutor en el mundo occidental: la Unión Europea ampliada. En 2015, durante su visita al Reino Unido, Xi Jinping —que no es alguien que se exprese muy a menudo sobre la situación interna de los países— dijo explícitamente que prefería un Reino Unido fuerte en una Europa fuerte. Esto dice mucho sobre el interés de China por Europa y el hecho de que esa Unión de 28, y ahora de 27, cuente como contrapeso a Estados Unidos, y como mercado para los productos chinos. Cuando se lanzaron las «Nuevas Rutas de la Seda» en 2013, su objetivo era muy claramente utilizar la sobrecapacidad china en materiales como el aluminio y el acero para construir infraestructura, con Europa en sentido amplio —Portugal, Alemania, Reino Unido, Grecia— como principal destino final… En una frase eficaz, el objetivo estratégico planteado durante la visita de Xi a París sería invertir la relación para que China «trate a Europa como un socio y no como un cliente». Frente a este «despertar de la ingenuidad» europeo mediante la introducción de una serie de mecanismos de defensa en el marco de la Comisión von der Leyen, y en particular de la DG TRADE, China da muestras de incomprensión, fingida o no. La gira europea de Xi, que comenzó en la mañana del lunes 6 de mayo, pondrá sin duda el dedo en la llaga de estas numerosas ambigüedades e intentará poner fin al «diálogo de sordos», según la expresión utilizada por Josep Borrell tras la Cumbre China-Unión Europea de 2022. En este contexto, la cuestión de las relaciones franco-chinas es un tema en sí mismo.