What part will your country play in World War III?

By Larry Romanoff


The true origins of the two World Wars have been deleted from all our history books and replaced with mythology. Neither War was started (or desired) by Germany, but both at the instigation of a group of European Zionist Jews with the stated intent of the total destruction of Germany. The documentation is overwhelming and the evidence undeniable. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)


That history is being repeated today in a mass grooming of the Western world’s people (especially Americans) in preparation for World War IIIwhich I believe is now imminent. It is evident that War Clouds are gathering. The signs are everywhere, with media coverage and open talk of war in many countries. The RAND Corporation have for years been preparing military scenarios for World War III, and NATO is reported to be currently doing so. Vast movements of NATO troops and equipment are either in preparation or process to surround Russia. The US is surrounding China with military bases including the world's largest in Guam. Both China and Russia are surrounded with nearly 400 US biological weapons labs. Iran is entirely vulnerable from the American military build-up in the Middle East.




Saturday, July 31, 2021

Science in and politics out: Unsolved myths around COVID-19 origins

Science in and politics out: Unsolved myths around COVID-19 origins | Updated: 2021-07-24 09:41
FILE PHOTO: Colorized scanning electron micrograph of an apoptotic cell (greenish brown) heavily infected with SARS-COV-2 virus particles (pink), also known as novel coronavirus, isolated from a patient sample. Image captured and color-enhanced at the NIAID Integrated Research Facility (IRF) in Fort Detrick, Maryland. [Photo/Agencies]

As of July 23, approximately 10 million Internet users in China have endorsed the open letter calling the World Health Organization (WHO) to investigate the Fort Detrick biolab. The mystery of Fort Detrick remains unexplained and has been shrouded by suspicions for quite some time.

Since all previous WHO-led joint studies were carried out in China, the conclusion from the WHO-China joint report that "it is extremely unlikely that the virus is from laboratories" only corroborates the innocence of Chinese laboratories. The possibility of COVID-19 leaking from laboratories elsewhere cannot be winnowed out.

Before jumping to any hasty conclusions, let's revisit some unraveled myths around American lab-leak hypotheses beyond China's Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

First and foremost, Fort Detrick. It is home to US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Army Medical research Institute of Infectious Diseases and the National Cancer Institute. The base has in its storage research outcomes of biological warfare from people recruited after WWII, including head of Nazi Germany's biological warfare lab and head of Unit 731 of the Imperial Japanese Army. The US media revealed that Fort Detrick stores a large number of viruses that pose huge safety and health risks.

In July 2019, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a "cease and desist order" to halt most research at Fort Detrick. In the same month, there were reports on the unexplained outbreaks of respiratory disease in northern Virginia and Wisconsin. By the end of July, two retirement communities near the base experienced unexplained pneumonia outbreaks. In September, vaping-related lung illness cases doubled in Maryland where Fort Detrick is based. Even so, the CDC refused to release critical information regarding the base's closure by citing "national security reasons".

Besides Fort Detrick, over 1,100 American laboratory mishaps were still cloaked in secrecy which involves bacteria, viruses and toxins posing significant risks to people and agriculture, according to the American government reports obtained by USA Today. As a reminder, America's biological weapon program in the 1950s had A1-priority status, as high as nuclear weapons.

In the US, quite a few laboratories have conducted controversial "Gain of Function" (GoF) research which modifies naturally occurring animal viruses to test their transmissibility and pathogenicity to humans. Existing oversight only applies to relevant studies supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH), and privately funded research programs fall completely short of supervision, cautioned David Relman, member of the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity.

NIH guidelines clearly stipulate that enhanced potential pandemic pathogen review mechanism should provide transparency to the public regarding funded projects and the use of research results. Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, believed that if there was indeed a lab-related release of COVID-19, it may well have occurred in a NIH-funded project since NIH has supported a large number of genetic recombination research but has yet revealed none of them.

Take American scientist Ralph S. Baric, a top-notch epidemiologist who is dubbed "the coronavirus hunter". Dr. Baric has dedicated himself to coronavirus tracking for approximately 40 years and possesses a large number of intellectual property rights in this regard. His team receives long-term support from the US military and provides research services for Fort Detrick.

In October 2014, the Obama administration believed that the Baric Lab's use of SARS, MERS, and influenza viruses for GoF transformation research posed a potential threat to public health. A ban was issued by the White House declaring the suspension of funding to similar research, and requiring researchers to immediately stop the relevant studies. However, Baric's laboratory continued the virus chimeric research in disregard of the order.

He has developed genetic techniques to enhance the infectivity of existing bat coronaviruses in collaboration with Shi Zhengli. In a widely circulated paper published in Nature Medicine in 2015 by Baric and Shi who is only the second corresponding author of the paper, Dr. Baric and his colleagues built a new coronavirus from an existing one through GoF research. The chimeric virus is much more pathogenic than the parental virus and the research was approved by NIH, according to Dr. Baric. All of the work was done in Baric's laboratory in North Carolina and the main contribution of Dr. Shi is the preparation of viral specimens discovered in China. Current alleged evidence pointing to Shi's zoonotic viral research actually serves as a sound reason for a thorough investigation on Baric's laboratory and its association with Fort Detrick. While the west is groundlessly accusing Dr. Shi of a possible laboratory mishap, let's not forget it is her team that isolated COVID-19 at the earliest possible time.

At this crucial juncture, all hidden myths should be subject to scrutiny and all laboratories carrying out GoF and other highly-risky biochemical research merit global attention. The Biden administration's total disregard of the international suspicion around its laboratory safety and continued bluffing of Trump's "Wuhan virus" betray their own utter incompetency to stop the pandemic. Public opinion cannot be clamped up by wanton accusations or purposeful diversion. China's voice can never be silenced in the face of groundless slander.

Xin Ping is a commentator on international affairs, writing regularly for China Daily, Global Times, etc. He can be reached at 

Important additional reading:

COVID-19 Un-Explained — Waves, Ripples and Surges

LARRY ROMANOFF — Propaganda and the Media — Part 4  –All you have to do is think — June 05, 2120


Thursday, July 29, 2021

Glenn Greenwald -- FBI Using the Same Fear Tactic From the First War on Terror: Orchestrating its Own Terrorism Plots


FBI Using the Same Fear Tactic From the First War on Terror: Orchestrating its Own Terrorism Plots

Questioning the FBI's role in 1/6 was maligned by corporate media as deranged. But only ignorance about the FBI or a desire to deceive could produce such a reaction.

NBC's Today Show, Oct. 9. 2020

The narrative that domestic anti-government extremism is the greatest threat to U.S. national security — the official position of the U.S. security state and the Biden administration — received its most potent boost in October 2020, less than one month before the 2020 presidential election. That was when the F.B.I. and Michigan state officials announced the arrest of thirteen people on terrorism, conspiracy and weapons charges, with six of them accused of participating in a plot to kidnap Michigan’s Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who had been a particular target of criticism from President Trump for her advocacy for harsh COVID lockdown measures.

The headlines that followed were dramatic and fear-inducing: “F.B.I. Says Michigan Anti-Government Group Plotted to Kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer,” announced The New York Times. That same night, ABC News began its broadcast this way: "Tonight, we take you into a hidden world, a place authorities say gave birth to a violent domestic terror plot in Michigan — foiled by the FBI.”

Democrats and liberal journalists instantly seized on this storyline to spin a pre-election theme that was as extreme as it was predictable. Gov. Whitmer herself blamed Trump, claiming that the plotters “heard the president’s words not as a rebuke but as a rallying cry — as a call to action.” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) claimed that “the president is a deranged lunatic and he’s inspired white supremacists to violence, the latest of which was a plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer,” adding: “these groups have attempted to KILL many of us in recent years. They are following Trump’s lead.” Vox’s paid television-watcher and video-manipulator, Aaron Rupar, drew this inference: “Trump hasn't commended the FBI for breaking up Whitmer kidnapping/murder plot because as always he doesn't want to denounce his base.” Michael Moore called for Trump's arrest for having incited the kidnapping plot against Gov. Whitmer. One viral tweet from a popular Democratic Party activist similarly declared: “Trump should be arrested for this plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer. There’s no doubt he inspired this terrorism.”

Wednesday, July 28, 2021

NL -- Manlio Dinucci -- De Kunst Van Oorlog voeren -- Waarom Duitsland Heeft Gewonnen En Italië Heeft Verloren


De Kunst Van Oorlog voeren

 Waarom Duitsland Heeft Gewonnen En Italië Heeft Verloren 

Manlio Dinucci



De Duitse bondskanselier Merkel - schrijft Alberto Negri in (il manifesto, 23 juli) - heeft de druk weerstaan van drie Amerikaanse regeringen - Obama, Trump en Biden - om North Stream 2 te annuleren, de pijpleiding die tien jaar geleden de North Stream inaugratieerde en de levering van Russisch gas aan Duitsland verdubbelde. In plaats daarvan is "South Stream, de pijpleiding van Eni-Gazprom, mislukt". Negri concludeert terecht dat Merkel "het spel heeft gewonnen dat wij hebben verloren". De vraag dringt zich spontaan op: waarom heeft Duitsland gewonnen en Italië verloren?

De kop van de Washington Post is veelzeggend: "VS, Duitsland bereiken akkoord over Russische gaspijpleiding, einde geschil tussen bondgenoten".  Het akkoord, bedongen door president Biden met kanselier Merkel, werd en wordt fel bestreden door een tweeledige groep in het Congres, aangevoerd door de Republikeinse senator J. Risch die een wet voorstelt tegen "het kwaadaardige Russische project". Het akkoord is dus eigenlijk een "wapenstilstand" (zoals Negri het definieert).

De reden waarom de regering Biden besloten heeft het te bedingen is om een einde te maken aan het "geschil" dat de betrekkingen met Duitsland, een belangrijke NAVO-bondgenoot, verziekte. Dit laatste moest echter de "pizzo" betalen aan de Amerikaanse baas, door zich - op verzoek van de onder-staatssecretaris Victoria Nuland - ertoe te verbinden Oekraïne (dat in feite al lid van de NAVO is) te "beschermen" met een investeringsfonds van 1 miljard dollar om het te compenseren voor de verminderde inkomsten, aangezien de tweeling North Stream gaspijpleidingen door de Oostzee lopen en zijn grondgebied omzeilen.

In ruil daarvoor heeft Duitsland, althans voorlopig, toestemming van de VS om 55 miljard kubieke meter aardgas per jaar uit Rusland in te voeren. De pijpleiding wordt beheerd door het internationale consortium Nord Stream AG, bestaande uit 5 bedrijven: Het Russische Gazprom, het Duitse Wintershall en Pe-gi/E.On, de Nederlandse Nederlandse Gasunie en het Franse Engie. Duitsland wordt zo het energieknooppunt voor de levering van Russisch gas aan het Europese netwerk.

Dezelfde rol had Italië op zich kunnen nemen met de South Stream-pijpleiding. Het project zag het licht in 2006, tijdens de regering-Prodi Il, met de overeenkomst die was bedongen door Eni en Gazprom. De pijpleiding zou de Zwarte Zee zijn overgestoken (in de Russische, Bulgaarse en Turkse territoriale wateren) en vervolgens over land door Bulgarije, Servië, Hongarije, Slovenië en Italië naar Tarvisio (Udine). Van hieruit zou het gas naar het Europese netwerk worden geleid.

Met de aanleg van de pijpleiding was in 2012 begonnen. In maart 2014 kreeg Saipem (Eni) een eerste contract van 2 miljard euro toegewezen voor de aanleg van het onderzeese deel. In de tussentijd, terwijl de putsch op het Maidan-plein de Oekraïense crisis versnelde, ondernam de regering-Obama, in overleg met de Europese Commissie, echter stappen om de South Stream te dwarsbomen. In juni 2014 arriveerde een delegatie van de Amerikaanse Senaat, onder leiding van John McCain, in Sofia en bracht de orders van Washington over aan de Bulgaarse regering. Deze kondigde onmiddellijk de blokkering aan van de werkzaamheden aan de South Stream, waarin Gazprom al 4,5 miljard dollar had geïnvesteerd.

Op die manier heeft Italië niet alleen contracten ter waarde van miljarden euro's verloren, maar ook de mogelijkheid om op zijn grondgebied het knooppunt te hebben voor de levering van Russisch gas in Europa, wat sterke inkomsten zou hebben gegenereerd en de werkgelegenheid zou hebben doen toenemen. Waarom heeft Italië dit allemaal verloren?

Omdat de regering Renzi (in functie van 2014 tot 2016) en het parlement de oplegging van Washington met gebogen hoofd hebben aanvaard. Het Duitsland van Merkel daarentegen verzette zich ertegen. Vervolgens opende zij het "geschil tussen bondgenoten" dat Washington dwong de verdubbeling van North Stream te accepteren, met behoud van de Amerikaanse aanspraak om te bepalen uit welke landen Europa gas mag importeren en uit welke landen niet.

Zou een Italiaanse regering het aandurven een geschil met Washington te beginnen om een van onze nationale belangen te verdedigen? Feit is dat Italië niet alleen de pijpleiding, maar ook zijn eigen soevereiniteit heeft verloren.

(the manifesto, July 27, 2021) 

Nederlandse vertaling: Martien

PT -- Manlio Dinicci -- A Arte da Guerra -- Por que é que a Alemanha venceu e a Itália perdeu?


A Arte da Guerra

 Por que é que a Alemanha venceu e a Itália perdeu? 

Manlio Dinucci



A Chanceler alemã Merkel - escreve Alberto Negri (il manifesto, 23 de Julho) - resistiu à pressão de três administrações norte-americanas - Obama, Trump e Biden - para que cancelasse o North Stream 2, o gasoduto que flanqueia o North Stream inaugurado há dez anos, duplicando o fornecimento de gás russo à Alemanha.

Em vez disso, "o South Stream, o gasoduto Eni-Gazprom, fracassou". Conclui correctamente Negri que Merkel "ganhou a partida que nós perdemos". Surge imediamente a pergunta: Porque é que a Alemanha ganhou e a Itália perdeu?

O título do Washington Post é significativo: "Os EUA e a Alemanha chegam a um acordo sobre gasoduto russo, pondo fim ao conflito entre aliados". O acordo, assinado pelo Presidente Biden com a Chanceler Merkel, foi e é fortemente oposto por um grupo bipartidário no Congresso, liderado pelo Senador Republicano J. Risch, que propõe uma lei contra o "perigoso projecto russo".

Portanto, o acordo é, de facto, uma "trégua" (como o define Negri). Foi a razão pela qual a Administração Biden decidiu pôr fim à "discórdia" que azedava as relações com a Alemanha, um importante aliado da NATO. No entanto, a Alemanha teve de pagar "dividendos" ao patrão USA, comprometendo-se – tal como solicitado pela Secretária de Estado, Victoria Nuland - a "proteger a Ucrânia" (de facto, já parte da NATO) com um fundo de investimento de um bilião  de dólares para compensá-la pela redução de receitas, dado que os gasodutos gémeos North Stream passam através do Mar Báltico, contornando o seu território. Como contrapartida, a Alemanha tem, pelo menos por agora, permissão USA para importar 55 biliões de metros cúbicos/ano de gás natural da Rússia.

O gasoduto é gerido pelo consórcio internacional Nord Stream AG, constituído por cinco empresas: Gazprom da Rússia, Wintershall e Pegi/E.On da Alemanha, Nederland's Gasunie dos Países Baixos e Engie da França. A Alemanha tornou-se assim o centro de energia para a distribuição do gás russo através da rede europeia.

A Itália poderia ter desempenhado o mesmo papel com o gasoduto South Stream. O projecto nasceu em 2006, durante o governo Prodi II, com um acordo entre a Eni e a Gazprom. O gasoduto atravessaria o Mar Negro (em águas territoriais russas, búlgaras e turcas) e continuaria por terra através da Bulgária, Sérvia, Hungria, Eslovénia e Itália até Tarvisio (Udine). A partir daí, o gás seria distribuído através da rede europeia.

A construção do gasoduto começou em 2012. Em Março de 2014, Saipem (Eni) adjudicava um contrato inicial de 2 biliões de euros para a construção da secção submarina. Mas, entretanto, quando o putsch da Praça Maidan precipitava a crise ucraniana, a Administração Obama, em concertação com a Comissão Europeia, moveu-se para afundar o South Stream. Em Junho de 2014, chegava a Sófia uma delegação do Senado dos EUA, chefiada por John McCain, e transmitiu as ordens de Washington ao governo búlgaro. Este último anunciou imediatamente o bloqueio dos trabalhos do South Stream, no qual a Gazprom já tinha investido 4,5 biliões de dólares. Desta forma, a Itália perdeu não só contratos no valor de biliões de euros, mas também a possibilidade de ter no seu território o centro de distribuição do gás russo na Europa, o que teria gerado receitas significativas e o aumento de postos de trabalho.

Porque é que a Itália perdeu tudo isto? Porque o governo Renzi (em funções de 2014 a 2016) e o Parlamento aceitaram de cabeça baixa, a imposição de Washington.

A Alemanha de Merkel, pelo contrário, opôs-se a essa exigência. Iniciou-se, então, a "discussão entre aliados" que forçou Washington a aceitar a duplicação do North Stream, mantendo ao mesmo tempo a pretensão USA de decidir de que países a Europa pode ou não pode importar gás natural. Será que um governo italiano ousaria abrir hostilidades com Washington para defender os nossos interesses nacionais? O facto é que a Itália perdeu não só o gasoduto, como também abdicou da sua soberania.

il manifesto, 27 de Julho de 2021

Su BYOBLU, Canale 262 del digitale terrestre

Il Venerdì alle 20:30




Grandangolo allarga il campo dell’informazione, segnalando e commentando articoli, comunicati stampa, reportage, documenti, dichiarazioni e interviste, che compaiono su media e fonti ufficiali internazionali, ma vengono ignorati o deformati dai media mainstream del nostro paese.


VEN   20.30


SAB    9.00 – 16.00

DOM  11.00 – 17.30

LUN    8.00 – 19.30

MAR   12.00 – 22.30

MER   17.00

GIOV  18.00


Tuesday, July 27, 2021

EN -- Manlio Dinucci -- The Art of War -- Why Germany has won and Italy has lost


The Art of War

  Why Germany has won and Italy has lost 

Manlio Dinucci


German Chancellor Merkel - writes Alberto Negri (il manifesto, July 23) - has resisted the pressure of three U.S. administrations - Obama, Trump and Biden - to cancel North Stream 2, the pipeline that flanks the North Stream inau-grated ten years ago, doubling the supply of Russian gas to Germany. Instead, "South Stream, the Eni-Gazprom pipeline, failed". Negri rightly concludes that Merkel "has won the game that we have lost". The question arises spontaneously: why did Germany win and Italy lose?


The headline of the Washington Post is significant: "US, Germany reach agreement on Russian gas pipeline, ending dispute between allies".  The agreement, stipulated by President Biden with Chancellor Merkel, has been and is strongly opposed by a bipartisan group in Congress, led by Republican Senator J. Risch who proposes a law against "the malignant Russian project". So the agreement is actually a "truce" (as Negri defines it).


The reason why the Biden administration has decided to stipulate it is to put an end to the "dispute" that was spoiling relations with Germany, an important NATO ally. The latter, however, had to pay the "pizzo" to the U.S. boss, committing itself - as requested by the under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland - to "protect Ukraine" (in fact already a member of NATO) with an investment fund of $ 1 billion to compensate it for the decreased revenue, since the twin North Stream gas pipelines pass through the Baltic Sea bypassing its territory.


In return, Germany has, at least for now, US permission to import 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year from Russia. The pipeline is managed by the international consortium Nord Stream AG, consisting of 5 companies: Russian Gazprom, German Wintershall and Pe-gi/E.On, Dutch Nederland's Gasunie and French Engie. Germany thus becomes the energy hub for the Russian gas supply to the European network.


The same role could have been assumed by Italy with the South Stream pipeline. The project was born in 2006, during the Prodi Il government, with the agreement stipulated by Eni and Gazprom. The pipeline would have crossed the Black Sea (in Russian, Bulgarian and Turkish territorial waters) continuing overland through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Slovenia and Italy to Tarvisio (Udine). From here the gas would be routed into the European network.


Construction of the pipeline had begun in 2012. In March 2014, Saipem (Eni) was awarded an initial €2 billion contract to build the undersea section. In the meantime, however, while the Maidan Square putsch precipitated the Ukrainian crisis, the Obama administration, in concert with the European Commission, moved to scuttle the South Stream. In June 2014, a delegation from the U.S. Senate, headed by John McCain, arrived in Sofia and transmitted Washington's orders to the Bulgarian government. Immediately this announced the blocking of the works of the South Stream, in which Gazprom had already invested 4.5 billion dollars.


In this way, Italy lost not only contracts worth billions of euros, but also the possibility of having on its territory the hub for the supply of Russian gas in Europe, which would have generated strong revenues and increased employment. Why has Italy lost all this? Because the Renzi government (in office from 2014 to 2016) and Parliament accepted Washington's imposition with bowed heads. Merkel's Germany, on the contrary, opposed it. It then opened the "dispute between allies" that forced Washington to accept the doubling of North Stream, while retaining the U.S. claim to decide which countries Europe is allowed to import gas from and which countries it is not allowed to import gas from.


Would an Italian government dare to open a dispute with Washington to defend one of our national interests? The fact is that Italy has lost not only the pipeline, but its own sovereignty.

 Manlio Dinucci


(il manifesto, July 27, 2021)


Su BYOBLU, Canale 262 del digitale terrestre

Il Venerdì alle 20:30





Grandangolo allarga il campo dell’informazione, segnalando e commentando articoli, comunicati stampa, reportage, documenti, dichiarazioni e interviste, che compaiono su media e fonti ufficiali internazionali, ma vengono ignorati o deformati dai media mainstream del nostro paese.


VEN   20.30


SAB    9.00 – 16.00

DOM  11.00 – 17.30

LUN    8.00 – 19.30

MAR   12.00 – 22.30

MER   17.00

GIOV  18.00

FR -- Manlio Dinucci -- L'art de la guerre -- Pourquoi l’Allemagne a gagné et l’Italie a perdu


L’art de la guerre

  Pourquoi l’Allemagne a gagné et l’Italie a perdu  

Manlio Dinucci


  La chancelière allemande Merkel -écrit Alberto Negri (il manifesto, 23 juillet)- a résisté aux pressions de trois administrations -Obama, Trump et Biden- pour effacer le North Stream 2, le gazoduc qui flanque le North Stream inauguré il y a dix ans, redoublant la fourniture du gas russe à l’Allemagne. Par contre a “échoué le South Stream, le gazoduc d’Eni-Gazprom”. Negri conclut avec raison que Merkel “a gagné la partie que nous avons perdue”. Immédiatement surgit la question : pourquoi l’ Allemagne a-t-elle gagné et l’Italie perdu ?

  Le titre du Washington Post est significatif : “Usa et Allemagne atteignent un accord sur le pipeline russe, mettant fin à la dispute entre alliés”. L’accord, stipulé par le président Biden avec la chancelière Merkel, a été et est solidement accueilli par un groupement bi-partisan du Congrès, chapeauté par le sénateur républicain J. Risch qui propose une loi contre “le malveillant projet russe”. Donc, en effet, l’accord est une “trêve” (comme le définit Negri). La raison pour laquelle l’administration Biden a décidé de le signer est de mettre fin à la “dispute” qui détériorait les rapports avec l’Allemagne. Celle-ci a cependant payé le “pizzo” (rançon payée à la mafia, ndt) au boss USA, en s’engageant -comme demandé par la sous-secrétaire d’État Victoria Nuland- à “protéger l’Ukraine” (de fait déjà membre de l’OTAN) par un fond d’investissement d’1 milliard de dollars qui la dédommage sur ses entrées diminuées, puisque les gazoducs jumeaux North Stream passent par la Mer Baltique en contournant son territoire. En contrepartie l’Allemagne a, du moins pour le moment, l’autorisation USA d’importer de Russie 55 milliards de mètres cubes annuels de gaz naturel. Le gazoduc est géré par le consortium international Nord Stream AG, constitué de 5 sociétés : la russe Gazprom, les allemandes Wintershall et Pegi/E.On, l’hollandaise Nederland’s Gasunie et la française Engie. L’Allemagne devient ainsi le hub énergétique pour la distribution du gaz russe dans le réseau européen.

  Ce même rôle aurait pu être tenu par l’Italie avec le gazoduc South Stream. Le projet était né en 2006, pendant le gouvernement Prodi II, avec l’accord qu’avaient signé Eni et Gazprom. Le gazoduc aurait traversé la Mer Noire,(dans des eaux territoriales russes, bulgares et turques) poursuivant via la terre à travers Bulgarie, Serbie, Hongrie, Slovénie et Italie jusqu’à Tarvisio (Udine). De là le gaz aurait été distribué dans le réseau européen.

  La construction du pipeline avait commencé en 2012. En mars 2014 la société Saipem (Eni) se voyait attribuer un premier contrat de 2 milliards d’euros pour la construction du tronçon sous-marin. Mais entretemps, tandis que le putsch de Piazza Maïdan précipitait la crise ukrainienne, l’administration Obama, de concert avec la Commission Européenne, agissait pour couler le South Stream. En juin 2014 arrivait à Sofia une délégation du Sénat étasunien, dirigée par John McCain, qui transmettait au gouvernement bulgare les ordres de Washington. Immédiatement était annonçé le blocage des travaux du South Stream, dans lequel Gazprom avait déjà investi 4,5 milliards de dollars. Ainsi l’Italie perdait non seulement des contrats de milliards d’euros, mais la possibilité d’avoir sur son territoire le hub de distribution du gaz russe en Europe, d’où seraient dérivés de fortes entrées et un important développement d’emplois.

  Pourquoi l’Italie a-t-elle perdu tout ça ? Parce que le gouvernement Renzi (en charge de 2014 à 2016) et le Parlement ont accepté tête basse l’imposition de Washington. L’Allemagne de Merkel au contraire s’est opposée. Elle a ainsi ouvert la “dispute entre alliés” qui a contraint Washington à accepter le redoublement du North Stream, les USA conservant cependant la prétention de décider par quels pays l’Europe peut importer ou pas du gaz naturel. Un gouvernement italien oserait-il ouvrir une dispute contre Washington pour défendre notre intérêt national ? Le fait est que l’Italie a perdu non seulement le gazoduc mais sa propre souveraineté.

Édition de mardi 26 juillet 2021 d’il manifesto

Traduit de l’italien par Marie-Ange Patrizio

Su BYOBLU, Canale 262 del digitale terrestre

Il Venerdì alle 20:30



Grandangolo allarga il campo dell’informazione, segnalando e commentando articoli, comunicati stampa, reportage, documenti, dichiarazioni e interviste, che compaiono su media e fonti ufficiali internazionali, ma vengono ignorati o deformati dai media mainstream del nostro paese.


VEN   20.30


SAB    9.00 – 16.00

DOM  11.00 – 17.30

LUN    8.00 – 19.30

MAR   12.00 – 22.30

MER   17.00

GIOV  18.00


IT -- Manlio Dinucci -- L'arte della Guerra -- Perché la Germania ha vinto e l’Italia ha perso



Perché la Germania ha vinto e l’Italia ha perso

L’arte della guerra. La rubrica settimanale a cura di Manlio Dinucci

Manlio Dinucci

EDIZIONE DEL27.07.2021

PUBBLICATO26.7.2021, 23:59

La cancelliera tedesca Merkel – scrive Alberto Negri (il manifesto, 23 luglio) – ha resistito alle pressioni di tre amministrazioni Usa – Obama, Trump e Biden – perché cancellasse il North Stream 2, il gasdotto che affianca il North Stream inaugurato dieci anni fa, raddoppiando la fornitura di gas russo alla Germania.

È invece «fallito il South Stream, il gasdotto di Eni-Gazprom». Conclude giustamente Negri che la Merkel «ha vinto la partita che noi abbiamo perso». Sorge spontanea la domanda: perché la Germania ha vinto e l’Italia ha perso?

Significativo il titolo del Washington Post: «Usa e Germania raggiungono un accordo sulla pipeline del gas russo, ponendo fine alla disputa tra alleati». L’accordo, stipulato dal presidente Biden con la cancelliera Merkel, è stato ed è fortemente osteggiato da uno schieramento bipartisan del Congresso, capeggiato dal senatore repubblicano J. Risch che propone una legge contro «il maligno progetto russo».

Quindi l’accordo è in effetti una «tregua» (come la definisce Negri). La ragione per cui l’amministrazione Biden ha deciso di stipularlo è mettere fine alla «disputa» che incrinava i rapporti con la Germania, importante alleato Nato. Questa ha dovuto però pagare il «pizzo» al boss Usa, impegnandosi– come ha richiesto la sottosegretaria di Stato Victoria Nuland – a «proteggere l’Ucraina» (di fatto già nella Nato) con un fondo di investimento di 1 miliardo di dollari che la risarcisca per i diminuiti introiti, dato che i due gasdotti gemelli North Stream passano dal Mar Baltico aggirando il suo territorio. Come contropartita la Germania ha, almeno per ora, il permesso Usa a importare dalla Russia 55 miliardi di metri cubi annui di gas naturale.

Il gasdotto è gestito dal consorzio internazionale Nord Stream AG, costituito da 5 società: la russa Gazprom, le tedesche Wintershall e Pegi/E.On, l’olandese Nederland’s Gasunie e la francese Engie. La Germania diviene così l’hub energetico per lo smistamento del gas russo nella rete europea.

Lo stesso ruolo avrebbe potuto assumere l’Italia con il gasdotto South Stream. Il progetto era nato nel 2006, durante il governo Prodi Il, con l’accordo stipulato da Eni e Gazprom. Il gasdotto avrebbe attraversato il Mar Nero (in acque territoriali russe, bulgare e turche) proseguendo via terra attraverso Bulgaria, Serbia, Ungheria, Slovenia e Italia fino a Tarvisio (Udine). Da qui il gas sarebbe stato smistato nella rete europea.

La costruzione della pipeline era iniziata nel 2012. Nel marzo 2014 la Saipem (Eni) si aggiudicava un primo contratto da 2 miliardi di euro per la costruzione del tratto sottomarino. Nel frattempo però, mentre con il putsch di Piazza Maidan precipitava la crisi ucraina, l’amministrazione Obama, di concerto con la Commissione Europea, si muoveva per affossare il South Stream. Nel giugno 2014 arrivava a Sofia una delegazione del Senato Usa, capeggiata da John McCain, che trasmetteva al governo bulgaro gli ordini di Washington. Subito questo annunciava il blocco dei lavori del South Stream, in cui la Gazprom aveva già investito 4,5 miliardi di dollari. In tal modo l’Italia perdeva non solo contratti per miliardi di euro, ma la possibilità di avere sul proprio territorio l’hub di smistamento del gas russo in Europa, da cui sarebbero derivati forti introiti e incremento di posti di lavoro.

Perché l’Italia ha perso tutto questo? Perché il governo Renzi (in carica dal 2014 al 2016) e il Parlamento hanno accettato a testa china l’imposizione di Washington.

La Germania della Merkel, al contrario, si è opposta. Ha quindi aperto la «disputa tra alleati» che ha costretto Washington ad accettare il raddoppio del North Stream, pur mantenendo gli Usa la pretesa di decidere da quali paesi l’Europa può importare o no gas naturale. Un governo italiano oserebbe aprire una disputa con Washington per difendere un nostro interesse nazionale? Il fatto è che l’Italia ha perso non solo il gasdotto, ma la propria sovranità.

il manifesto, 27 luglio 2021


2007 Speech


Discurso do Presidente da Rússia, Vladimir Putin, na manhã do dia 24 de Fevereiro de 2022

Discurso do Presidente da Rússia, Vladimir Putin, Tradução em português

Presidente da Rússia, Vladimir Putin: Cidadãos da Rússia, Amigos,

Considero ser necessário falar hoje, de novo, sobre os trágicos acontecimentos em Donbass e sobre os aspectos mais importantes de garantir a segurança da Rússia.

Começarei com o que disse no meu discurso de 21 de Fevereiro de 2022. Falei sobre as nossas maiores responsabilidades e preocupações e sobre as ameaças fundamentais que os irresponsáveis políticos ocidentais criaram à Rússia de forma continuada, com rudeza e sem cerimónias, de ano para ano. Refiro-me à expansão da NATO para Leste, que está a aproximar cada vez mais as suas infraestruturas militares da fronteira russa.

É um facto que, durante os últimos 30 anos, temos tentado pacientemente chegar a um acordo com os principais países NATO, relativamente aos princípios de uma segurança igual e indivisível, na Europa. Em resposta às nossas propostas, enfrentámos invariavelmente, ou engano cínico e mentiras, ou tentativas de pressão e de chantagem, enquanto a aliança do Atlântico Norte continuou a expandir-se, apesar dos nossos protestos e preocupações. A sua máquina militar está em movimento e, como disse, aproxima-se da nossa fronteira.

Porque é que isto está a acontecer? De onde veio esta forma insolente de falar que atinge o máximo do seu excepcionalismo, infalibilidade e permissividade? Qual é a explicação para esta atitude de desprezo e desdém pelos nossos interesses e exigências absolutamente legítimas?

Read more


Ver a imagem de origem



(China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States)


manlio + maria




Read more at Moon of Shanghai

World Intellectual Property Day (or Happy Birthday WIPO) - Spruson ...

Moon of Shanghai

L Romanoff

Larry Romanoff,

contributing author

to Cynthia McKinney's new COVID-19 anthology

'When China Sneezes'

When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis


James Bacque


irmãos de armas

Subtitled in PT, RO, SP

Click upon CC and choose your language.



Before the Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly.

The President of Russia delivered
the Address to the Federal Assembly. The ceremony took
place at the Manezh Central Exhibition Hall.

15, 2020


President of Russia Vladimir Putin:

Address to the Nation

Address to the Nation.




PT -- VLADIMIR PUTIN na Sessão plenária do Fórum Económico Oriental

Excertos da transcrição da sessão plenária do Fórum Económico Oriental


The Putin Interviews
by Oliver Stone (



Um auto retrato surpreendentemente sincero do Presidente da Rússia, Vladimir Putin



Personagens Principais em 'Na Primeira Pessoa'

Parte Um: O Filho

Parte Dois: O Estudante

Parte Três: O Estudante Universitário

Parte Quatro: O Jovem especialista

Parte Cinco: O Espia

Parte Seis: O Democrata

Parte Sete: O Burocrata

Parte Oito: O Homem de Família

Parte Nove: O Político

Apêndice: A Rússia na Viragem do Milénio

contaminação nos Açores

Subtitled in EN/PT

Click upon the small wheel at the right side of the video and choose your language.

convegno firenze 2019