Σκαρίφιμα-Πρότασις τοῦ Δημήτρη Κιτσίκη
628 - Τὰ 12 μίλια στὸ Αἰγαῖο
Ἡ Ἑλλὰς ὡς προτεκτορᾶτο τῶν Δυτικῶν Μεγάλων Δυνάμεων δὲν δύναται νὰ ἐπεκτείνῃ τὰ χωρικὰ της ὕδατα στὸ Αἰγαῖο στὰ 12 μίλια ὅπως ἐμφαίνεται στὸ παραπάνω σκαρίφημα ποὺ ἐσχεδίασε καὶ ἐδημοσίευσε πρὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν ὁ Δημήτρης Κιτσίκης γιὰ τὸν ἑλληνοτουρκικὸ ἔλεγχο τοῦ Αἰγαίου ὡς προέκτασι τῶν Στενῶν ἀπὸ τὸν Εὔξεινο Πόντο μέχρι τὴν Κρήτη.
Αὐτὸ τὸ ἐξηγεῖ μὲ τὸ παρακάτω σημείωμά του ποὺ μοῦ ἔστειλε σήμερα ὁ γνωστὸς ὁ παλαίμαχος οἰκονομολόγος δημοσιογράφος Κώστας Κόλμερ.
Ἀντιθέτως τὴν ἐπέκτασι αὐτὴ δύναται νὰ τὴν πραγματοποιήσῃ μία ἑλληνοτουρκικὴ συνομοσπονδία διότι ἤδη ἡ Ἄγκυρα μὲ τὸν Ἔρντογαν ἔχει άναδειχθῆ ἀνεξάρτητη Δύναμις καὶ ἠμπορεῖ αὐτὴ νὰ ἐπιβάλῃ τὰ 12 μίλια μὲ τὴν συμπαράστασι τῆς Ἑλλάδος πρὸς ὄφελος τοῦ ἑλληνοτουρκικοῦ κράτους: L'union fait la force!
Μία τέτοια προέκτασι τῶν Στενῶν στὸ Αἰγαῖο ὑπὸ ἑλληνοτουρκικὸ ἔλεγχο θὰ συνέφερε τὶς ΗΠΑ γιὰ νὰ ἀποτρέψῃ τὴν κάθοδο τῆς Ῥωσσία στὶς θερμὲς θάλασσες τῆς Μεσογείου, ἴσως ὅμως καὶ κατόπιν συνεννοήσεως ΗΠΑ-Ῥωσσίας σὲ συμφωνία τύπου Γιάλτας.
Δημήτρης Κιτσίκης 9 Σεπτεμβρίου 2020
"Τά 6 μίλια τῆς φρονήσεως
"Διάφοροι ἐγχώριοι ἀναλυτὲς ὑποστηρίζουν τὴν ἐπέκταση τῶν χωρικῶν ὑδάτων (Χ.Υ.)τῆς Ἑλλάδος στὰ 12 μίλια καθ’ὅλην τὴν ἀκτογραμμὴ τῆς ἠπειρωτικῆς χώρας καὶ στὰ νησιὰ τοῦ Αἰγαίου πελάγους.
"Ἡ κυβέρνηση τοῦ Κυρ. Μητσοτάκη θὰ ἐπεκτείνει τά Χ.Υ. στὰ 12 μίλια, στὸ Ἰόνιον πέλαγος μέχρις τοῦ ἀκρωτηρίου Ταινάρου , στὴν ἀνατολικὴ Μάνη καὶ ἀργότερα στὸ Λιβυκὸ πέλαγος καὶ στὴν θάλασσα τῆς Λυκίας.
"Ἡ βαθμιαία ἐπέκταση τῶν Χ.Υ. εἶναι πρᾶξις φρονήσεως καὶ δὲν συνεπάγεται τὴν παραγραφὴ τοῦ δικαιώματος. Εἶναι μονομερὲς δικαίωμα τοῦ κράτους σύμφωνα μὲ τὸ διεθνὲς δίκαιο τῆς θαλάσσης ποὺ ἔχουν ἐφαρμόσει 148 παραθαλάσσιες χῶρες , ἡ Τουρκία στὴν Μαύρη θάλασσα καὶ ἡ Κύπρος στὴν ΝΑ Μεσόγειο. -
Γιατί τά 12 μίλια στὸ Αἰγαίον θὰ ἦταν λανθασμένη κίνηση τῆς Ἑλλάδος στὴν παροῦσα φάση τῆς ἀναμετρήσεως μὲ τὴν Τουρκία;
-
Πρῶτον διότι ἔχουσα καὶ ἡ Τουρκία 6 μίλια στὸ Αἰγαῖον αὐτοπεριορίζεται κυριαρχικῶς ἀπὸ τὴν συνθήκη τῆς Λωζάννης καὶ δὲν ἐγείρει μεγαλύτερες ἀξιώσεις. Δὲν θὰ μπορεῖ νὰ κατηγορεῖ τὴν Ἑλλάδα γιὰ «μαξιμαλισμὸ» ὅπως κάνει τώρα στὰ διάφορα διεθνῆ fora.
Δεύτερον καὶ κυριώτερον , ἡ Ἀμερικὴ καὶ ἡ Ρωσσία δὲν ἐπιθυμοῦν ΧΥ 12 μιλίων στὸ Αἰγαῖον διότι θὰ ἀνάγκαζε τοὺς στόλους τους νὰ πλέουν ὑπὸ προϋποθέσεις (πχ. τά ὑποβρύχια νὰ ἀναδύονται ὅταν διέρχονται ἀπὸ τά «στενά» του Αἰγαίου.)
Τρίτον τά 12 μίλια θὰ εἶναι ἀνυπεράσπιστα ἔναντι τῆς παραβιάσεως ἀπὸ ἐνδιαφερόμενες καὶ τρίτες χῶρες, χωρὶς ἡ Ἑλλὰς νὰ μπορεῖ νὰ ἀντιδράσει καὶ νὰ μὴ θεωρηθῆ ὡς «ταραχοποιός».
Τέταρτον ἡ Ἑλλὰς δὲν χρειάζεται τά 12 μίλια γιὰ νὰ προστατεύσει τὸν Αἰγαιακό της χῶρο καὶ τά νησιά. Ἀρκεῖ ἡ ὑφαλοκρηπίδα πέραν τῶν 6 μιλίων ποὺ ἰσχύει μὲ τὸ ἐσωτερικὸ δίκαιο ἀπὸ τὸ 2012. Αὐτὸ ποὺ χρειάζεται εἶναι νὰ ἐκμεταλλευθῆ τὸν ἐνάλιο πλοῦτο τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς ὑφαλοκρηπίδος, ἁλιεία, βυθὸ μέχρις βάθους 200 μέτρων καὶ τὴν «ἔρευνα καὶ διάσωση». Ὅπως ἔκαμε ἀρχὲς Σεπτεμβρίου ἐπαξίως 12 μίλια δυτικῶς τῆς Ρόδου ὅπου το Λιμενικὸ διέσωσε ναυάγιο μὲ λαθρομετανάστες ἐνῷ οἱ Τουρκικὲς ἀκταωροὶ ἔμειναν ἀπραγεῖς.
Πέμπτον ἡ Ἑλλὰς , ὡς τὸ μεγαλύτερο ναυτιλιακὸ ἔθνος παγκοσμίως τάσσεται παγίως ὑπὲρ τοῦ περιορισμοῦ τῶν Χ.Υ. τῶν παρακτίων κρατῶν , γιὰ λόγους «ἐλευθερίας τῶν θαλασσῶν». Θὰ ἦταν ἀντιφατικὸ νὰ ζητεῖ 12 μίλια ὅπου τὴν συμφέρει τοπικῶς.
Ἄλλο εἶναι τὸ ζήτημα πῶς νὰ προστατεύσει ἀκόμη καὶ τά 6 μίλια ἀποτελεσματικῶς καὶ δικαιοπρακτικῶς. Διότι ἐὰν καταλήξουν τελικῶς Ἑλλὰς καὶ Τουρκία νὰ πᾶνε στὸ διεθνές… «τσίρκο» τῆς Χάγης , μὴν ἐκπλαγοῦμε νὰ γίνουν τά χωρικά μας ὕδατα στὰ 3 μίλια καὶ γιὰ τὴν Τουρκία στὰ 12, λόγω «εὐθυδικίας».
«Μὰ ν’ ἀρκεσθῆ, φρονῶ, μὲ τόσα ποὺ ἔχει ὁ… πρωθυπουργὸς/Τά περισσότερα εἰς κινδύνους θὰ τὸν φέρουν» γράφει κι’ ὁ Καβάφης , παρωδούμενος (*).
Κώστας Κόλμερ
(*) ΕΝ ΠΟΡΕΙΑ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΗΝ ΣΙΝΩΠΗΝ ὑπὸ Κ.Π.Καβάφη (1863-1933).
628β - Η ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗ ΕΚΜΕΤΑΛΛΕΥΣΙ ΤΗΣ ΥΠΟΧΡΕΩΤΙΚΗΣ ΧΡΗΣΕΩΣ ΜΑΣΚΑΣ-ΚΟΡΩΝΟΪΟΥ ΓΙΑ ΤῊΝ ΕΓΚΑΘΙΔΡΥΣΙ ΑΣΤΥΝΟΜΙΚΟΥ ΚΡΑΤΟΥΣ (μὲ ἀντίστοιχη κατηγορία περὶ συνωμοσιολογίας τῶν ὑποστηρικτῶν τοῦ Μπέρια)
Μήπως ἡ παραμονὴ τοῦ Δονάλδου Τραμβίου στὴν ἐξουσία μᾶς σώσῃ ἀπὸ τὴν δικτατορία τῶν ἀγορῶν;
"The media hype – fueled by think tanks and governments drooling over the possibility of adopting controls that would normally spark popular revolt – has created the same climate of fear that allowed the imposition of the post-9/11 police state, paving the way for a post-Covid regime that will make the Patriot Act look cuddly"
Nearly two decades after 9/11, the parallels between the post-terrorist attack ‘New Normal’ & that of Covid-19 can’t be ignored
is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23
While both the worst terror attack in US history and the deadliest pandemic in a generation were immediately hyped as the defining elements of the era, the uncomfortable reality is that neither terrorism nor the novel coronavirus pose any risk more severe than taking a bath.
ALSO ON RT.COMThe future is ‘CLEAR’ and it’s Dystopian: Virus hype ushers in a Covid 19-84 nightmare of restricted accessHowever, the media hype – fueled by think tanks and governments drooling over the possibility of adopting controls that would normally spark popular revolt – has created the same climate of fear that allowed the imposition of the post-9/11 police state, paving the way for a post-Covid regime that will make the Patriot Act look cuddly.
The shocking changes to the American “way of life” that have followed both events were in no way required, or even logical, responses to the crises in question. It took an unlikely series of what the government described as “intelligence failures” for the events of 9/11 to fall into place, and the Trump administration scrapped completely adequate pandemic response plans to adopt a regime of lockdowns and economic shutdowns that will likely end up doing more harm than the virus itself. Had governments followed their own procedures, neither catastrophe likely would have happened.
But the ‘government incompetence’ narrative doesn’t sell the intrusive surveillance regulations that were yanked off the shelf in both cases to be railroaded through while any potential opposition was paralyzed with fear. Both the Patriot Act and the worst of the coronavirus control regulations in the US and elsewhere were written long before 9/11 and the pandemic, wheeled out at the appointed hour, and sometimes trialed in the private sector under the reasoning that one must not let a crisis go to waste. To further destabilize society, Americans were encouraged in both cases to rat out their fellow citizens to the authorities for perceived offenses as minor as checking the wrong books out from the library (2001) or failing to social-distance (2020).
Even the crises themselves have an awful lot in common. Osama bin Laden was fingered definitively as the culprit for 9/11 even as the towers were still smoldering – long before an investigation could have been conducted – echoing the immediately ubiquitous media declaration that an infected bat at a Wuhan wet market had spawned coronavirus. After it was found the market didn’t actually sell bats, establishment scientists had to scramble to pin the responsibility for human transmission on an intermediate species – even as studies revealed the earliest cases of Covid-19 had had no contact with the market at all. Yet just as bin Laden and 19 hijackers (some of whom were later found to be inconveniently alive) remain the only ‘official’ culprits for 9/11, China is still blamed for the pandemic.
For those Americans too dense or stubborn to ‘get’ the similarities between Covid-19 and 9/11, a flood of articles accompanied the arrival of the virus on US shores. From “Not even 9/11 could shut down AA meetings. Coronavirus is different” (as if there’d been no society-disrupting disasters in the intervening 18 years capable of disrupting a 12-step meeting!) to “Imagining a 9/11-like response to coronavirus”, the heavy-handed programming has hammered home the “New Normal” supposedly facing the world on the other side of the pandemic. Just as Americans were led to fear endless terror attacks if they did not give up their rights, the entire world is being told we face a pandemic-laden future if we don’t mask up, sit down, shut up, and roll up our sleeves for an experimental vaccine (or two or three…).
But there’s no objective reason life should not, in fact, go back to “normal.” Humanity has lived through much deadlier pandemics, especially as each new revelation reveals that the horrific US Covid-19 statistics have been hugely overinflated. Yet while Wuhan, the virus’s apparent origin point, has returned to holding summertime pool parties as its case count cratered, parallel declines in fatalities in the US and UK have actually resulted in increased controls.
ALSO ON RT.COMLockdown supporters are using psychology pseudoscience to label anti-maskers as irrational, stupid sociopathsHow? Peer pressure - or rather, the illusion of it. Those who oppose even the slightest element of the New Normal are denounced “objectively pro-Covid”. Just as then-President George W. Bush warned Americans who opposed his draconian post-9/11 crackdown and war in the Middle East that “you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists” and anti-war bands such as the Dixie Chicks got death threats, those who’ve embraced the Covid-19 regime are encouraged to wish sickness and death on their neighbors who won’t “mask up.”
Unfortunately, just as 9/11 was weaponized to launch wars against Afghanistan and Iraq (and, later, most of the Middle East), the Trump administration seems determined to wrangle a war with China out of Covid-19. Even if this doesn’t come to pass, the relationship between the two countries has deteriorated markedly, and a second Cold War seems inevitable. Meanwhile, the devastation wrought by the suicidal New Normal carries on at home, laying waste to what was left of Americans’ rights after the Patriot Act was through with them (and threatening to do the same . Can we stop repeating history for once?
628Γ - Η ΕΠΙΣΤΡΟΦΗ ΤΗΣ ΟΘΩΜΑΝΙΚΗΣ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΙΑΣ ΣΤΟΝ ΡΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑΣ ΛΕΓΕΙ Η ΕΕ
(Ἀπὸ ἐμᾶς ἐξαρτᾶται νὰ τὴν κατευθύνομε πρὸς τὴν ἵδρυσι τῆς Ἑλληνοτουρκικῆς Συνομοσπονδίας)
Ὁ Ζοζὲπ Μπορέλ, ὑπεύθυνος τῆς ἐξωτερικῆς πολιτικῆς τῆς ΕΕ, δηλώνει στὶς 15 Σεπτεμβρίου 2020, στὶς Βρυξέλλες τὰ ἑξῆς: "Europe is facing a situation in which we can say that the old Empires are coming back, at least three of them: Russia, China and Turkey; big empires of the past who are coming back with an approach on their immediate neighbourhood, globally, which represent for us a new environment. And Turkey is one of these elements that changes our environment".
Δηλαδὴ τὸ ἐθνοκράτος τοῦ 21 παρῆλθε. Ὁλοταχῶς ἐπιστροφὴ στὴν Ὀθωμανικὴ Αὐτοκρατορία. Νὰ γιατὶ ὁ Κιτσίκης ἔχει δίκαιο.
GREEKS PAY TODAY FOR THEIR 1821 DEADLY MISTAKE
To quite their common Greek-Turkish home in 1821 having listen to the Western Powers of the Time. Now, under the guidance of president Donald Trump, with or without Erdoğan, the Aegean Sea will once again become an Ottoman lake and the revived Ottoman Empire, in Istanbul, under Turkish Islam (Turgut Özal style) will be a nuclear power, together with Iran, in order to stop Chinese Drang nach Western. Only hope: The planetarian Greek spirit that made the Ottoman Empire great and will make it great again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adH4AslQlcg&t=12s
(When you open the video it says: «error».Ignore it. Just press «play» and the video will work)
628 Δ - BEIRUT AND HAÏFA, CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO CIVILIZATIONS, CONFLICT BETWEEN 2 PORTS.
> The first results of the explosion of the port of Beirut and the Emirati-Israeli peace agreement, we can deduce that: Haifa has become a city in the Gulf, and the port of Haifa has become the gateway to the Emirates and from the Gulf States and an opening from their city to the Mediterranean; and Dubai has become the key to Israel in the Arab Gulf. This is one of the results of the destruction of the Port of Beirut, especially after China completed the modernization and preparation of the Port of Haifa and prepared it to become the largest CARGO port in East the Mediterranean.
> Indeed, this is the main reason for its destruction.
> The Port of Haifa has replaced the Port of Beirut, from now on and indefinitely.
> We already broached this subject a week after the bombing of the port and on the eve of the UAE-Israel agreement, and I will come back to it now, now that the new data has become clear.
> Israel had started planning to strike the port of Beirut five years ago. In March 2015, that is, five years ago, an agreement was signed between Israel and China, according to which the company SHANGHAI INTERNATIONAL PORT GROUP would operate the port of Haifa, provided that the agreement takes effect. in early 2021.
> Five years ago, the Chinese and the Israelis were busy preparing, modernizing, equipping and expanding the port of Haifa with the latest methods and technologies to make it an international port capable of carrying out the task of connecting the West , the East and the Persian Gulf.
> During these five years, the Gulf States, which used the port of Beirut, monitored and anticipated this affair. Last July, the Israelis and Chinese completed the port preparation phase and interested Arab countries were notified. And the countdown has started to destroy the Port of Beirut.
> The Israeli red eye was already in the port of Beirut since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.
> The Port of Beirut was the most important seaport in the Eastern Mediterranean region and one of the top 10 ports and a meeting point for three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa.
> Its maritime operations operated between East and West and in particular between the West and the Arab Gulf countries.
> This is what Israel dreamed of as the role of the port of Haifa. Beirut had taken it and monopolized this role after 1948.
> For that, the Israelis had eyes only on the port of Beirut.
> Since the end of the First World War, the struggle had taken place between two ports to determine which would be the first The Israeli port of Haifa and the Lebanese port of Beirut. The rivalry between the two ports remained friendly and local (before Sykes-Picot) from 1920 to 1948, the date of the birth of the State of Israel and the state of the Israeli-Arab conflict.
> The role of the Mediterranean port of Haifa declined and its role for Arab countries ended due to the Arab boycott of Israel. This still angered the Jews and aimed at replacing the port of Beirut.
> The port of Haifa had a great advantage over that of Beirut, in terms of geographical proximity to the Gulf countries or the possibility of connecting it to a railroad transporting goods from this port to all the Gulf countries.
> We know that the Gulf countries import from Europe a lot of heavy equipment, equipment for factories, trucks, cars, construction materials, raw materials, food materials ... and a lot of consumables.
> All were imported by sea from European countries via the port of Beirut, which was the capital of trade and finance in the Middle East. And it has remained so largely until recent years. It was the remaining vital artery of the Lebanese economy that supplied Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar with a large part of its imports and goods. European consumption, even in light of the Lebanese civil war and the internal Syrian war. This is a role that Israel has always dreamed of, since 1948, for the port of Haifa. Until the right time comes. For years, the Jewish state has worked to lift the Arab siege against it.
> Likewise, He was not able to open the Saudi portal for internal Saudi and Islamic reasons related to Jerusalem.
> He opened the Jordanian gate, but failed to take advantage of it.
> He had tried the Lebanese gate in vain.
> The gateway to the Persian Gulf was missing, first from Qatar and then from the United Arab Emirates.
> Israel has prepared its plans and has begun to develop the port of Haifa, and has plans in place to connect it to a network of trains carrying goods via railways from Haifa to the last port in the Gulf without Saudi opposition.
> The opportunity came from the success of the negotiations of the Emirati-Israeli agreement, and Israel anticipated the moment by hitting the port of Beirut so as not to give the inhabitants of the Gulf the possibility of choosing between the modern port of Haifa, which is under development, expansion and modernization, and the destroyed port of Beirut, which is under Syrian and Iranian control, but of course with a geographic advantage for the port of Haifa.
> It's a race between two ports. Israel prepared to strike it and did not intend to destroy the city. Rather, he seems to have been surprised by this just as he was surprised by the reactions of Western countries.
> All she intended to do was destroy the harbor. However, the criminals in Lebanon had installed in a hangar of the port ammonium nitrate and another hangar of ammunition, rockets, explosives and others ...
> And the worst is that the state tries to hide its crime and to convince us with a false investigation.
> Likewise, it is very likely that Israel was not aware of the exact contents of the warehouses.
> Likewise, Israel has offered Lebanese criminals the possibility of destroying all of Beirut for free.
> The Israeli-Emirati agreement lifted the siege of Haifa and removed all the political obstacles which prevented Haifa from being a city in the Gulf, of maritime trade open to the Mediterranean. The explosion of the port of Beirut removed the technical, geographical and logistical obstacles which prevented the citizens of the Gulf from making their choices.
> Along with these strategic / geopolitical developments and their size;
> as well as their dangerous effects on Lebanon, its population and its economy, and in light of the port disaster that destroyed Beirut and its surroundings as well as its port;
> As well as the human tragedies of the martyrs, wounded, mutilated, missing, unemployed, houses and businesses, and entire neighborhoods destroyed;
> Along with all this we see A group of Lebanese politicians, small souls and small consciences, concerned about the distribution of the quotas of the commissions a government without any conscience.
> Lebanese politicians speak in cheap, trite and empty language in a familiar and disrespectful manner as we are in the midst of a major geopolitical economic and strategic disaster; and that they bicker over Posts to form a new government.
> - Aoun wants the greatest Christian part
> - His son-in-law, Gebran Bassil wants a government without Geagea,
> - Geagea is confused, but will not participate if Gibran is in a strong position
> - Saad Hariri and his brother Bahaa will open the battle for the Sunni part
> - Berri focuses on the Ministry of Finance;
> - Joumblatt wants all of the Druze,
> - Hezbollah wants a government that will protect its military presence.
> We would like new politicians who understand the type and gravity of events to which we are all exposed and their strategic dangers; not oblivious people like the current politicians in Lebanon.
> In addition, the politicians of our country: do not have a sense of responsibility, organization, planning, reflection, vision, strategy, perception (hyperopic, not even myopic) .
> They are pros at theft, looting, corruption and quotas.
> Lebanon needs statesmen, reflections, planning and strategies that place the interests of the nation, the homeland, society, the people and the state above all interests . They must understand the plans that are brewing against us;
> and not bastards, bats and dwarfs, all concerned with theft, brokerage, looting and smuggling of money; and not bloodsuckers who seek to cover up port crime.
> The port of Haifa won the first round. It is a struggle between two ports. It's a clash between two civilizations, but it's only the first round. There is still hope.
>> The Lebanese need to understand this, that the train of change begins quickly, decisively and violently, and that all criminals will pay a heavy price before we lose even more: the second and the third round.
> China has chosen the port of Haifa and Dubai has also chosen the port of Haifa. Do not be afraid . We have lost a battle but not the war. If we deal well with the affairs and problems of our country, and if we use our forces well, we will not lose the war.
> Antoun Saadeh once said: "You have strength, if you act that would change the course of history".
> Marwan Selim