Egypt as a country has the region's largest population, with large oil production. The country also once had the biggest nationalist leader of the entire region, Nasser. Now it has become crucial as a political pawn of the U.S. in the region. Not coincidentally, Egypt became the second largest country to get U.S. military aid in the world after Israel and ahead of Colombia.

This neutralization of the Arab world, by appointment of governments and the U.S. military presence in the heart of the region - updated with the invasion of Iraq - was in itself an essential element of North American politics in the world and the guarantee of oil supplies to supplement the declining oil production in the U.S.A. and all oil supplies to Europe and Japan

That is what is at stake now, after the fall of dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt. Impotent to act directly with their military, the U.S. tries to articulate transitions that change the form of domination, but maintains its essence. The Army preferred Mubarak's resignation, because they realized that his presence had united the opposition. They hope that without him, they might co-opt the opposition sectors into a moderate coalition - with El Baradei, the Muslim Brotherhood, and with the support of the U.S. and Europe - that can make constitutional reforms, but control the succession process in the elections of September, managing to demobilise the popular movement before it can forge new leadership.

Independence could be extended to other countries in the region - of which Algeria, Jordan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia are strong candidates. The fall of the dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia demonstrates that the U.S. can no longer maintain the scheme of power that they did for over three decades. The least that can be expected is political instability in the region, until other coalitions of power can be organised, whose character will colour the new period which the Middle East is set to enter.

by Emir Sader.

Отредактировано Bella (2011-02-22 18:18:38)

The U.S. Congress authorised the White House to double the amount approved in the 2011 budget for expenses related to propaganda, disinformation and media against leaders who oppose U.S. interests worldwide, as is the case with Muammar Khadafy Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Raul Castro, Daniel Ortega, Cristina Kirchner, Fernando Lugo, Kim Jong II. Resources would be used to buy space in the media of these countries ruled by these leaders in newspapers, radio, magazines and television networks. They should always refer to them as dictators and always receive directions from the Press Attachés in their respective countries or if there is a snag in any diplomatic relations with them, from CIA agents in the country.

The total project budget is one billion dollars, but to Brazil only 120 million were allocated for such action.

Last week there was a joint meeting between representatives of the CIA. The Central Intelligence Agency, State Department and Defence Department agreed that besides the funding for the actions against Khadafy and Ahmedinejad in their respective countries, millions of dollars would be transferred to opponents to allow them to organise demonstrations and start a world media campaign against the two and also seek to involve their Latin American allies to bring opposition parties to support U.S. positions.

The use of worldwide media images of demonstrations in Bahrain, where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is parked, and Yemen, another ally of the White House, as though the demonstrations happened in Tripoli and Benghazi, which happened, but to support the government of Khadafy in Libya, partly burned the U.S. plan against Libya. Yesterday Libyan students around the world decided to organise demonstrations in support of Khadafy and the Libyan government.

The secret services of the U.S. and other countries decided to infiltrate agents to create provocations and disrupt them. And as a way to undo the demonstrations, the CIA and the Press Attachés in U.S. embassies were responsible for spreading news with counter propaganda, publicising in the media of the world that students are being forced to support Khadafy under penalty of losing their scholarships to study, thereby initiating the plan that is coordinated by the White House itself.

Photos and images disseminated by means of alternative communication and a group of European students who are returning from Libya in the World Social Forum in Dakar, Senegal, support and show the veracity of statements by the Libyan government and Khadafy, considered a threat to the North American system. Starting with the power the student movement and Libyan youth exert, they virtually run the country's universities after Khadafy pursued his Cultural Revolution.

The United States also accuses Khadafy of being behind the demonstrations, prohibited from being spread in the U.S. by Patriotic Decree, carried out daily for forty (40) days in Puerto Rico by students who demand freedom of expression and public education in that almost State which ended up becoming a North American colony.

The control of news in the West about what is happening in the Middle East is so great that in all the demonstrations, from Tunisia and Egypt, U.S. flags, pictures of Obama and also George Bush are burned, but all these images are withdrawn by news agencies and television networks, controlled by the White House.

Photo shows support from the Libyan people to the government of Muammar Khadafy in TRIPOLI and used by the Western press as if it were contrary to Khadafy.

Photo: Mahmoud Turki / AFP

By Khatarina Garcia and Peter Blair

As for your hot desire for such wild riots to start in the countries mentioned by you, Ramon, forget about it, even don't dream! The fact is that still millions of people living there and in Russia do still have a soviet mentality. And they know too well that even a bad peace is better than a civil war.

You are so naive, romantic Ramon! How can people living in Russia want to separate from it? Now, when they see what has happened to those who were as naive ten years ago as you are now? Do they want to live like those illegal immigrants from former Asian republics of the USSR who do their best to get to Russia and endure horrible life with the only aim-to gain a few thousand roubles to send them to their families in those "free" states? It's even not funny. There are a lot of bad things which take place in Russia, but people are thankful that they still live better than those our former citizens who decided (actually were fooled and and forced) to separate.
On the other hand, we don't have such leaders like Lenin or Gadhafi who could lead us to some honorable aim.

'It's not up to Gorbachev to speak of democracy' - Experts

Well-known politicians, including the opposition, said they did not consider the ex-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev a politician who tried to democratize the country and even more so, an expert on political modernization. According to them, there were many times when Mikhail Gorbachev contacted the West for help to intervene in the internal affairs of their country, and most of his "projects" like "perestroika" and "acceleration" were either idle talk or have failed and led to the destruction of the statehood.
In an interview with British TV channel Sky News, the former head of the Soviet Union discussed Russia's path towards a "democratic state" and appealed to foreign audiences with an advice on "what has to be done to move forward in this direction".

Stanislav Belkovsky, the director of the Institute of National Strategy in an interview with Politonline.ru said that he did not believe Gorbachev to be a Democrat or modernizer. "I believe that Gorbachev was not a modernizer, because with a strict approach to the concept of modernization, it is the process of building a modern state, modern society and modern institutions. Under Gorbachev in the Soviet Union the destruction of these institutions was commenced, including large systems of socialization of people," said the political scientist. "Gorbachev has launched the collapse of all systems of the Soviet Union and initiated the process of de-modernization of the country, which continues to this day," Belkovsky said. "It seems to me that Gorbachev did not have a political strategy. He had to finish Andropov's personnel revolution in the apparatus of the communist party, a generational shift, but planned no large-scale reforms. He had to finish cleaning the government and advance his own personal power and to keep the communist regime," he explained. The expert noted: "This was a weak leader who has got into power at the wrong time and that's what happened. And so what that we gained our "freedom." Gorbachev was in any case not a democrat, he was a classic party member, the flesh of the Communist Party. He did not want any democracy, of course," continued Belkovsky and added: "He has always strongly resisted democracy, but then he faced the forces that brought the story to the forefront - and was weaker than them, much weaker. When the USSR collapsed, Gorbachev did not want to plead guilty, did not want to admit his mistakes, and took credit for our newfound freedom. Since we have the crisis of moral authority in society, some of our countrymen are inclined to attribute to him the great advantages and historic role, which he did not possess and did not play," noted the analyst.

In turn, the publisher and writer Prokhanov said in comments to Politonline.ru, that the appeal Gorbachev made to foreign audiences, counting on media and political reaction of the West, was traditional and telling for the former head of the Soviet Union. "I will make a radical statement - I think that Gorbachev is one of the most extraordinarily effective country's agents in the entire history who was recruited in a complicated manner or under the influence of strategic rivals of the USSR to deliberately ruin the country," he said. "Perestroika" was inherently not a process of democratization, but an algorithm of layering effect launched in the Soviet society. It destroyed the bases of the Soviet Union - first the party, then the ideology and then the economy, military, and moral," said Prokhanov. "Under the slogan of "democratization" and with the support of the energy of the masses who wanted change, within four years the Soviet Union was weakened and presented a heap of still apparent, but already unsteady systems. The Communist Party was taken out of the picture, law enforcement, military, social motivation, intelligence and economy were discredited," he added.

"If we look at any strategic polls or conduct them in any part of the country, you will be convinced that Gorbachev is a negative persona, a negative authority for the majority of Russian, and earlier, Soviet citizens. He would have an unbelievably low rating with a negative sign, and he cannot consider himself an authority and teach someone," Prokhanov thinks.

Deputy General Director of the Institute of Social Systems Dmitry Badovsky suggested that Politonline.ru takes a hard look at Gorbachev's "modernization" and "democratization". "We see that Gorbachev's economic modernization has choked. The social one did have certain dynamics, and the political one was a complete and catastrophic failure, resulting in the collapse of the Soviet Union."

In addition, bloggers discussing the persona of Gorbachev wrote: "And what did he give us but the idiotic prohibition? Democratization? And what's this - the nationalist hysteria? The collapse of the Soviet Union? The withdrawal of troops from Europe, for which the country received nothing? "Gorbachev was always a can't-do under the gray cardinal Yakovlev and the Central Committee, therefore here he cannot compete with the intellectuals and argue with serious politicians," Internet users said.

Oleg Volodin
Politonline