trovo anch'io estremamente interessante il discorso di Sachs - per quel che ne posso capire, le cose che dice erano già note a chiunque avesse seguito con un po' di attenzione il corso della geopolitica degli ultimi decenni. ma la sintesi che ne fa è molto illuminante Il giorno ven 28 feb 2025 alle ore 14:53 380° via nexa < nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> ha scritto:
Buongiorno,
scusate per l'OT ma quanto raccontato (sotto) ha avuto un impatto determinante (anche) sul _perché_ e percome la tecnologia - incluso ovviamente "il digitale" - è stata progettata, sviluppata e utilizzata negli ultimi 30 anni.
Lo scorso 19 Febbraio Jeffrey Sachs [1] ha tenuto un discorso a mio avviso storico al parlamento europeo, nel quale riassume in modo estremamente efficiente ed efficace cosa è davvero successo dal 1990 fino al 20 Gennaio 2025. Sotto trovate il link e le cose che a mio avviso sono le più significative.
Per come lo leggo io, sostanzialmente il suo discorso illustra la (nota?) strategia adottata dagli states per dominare unilateralmente la Terra dopo lo scioglimento del Patto di Varsavia, strategia che è la stessa adottata dalla classe dominante negli ultimi 5000 anni, perché è il suo karma: siccome le risorse sono scarse per sopravvivere dobbiamo (cioè _dovete_) combattere per il Lebensraum (si veda l'ultimo paragrafo della trascrizione sotto).
...ora però è probabile che sia iniziato il Karmageddon! :-D
«Welcome to the chaos of the times If you go left and I go right Pray we make it out alive This is Karmageddon» (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y29kmnhjtc8)
«Professor Jeffrey Sachs: Speech at European Parliament on February 19, 2025»
https://www.other-news.info/edited-transcript-professor-jeffrey-sachs-the-ge...
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Edited transcript of Professor Jeffrey Sachs’ speech in the European Parliament at an event titled “The Geopolitics of Peace”, hosted by former UN Assistant Secretary General and current BSW MEP Michael von der Schulenburg, on February 19, 2025. The transcript has been edited for clarity and annotated in footnotes and hyperlinks. The unedited transcript and audio version is here [2]
[...] The United States came to the view, especially during 1990-91, and then with the end of the Soviet Union, that the US now runs the world, and that the US does not have to heed anybody’s views, red-lines, concerns, security viewpoints, international obligations, or any UN framework. I’m sorry to put it so plainly, but I do want you to understand.
[...] What happened after 1991, and to bring us to 2008, is that the United States decided that unipolarity meant that NATO would enlarge somewhere from Brussels to Vladivostok, step by step.
[...] Neutrality is perhaps the dirtiest word according to the US mindset. If you’re an enemy, we know you’re an enemy. If you are neutral, you are a subversive, because you’re really against us, but just not telling us. You’re only pretending to be neutral.
[...] So, the decision was taken by Clinton in 1994 to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine. This is a long-term US project. This is not due to one administration or another. This is a US government project that started more than 30 years ago.
[...] Because one thing about America is we always “know” what our counterparts are going to do, and we always get it wrong! And one reason we always get it wrong is that in the non-cooperative game theory that the American strategists play, you don’t actually talk to the other side.
[...] A thirty-year project. Ukraine and Georgia were the keys to the project. Why? Because America learned everything it knows from the British. We are the wannabe British Empire.
[...] The American political system is a system of image. It’s a system of media manipulation every day. It is a PR system. You could have a president that basically doesn’t function and have that person in power for two years and run for reelection. The one thing is he had to stand on a stage for 90 minutes by himself, and that was the end of it.
[...] Bombing Belgrade 78 straight days in 1999 was part of this project. Splitting apart that country when borders are “sacrosanct,” aren’t they? Except for Kosovo, that is. Borders are sacrosanct except when America changes them. Breaking apart Sudan was another related US project. Consider the South Sudan rebellion. Did that just happen because South Sudanese rebelled? Or shall I give you the CIA playbook?
Let us please understand as grown-ups what this is about. Military campaigns are costly. They require equipment, training, base camps, intelligence, finance. That support comes from big powers. It doesn’t come from local insurrections. South Sudan did not defeat Sudan in a tribal battle.
[...] NATO enlargement, as you know, started in 1999 with Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Russia was extremely unhappy about it
[...] So, these are long-term US projects. It’s wrong to ask, “Is it Clinton? Is it Bush? Is it Obama?” That’s the boring way to look at American politics, as a day-to-day or year-to-year game. Yet that’s not what American politics is.
After 1999, the next round of NATO enlargement came in 2004 with seven more countries: the three Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Slovakia. At this point, Russia was pretty upset.
[...] The idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire is childish propaganda.
[...] There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the US since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world.(*16) That’s what the CIA does for a living. Please know it. It’s a very unusual kind of foreign policy. In the American Government, if you don’t like the other side, you don’t negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them, preferably, covertly. If it doesn’t work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it’s not our fault. They’re the aggressor. They’re the other side.
They’re “Hitler.” That comes up every two or three years. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein, whether it’s Assad, whether it’s Putin, that’s very convenient. That’s the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given. [...] The mass media repeats it entirely because it’s completely suborned by the US government.
[...] [The Maidan Revolution] Ladies and gentlemen, please, how did all those Ukrainian media outlets suddenly appear at the time of the Maidan? Where did all this organization come from? Where did all these buses come from? Where did all those people come from? Are you kidding? This is an organized effort. And it’s not a secret, except perhaps to citizens of Europe and the United States. Everyone else understands it quite clearly.
[...] if we put our minds, our resources and our energies towards it, we can transform the world energy system for climate safety. We can protect biodiversity. We can ensure every child gets a quality education. We can do so many wonderful things right now. What do we need for success? In my view, most importantly, we need peace. And my basic point is there are no deep reasons for conflict anywhere because every conflict I study is just a mistake. We are not struggling for Lebensraum. That idea, which essentially came from Malthus and later became a Nazi idea, was always wrong, a fundamental intellectual mistake. We have had race wars, national wars of survival, out of the fear that we don’t have enough for everybody on this planet, so that we are in a struggle for survival. As an economist, I can tell you, we have plenty on the planet for everybody’s sustainable development. Plenty.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
[1] che per i distratti è uno che a _tutti_ i più potenti personaggi geopolicici gli da del tu _e_ che è stato personalmente presente a quasi tutti gli incontri che contano dal 1990 a oggi
[2] https://singjupost.com/transcript-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-geopolitics-of-peace-...
-- 380° (lost in /traslation/)
«Welcome to the chaos of the times If you go left and I go right Pray we make it out alive This is Karmageddon»