Editor's Note:

April 4, 2024, marks the 75th anniversary of the founding of NATO. As a product of the Cold War, NATO should have been disbanded, but over the years, it has served as a war machine and facilitated US hegemony. The Global Times talked to a number of experts and scholars to reveal how the US exploits NATO to serve its geopolitical purposes and how NATO destabilizes the world, exacerbates nuclear threats and brings confrontation to Asia.

In the first interview of the series, Global Times (GT) reporter Wang Wenwen talked to Zivadin Jovanovic (Jovanovic), president of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals who served as the minister of foreign affairs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia between 1998 and 2000. Serbia recently marked the 25th anniversary of the NATO bombing of what was then Yugoslavia. He recalled this brutal operation of NATO and how the US and NATO obstruct a just world order.  

GT: How does the NATO bombing in 1999 still affect people in Serbia today?

Jovanovic: Serbia mourned and paid respect to around 2,000 civilians killed by NATO 25 years ago. We also remembered that NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade killing three Chinese journalists. We recall that NATO used missiles with depleted uranium, cluster bombs and other forbidden means and methods. This resulted in maligned diseases and deaths of people even today, and material damage amounting to over $100 billion.

The objective of the US-led NATO was to take the Province of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia, transform it into the Balkans carrier of US troupes for expansion to the East, topple the government of former president Slobodan Milosevic, and make a precedent for future military interventions violating the UN Charter and the supremacy of the UN Security Council and International Law, in general. The aim was also to firmly discipline European allies behind the concept of unipolar world order, supporting US geostrategic interests. In 1999, NATO went beyond its founding treaty, abandoning its defensive and adopting an offensive, aggressive character.

The US-led NATO pursues these interests today. Military aggression has been replaced by other means. Right now, they use pressure, including blackmailing Serbia to recognize the secession of its autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija and accept its membership in the international organizations. Serbia, of course, will not submit. Economically, Serbia has not as yet fully recovered. Ruins from the aggression could be seen even in the heart of Belgrade, but Serbia's GDP nevertheless maintains a constant rise, even above the European average. Unfortunately, the Balkans are far from stable. It is divided, dependent and militarized.  

GT: You attended an international conference in Belgrade a few days ago that marked the anniversary. The theme of the conference was "From the Aggression to a New Just Order." What are the obstacles to a new just world order?

Jovanovic: The main obstacle to the new world order based on the principle of sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs is the policy of expansion and global domination of the minority of Western countries led by the US. It seems that they do not understand the global changes and trends of multi-polarization and tend to believe that they can stop those historic trends, even reverse them, by force, including nuclear. These doctrines represent the main source of serious threats to global peace and development. This is a threat to humanity.

GT: Taking into consideration NATO actions from NATO bombing Yugoslavia 25 years ago to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, what role does NATO play in facilitating US hegemony?

Jovanovic: The NATO aggression on Yugoslavia in 1999 was the beginning of the globalization of military interventionism of the US-led NATO. Afterward, we saw many interventions and aggressions based on the 1999 NATO precedent on Yugoslavia. German politician Willy Wimmer said in 2022 that the first bombs fell on Ukraine in 1999.

The US-led NATO, in my opinion, is the military, nuclear fist of expansionist strategy, of global domination within unipolarity.

GT: The US has leveraged NATO to sustain dominance over Europe. Do you think Europe has the will and ability to reflect on its position? Is Europe feeling more secure or less secure?

Jovanovic: European autonomy at present is at its lowest point since World War II, this includes its dignity, identity and morality. It is not because of the people, European nations or cultural heritage. It is, first of all, because of the quality of the present political elite which has lost its sense of traditional civilization values, which seems to have abandoned morality, solidarity, justice and legality and which has practically reduced everything and everybody to the profit by all means. I don't know, really, what term would best express such characteristics, but perhaps, it is not far from - corruption, one way or the other. Global changes could hardly leave Europe untouched. Some changes toward autonomy, dignity and sovereignty are taking place, particularly in some European countries, like Hungary, Slovakia and others. We shall see what the elections for the European Parliament in June will show. I hope it will be the beginning of changes, changes for the better. One election may not be sufficient, but the trends matter.

GT: China was also a victim of the NATO bombing 25 years ago. In the past two years, NATO has declared China a security challenge. The NATO chief also linked what's happening in Ukraine to the Taiwan question. What do you think of the NATO moves against China?

Jovanovic: It is true. China was not only the victim, but also the target of NATO military aggression in 1999. Just minutes later, I was at the scene seeing public services rescuing survivors from the debris. Bombs were still hitting a nearby hotel and the surrounding park, when then-Chinese ambassador Pan Zhanlin was freed out of the ruins. I expressed my condolences and assured him of my government's solidarity and support.

Should anybody wonder why Serbia and China are "iron friends" and comprehensive strategic partners ever since?

Who, what and why represents the challenge depends on who is assessing it and from positions of which values. Learning from recent history, I suppose, countries demanding equal security and sovereignty over natural resources, such as oil and gas reserves, uranium and other strategic minerals deposits, huge markets, and geostrategic connectivity lines have always been a challenge for NATO and Western power centers.

What we have been witnessing over the past decades is that the US and NATO have for years now been expanding and reinforcing their presence through their branches in the Far East and Indo-Pacific like Quad and some newly born alliances. Seen from Europe, the US-NATO expansionist strategy is directed to the East, to Russia, the Caspian Sea and the Middle East. Asia and Siberia seem to be real objectives, from both geographic positions. US-NATO exploits similar, or the same means and methods: spreading fear, insecurity and disorientation, demonstrating power through a series of massive "defenders" exercises, offering protection of scarred ones, use of separatism, terrorism and human rights. We know from their rhetoric that China represents a "systemic" challenge and Russia a "malign influence." This only means that they have no solutions for their own problems nor do they have the courage to face today's reality. So far, they opt to continue living in the past, instead of accepting a new reality called equality and living in togetherness.

Source: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202404/1309971.shtml

Download PDF here:GT_07.pdf

Download PDF here: izdvojeno-CC_20240326_06.pdf

This Declaration was made at the conclusion of the International Conference held in Belgrade organized by the Beograd Forum For A World Of Equals in association with other organisations, including the World Peace Council, attended by delegates, ministers, and officials from countries around the world, and headed by Zivadin Jovanovic, President of the Forum and former foreign minister for Yugoslavia at the time of the NATO aggression.

WE, participants of the International Conference held in Belgrade on March 22-24, 2024, on the occasion of marking the 25th anniversary of NATO’s armed aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) dedicated to the theme “From the Aggression to a New Just Order”, gathered from all over the world, hereby declare:

We belong to different countries, nations, ideologies, religions and civilizations, but stand firmly united in our commitment to peace, equality, and prosperity for all peoples, as well as in our condemnation of interventionism, expansion, domination, and hegemonism.

We firmly condemn the unprovoked armed aggression by NATO against the FRY (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1999 as an unlawful, invading and criminal war against a sovereign, peace-loving European country, waged devoid of a UN Security Council mandate, in blatant violation of the United Nations Charter, the OSCE Helsinki Final Act (1975) and the fundamental principles of international law.

We underline:

That the aggression was carried out under false pretexts and that therefore NATO’s responsibility cannot be diminished. It was not state authorities but, instead, NATO’s expansionism that actually threatened a ‘humanitarian disaster’. What happened in Rachak was not a ‘massacre of civilians’, but instead a legitimate response of the state to terrorism. The ‘Horseshoe Plan’ did not exist. ‘Humanitarian’ wars or interventions do not exist. Prevention of human suffering can hardly be prevented by depleted uranium, cluster bombs and by poisoning the air, soil and water.

Back in 1999, NATO reintroduced the war on the European soil, ironically, a war that Europe waged on itself.

It was neither a “little Kosovo war”, but rather a war of these geopolitical goals: a) carving the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija out of Serbia and a full control over the Balkans; b) deployment of the US troops in the Balkans for the purposes of the strategy of Eastward expansion; c) creating a precedent for subsequent interventions conducted in violation of international law and of the inviolability of the UN Security Council; d) justifying the existence of NATO and its acting beyond the area defined in its Founding Act of 1949. “Wherever the law presented an obstacle to the policy of expansion, it must be removed” – was yet another NATO new rule.

The NATO aggression embodied the undoing of the legal order of peace and security in Europe and the world, established on the outcome of the Second World War. Today, the Balkans is more unstable, Europe militarized on dangerous tracks, without autonomy, identity and vision.

The aggression took the lives of 1,139 soldiers and police officers, about 3,000 civilians also including 89 children, while some 10,000 people were wounded. However, the consequences of prolonged effects of weapons filled with depleted uranium and toxic compounds are by far greater.

NATO, also, bombed the Embassy of the PR of China, in Belgrade, killing three Chinese journalists and destroying the building of the Chinese Embassy.

We pay our highest respect to all the fallen innocent people and express our deepest, sincere condolences to their families.

The aggressor had been systematically destroying or badly damaging civilian infrastructure, such as railways, roads, bridges, airports, energy system, as well as apartment buildings, industrial facilities, schools, hospitals, kindergartens, and many more objects. Over thirty radio and TV stations and transmitters had been bombed, including the national public TV RTS killing 16 professional employees on duty. The direct damage totals some USD 100 billion.

We emphasize that NATO and its member states, participants in the illegal act of aggression, are obliged to compensate Serbia for the war damage they have inflicted.

We appeal that special state and expert bodies, tasked with determining the consequences of aggression on the health of people and the environment, resume their work, and that the war crimes against civilians and crimes of non-compliance with the war-related conventions be prosecuted and sanctioned.

We express our strong support and solidarity with Serbia’s efforts to mitigate the consequences of the aggression and her endeavoring to prevent the continuation of NATO’s armed aggression by other means.

We express our full support to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia in her internationally recognized borders within which she continued her membership in the UN, the OSCE, and other universal international organizations.

We are deeply concerned about the mass-scale violation of the basic human rights of the Serbian community in Kosovo and Metohija embodied in the continuation of their systematic expulsion from, and in preventing the free and safe return of over 250,000 expelled Serbs and other non-Albanians to, their homes and property.

We firmly believe that the future status of the Province of Kosovo and Metohija may be resolved only in accordance with international law and, in particular, with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of June 10, 1999, which is a lasting, legally binding document. We demand that all provisions of the UNSC resolution 1244 be fully respected and implemented.

We condemn each and all violations of that Resolution and the policy of blackmail and pressuring, and all one-sided steps aimed at legalizing the seizure of state territory and completing the ethnic cleansing of the remaining Serbian population, in preparation to create the so-called Greater Albania.

We oppose the unipolar world order based on the strategy of hegemonism and global domination with NATO as its military feast. The aggression against the FRY in 1999 was speeding up of the strategy of expansion to the East, and a source of danger to peace in Europe and the world. At the time of the aggression, NATO had 19 members, and today counts 32. After the erection of US military base Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo and Metohija, there followed dozens of new NATO bases. Presently, Europe hosts a far larger number of foreign military bases and stockpiles of nuclear weapons than it did during the bipolar world and the Cold War era.

We express our deepest concern about the accelerated escalation of hostilities and conflicts in global relations that add fuel to the fire of conflict, continued provocations, and the looming danger of a global conflict. The world sits on the brink of the abyss. Humanity will either restrain the rampant aggressiveness of the alienated power centers, or fall into that abyss.

This makes us stand unified in the demand for an immediate beginning of the dialogue at the strategic level, under the auspices of the UN, aimed at putting to a halt the escalation, the accumulation of conventional and nuclear weapons, and the breaching of international agreements.

We demand the closure of foreign military camps, the complete withdrawal from Europe of the US tactical nuclear weapons and installations of the so-called anti-missile defenses that make security more volatile.

We call for an end to warmongering rhetoric, and invite all responsible statesmen to resort to dialogue and to finding peaceful, just and sustainable solutions to the ongoing conflicts and crises.

We appeal to all peace-loving forces in the world to join forces in the struggle for the observance of international law, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, reinforcing the authority and role of the United Nations and other universal international organizations, the observance of principles of equality, sovereignty and territorial integrity, and for cooperation and coordination in the fight against terrorism and separatism as global threats.

We support the process of multi-polarization of global relations and their democratization on the basis of the sovereign equality of all states and peoples.

We support the peace, security and development initiatives that are based on the principle of mutual indivisibility of peace, security and development, and that take note of the root causes of problems. The key roles in that process play BRICS, EAEU, Global Initiative “Belt and Road”, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, NAM. We support the abolition of all monopolies, privileges based on ‘exceptionalism’. We refuse unilateral sanctions, erection of new ‘walls’ or divisions. The attempt to divide the world into ‘democracies’ and ‘autocracies’ is a trickery of the power-centers designed to extend the life of the unipolar world order.

The policy of confrontation, interventionism, and interference in internal affairs, backed by the military-industrial complex and large financial capital, must give way to dialogue, partnership, respect for fundamental norms of international law and the multipolar world order.

Peace, stability, democracy and inclusive development require radical changes in present global relations, observance of sovereign equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, multilateralism, respect of common interests, and exclusion of any egoism, protectionism and privileges of the past.

The biggest obstacle to the world order of sovereign, equal nations is the relics of the Cold War. That is why NATO should be dissolved and the doctrine of hegemonism, expansionism and neocolonialism consigned to history.

We condemn the mass-scale killing of the innocent Palestinian people, in particular of children, and call for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and other areas inhabited by the Palestinian people, in order to finally stop this human suffering unprecedented in recent history, and for unhindered delivery of food, medicines, water, and other necessities of life to the vulnerable population.

We support a two-state solution, the free and safe return of all expelled persons, the abolition of the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state within the pre-June 4, 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital, all in accordance with the United Nations Resolutions.

We express our solidarity with the people of Cuba, who have been suffering the devastating consequences of the unilateral US embargo for many years. The Cuban people have an inalienable right to choose the paths of internal development of their own, without external interference. We demand respect for the UN positions on the lifting of the US blockade of Cuba, and the removal of Cuba from the list of ‘states sponsoring terrorism’ because it was inserted without any bases.

We hold that the Ukrainian crisis is a corollary of NATO’s strategy of expansion to the East, under betrayal of all agreements of the otherwise.

We believe this crisis can be resolved peacefully, by acknowledging and removing the causes and by guaranteeing equal security for all countries. The common future of humanity excludes egotism and selfish approaches such as the ‘golden billion’ security thesis.

We express our acknowledgment and gratitude to our hosts – the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, the Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia, SUBNOR of Serbia, the Diaspora Fund for Serbia, and the Association of Veterans of the Military Intelligence Service, as well as to the citizens of Serbia – for their hospitality and good organization of the Conference.

The organizers express their acknowledgment to the participants of the Conference, including the World Peace Council and all its members, for their decades long solidarity and support to Serbia and the Serbian people, as well as for their extraordinary contribution to the results of this Conference.

Belgrade, March 23, 2024

STATEMENT OF CONDEMNATION OF THE TERRORIST ATTACK IN MOSCOW

Participants of the International Conference held in Belgrade on March 22-24, 2024, on the occasion of marking the 25th anniversary of NATO’s armed aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,

– Condemn in the strongest terms the heinous, bestial and provocative terrorist attack in Moscow that killed so many innocent people, and express belief that the perpetrators will be quickly apprehended and brought to justice.

– At the same time, express their deepest condolences to the families of the killed and the injured ones, to the citizens of Moscow, and to the entire Russian people, in the moment of their pain and huge grief.

– Call for a determined and coordinated combatting of terrorism as a global danger that threatens all the peoples of the world.

In Belgrade, March 23, 2024

Source: https://journal-neo.su

KIT KLARENBERG·MARCH 24, 2024 The grayzone

Top secret papers reviewed by The Grayzone reveal Tony Blair demanded strikes on civilian targets in Yugoslavia days before NATO attacked them. While the UK military acknowledged a NATO strike on Hotel Jugoslavia would mean inflicting “some civilian casualties,” it insisted the deaths were “worth the cost.”

Declassified British Ministry of Defence (MOD) files reviewed by The Grayzone reveal that officials in London conspired to embroil US troops in a secret plan to occupy Yugoslavia and “topple” President Slobodan Milosevic during NATO’s 1999 war on the country. Though the crazed scheme was never implemented, details of the plot reveal precisely how British officials successfully shaped Washington into a blunt force instrument of their vanquished empire in years to come.

March 24 marks the 25th anniversary of Operation Allied Force, NATO’s 78-day-long bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. Still venerated in Western mainstream as a successful “humanitarian intervention” conducted to prevent an impending “genocide” of Kosovo’s Albanian population, the war was in fact a wantonly destructive, illegal assault on  a sovereign, multiethnic country, based on lies and atrocity propaganda. Belgrade had in fact been engaged in a counterinsurgency battle against the CIA and MI6-backed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an Al Qaeda-linked extremist group.

The KLA—funded by the narcotics trade and organ harvesting—explicitly sought to maximize civilian casualties, in order to precipitate Western intervention. In May 2000, a British parliamentary committee concluded all purported abuses of Albanian citizens by Yugoslav authorities occurred after NATO’s bombing began, finding that the alliance’s intervention had actually encouraged Belgrade to aggressively neutralize the KLA. Meanwhile, in September 2001, a UN court in Pristina determined that Belgrade’s actions in Kosovo were not genocidal in nature, or intent.

These findings are largely overlooked today. A February Politico investigation into the West’s post-war pillage of Kosovo axiomatically asserted that NATO intervened in Yugoslavia “to halt an unfolding genocide against the ethnic-Albanian population.” Similarly forgotten is just how close leading NATO states came to invading Belgrade during that chaotic spring.

British proposals for US invasion of Yugoslavia

By April 29, 1999, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia had entered its fifth week. On that date, Richard Hatfield, then-Policy Director of Britain’s Ministry of Defence, dispatched a “Strategic Planning Group discussion paper on Kosovo ground force options” to London’s military, security, and intelligence apparatus. In a documentmarked “Secret – UK eyes only,” Hatfield demanded an “immediate” decision on whether to formally invade Yugoslavia:

“If we are to influence US thinking on ground force options, we need to pass the paper to them very quickly…Our planning is ahead of the US, other allies and [NATO HQ]…We believe the US may be developing its initial thinking on ground force options this week. Our paper could exercise significant influence on their conclusions. The [Chiefs of Staff] therefore agreed we should pass it to the US privately (through military and policy channels) as quickly as possible.”

According to Hatfield, London had to “overcome” a “great deal of reluctance and scepticism” in Washington regarding a formal ground invasion, so “decisions need to be taken quickly if we are to launch an operation before Winter.” Evidently, a firm timeline for action had germinated in London. It was simultaneously vital to “make clear” to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair that “although we can influence planning for a possible ground campaign, we cannot expect the US or NATO to accept British views easily or unreservedly.”

Therefore, an “early agreement in principle to a ground campaign” was considered “more important than the details,” the document states. In other words, securing US commitment to putting boots on the ground trumped all basic technical concerns. After all, Blair’s invasion fantasy hinged entirely on Washington dispatching hundreds of thousands of US soldiers to Yugoslavia. London would by contrast deploy just 50,000—most of the available British Army at the time. This disparity was likely a key source of American “reluctance and scepticism.”

London therefore drafted four separate scenarios for the war. This included invading Kosovo alone and “liberating” the province from Belgrade’s control. This option would limit “overspill into other areas of Serbia”, while guaranteeing “no permanent military presence elsewhere” in the country. Another proposal, dubbed “wider opposed,” would see NATO invade Yugoslavia outright, with the aim of “defeating the Serb armed forces and if necessary toppling Milosevic.” The latter forecast an “organised Serb resistance” at every level in response.

Another source of US “reluctance and scepticism,” no doubt, was the fact that every country bordering Yugoslavia—even NATO members and aspirants—were either on the record as having rejected, or being expected to reject, the use of their territory for ground invasion. For example, two of London’s war proposals depended “fundamentally on Greek agreement to use their port facilities and airspace.” Without Greece’s acquiescence, NATO “would have no choice but to mount a wider opposed operation from Hungary, Romania and/or Bulgaria, which would be even more difficult politically.”

Coupled with deep historic and cultural ties, the longstanding record of warm relations between Athens and Belgrade effectively ruled out both plans that were dependent on Greece. An invasion conducted via the latter countries, on the other hand, meant that “it would be impossible to constrain the scope of war with Serbia.” Meanwhile, Albania, which supported the KLA while serving as NATO’s effective headquarters throughout the bombing of Yugoslavia, and Macedonia, “where [NATO] troop levels [were] already causing problems,” were said to fear becoming formal belligerents in any conflict due to likely “Serb retaliation.”

Blair calls for ‘coalition of the willing’

Despite the apparent infeasibility of a ground invasion, British officials—Blair in particular—were completely determined to push ahead in Yugoslavia. Their bombing campaign was a failure. Limited to the skies, NATO jets relentlessly blitzed Serbian civilian, government, and industrial infrastructure, killing over a thousand innocent people—including children—and violently disrupting daily life for millions. But Yugoslav forces cunningly deployed decoy vehicles to divert the military alliance, while concealing their anti-KLA operations under adverse weather and deception tactics.

In public, NATO military apparatchiks, political pawns, and media minions exalted their stunning success and inevitable victory on the battlefield. But the declassified files show Ministry of Defence officials spent much of their time bemoaning the fact that their bombs were neither intimidating Milosevic, nor hindering the Yugoslav army’s war on the KLA.  Belgrade’s forces were said to have consistently deceived NATO “very successfully” via extensive use of “camouflage, dummy targets, concealment and bunkers.”

British officials repeatedly expressed concern that the Yugoslav army could actually succeed in expelling the KLA from Kosovo entirely, allowing Milosevic to declare victory and dictate peace terms to NATO. Blair was reportedly determined to reject any such offer. Moreover, it was well-understood that NATO’s bombing had rallied citizens to support their leader. As one paper conceded, alliance airstrikes on Yugoslavia’s Interior Ministry “demonstrated to Belgrade citizens just how vulnerable their city is, but achieved little else.”

“Forewarned by a target list posted on CNN’s website last week, the Serbs had already moved out of the building. Kosovo has been swept clean in less than a week and in the US, a climbdown may be on the cards, as the costs and dangers of escalation hit home,” the April 4 missive asserted.

The following day, Blair dispatched a personal “note for the record” to senior British government, intelligence and military officials. He lambasted the bombing campaign’s lack of “vigour,” suggesting the British public “does not have the confidence we know what to do,” before concluding: “we appear not to have a grip.”

Blair then proposed the formation of a “coalition of the willing” to counteract opposition to escalation within NATO and “prosecute this to the end.” In an apparent fit of bloodlust, the Prime Minister proceeded to outline a series of demands:

“We must strengthen the targets. Media and communication are utterly essential. [Attacking] Oil, infrastructure, all the things Milosevic values… is clearly justified.”

“What is holding this back?” Blair fumed. “I have little doubt we are moving towards a situation where our aim will become removing Milosevic. We will not want to say so now, but autonomy for Kosovo inside Serbia is becoming absurd. And plainly Milosevic will threaten the stability of the region as long as he remains.”

The Ministry of Defence subsequently circulated a memoon “targeting,” which warranted “immediate attention,” that noted London had “offered the US three significant targets” identified by MI6: Belgrade’s iconic Hotel Jugoslavia; a Cold War-era Bunker; and the Yugoslav capital’s Central Post Office. While conceding that a strike on Hotel Jugoslavia would mean “some civilian casualties,” the memo insisted that their lives were “worth the cost.”

NATO subsequently hit Hotel Jugoslavia on May 7 and 8 in 1999, damaging its bars, boutiques, and dining halls while killing a refugee who sought shelter inside. The Washington Post promptly justified the strike by claiming it may have targeted a notorious Serbian paramilitary leader, who allegedly owned a casino housed within the hotel. Asked by the newspaper if he took the bombing personally, the fighter, known as “Arkan,” replied:

“When they hit civilians, I take it personally. You don’t change minds with Tomahawks. If they want to bring me to justice, why do they want to kill me? If they want to get Arkan, send ground troops so I can see their faces. I want to die in a fair fight. Bill Clinton is in deep you-know-what. He bombs what he can. He says ‘God bless America’ and the rest of the world dies.”

NATO bombing stokes Chinese and Russian fears

Later that April, as per Blair’s personal order to target “media,” NATO bombed the Belgrade headquarters of the Yugoslav TV network RTS. The strike killed 16 journalists and wounded 16 more, with many trapped under rubble for days. The Prime Minister personally defended the criminal assault, claiming the station was a core component of Milosevic’s “apparatus of dictatorship and power”.

The NATO-funded International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia later investigated the RTS bombing. It concluded that while the site wasn’t a military target, the action aimed to disrupt Belgrade’s communications network, and was therefore legitimate. Amnesty International branded the ruling a miscarriage of justice. Then-NATO General Wesley Clark, who oversaw the bombing campaign, admitted it was understood that the attack would only interrupt RTS broadcasts for a brief period. Indeed, RTS was back on-air after just three hours.

The RTS strike represented one of several egregious war crimes NATO committed throughout the Yugoslavia campaign with total impunity. Officially, the 78-day-long aerial onslaught destroyed just 14 Yugoslav tanks, while devastating 372 industrial facilities, leaving hundreds of thousands jobless. The military alliance allegedly took directions on what to target from US corporations, including Philip Morris. NATO’s deliberate obliteration of chemical plants polluted soil, air, and water across the Balkans with over 100 toxic substances. Not coincidentally, Serbia today is a world leader in cancer rates.

On the first night that Hotel Jugoslavia was bombed, NATO carried out a simultaneous strike against Beijing’s embassy in Belgrade, killing three journalists, wounding dozens sheltering inside, and outraging Chinese and Serb citizens alike. NATO declared that this was merely an accident, caused by erroneous CIA targeting data. While the declassified Ministry of Defence files conspicuously contain no reference to this highly controversial international incident, they do mention grave Chinese concerns over the wider campaign. Namely, that it would “constitute a precedent for intervention elsewhere.”

British officials sought to allay these fears not only in Beijing, but Moscow. Then-Russian premier Yevgeny Primakov learned NATO had launched its campaign against Yugoslavia while he was literally mid-air, en route to the US for an official meeting. He immediately ordered the pilot to return to Russia. Despite his protest, the Kremlin thereafter attempted to compel Milosevic to cease hostilities in Kosovo via diplomatic channels.

Once it became clear that Russia would not intervene on his side, Milosevic folded and pledged to withdraw all Yugoslav forces from Kosovo on June 3 1999. In turn, NATO would occupy the province. That same month, a cable dispatched from the British Embassy in Moscow observed the bombing was widely viewed locally “as a blow to [the] UN Security Council and threat to Russian interests… setting an unacceptable precedent for action out of area, circumventing the Security Council if necessary”:

“[Moscow’s Ministry of Defense] has used NATO’s resort to force to argue Russia’s new military doctrine should take more serious account of a potential threat from NATO, with all that that means in terms of force levels, procurement and the future of arms control… The UK’s forward position on the use of force has not gone unnoticed… The Kosovo campaign has reinforced the perception here of an expanding NATO as a powerful tool for the imposition of US will in Europe.”

Blair reportedly walked away from his destruction of Yugoslavia with newfound confidence. According toveteran British journalist Andrew Marr, the Prime Minister realized “he had tried to bounce [Clinton] too obviously over Kosovo,” thus concluding that “American Presidents need tactful handling” to achieve desired results. Blair also “learned to cope with giving orders which resulted in much loss of life.” Directing Yugoslavia’s collapse furthermore “convinced him of his ability to lead in war, to take big gambles, and to get them right.”

It was this arrogant attitude that guided Blair into the quagmire of Iraq, and to further interventions which wreaked havoc on the globe.

Blair fulfills ‘Britain’s destiny’

With the Yugoslav army fully withdrawn from Kosovo, the province began to resemble post-World War II Germany, carved into Western occupation zones. As a November 1999 OSCE report documented in sickening detail, a very real genocide immediately commenced. KLA fighters proceeded to not only purge Kosovo’s Roma and Serb population, but also clear out their Albanian political and criminal rivals via intimidation, torture, and murder—all under the watchful eye of NATO and UN “peacekeepers.”

The Independent reported that month that the KLA’s post-war campaign of “murder and kidnap” in NATO-occupied Kosovo—officially described as an effort “to ensure public safety and order”—reduced Pristina’s Serb population from 40,000 to just 400. A local European human rights worker told the newspaper that over the prior six months, “every single Serb” they knew had “been intimidated—verbally in the street, on the telephone, [or] physically” by the Al Qaeda-tied KLA.

In December 2010, a British “peacekeeper” posted to Kosovo during this time attributed Pristina’s modern day status as “an impoverished, corrupt and ethnically polarised backwater” to NATO’s “unwillingness to control KLA gangsters.” He recalled how London under his watch consistently “emboldened the KLA to greater brutality.” Whenever he captured the terror group’s fighters on the streets, heavily armed and “intent on murder and intimidation,” his superiors ordered them freed:

“I witnessed… the KLA rampaging like a victorious mob intent on retribution,” he explained, adding that “systematic murder of Serbs, often shot in front of their families, was commonplace.” Given that “KLA thugs wielding AK47s, knuckledusters and knives terrified residents of Serbian apartment blocks, Many Serbs fled,” the former soldier noted.

“The Blair government’s spin machine wanted moral simplicity. The Serbs were the ‘bad guys’, so that must make Kosovo Albanians the ‘good guys’… Prostitution and drug and people trafficking increased as the KLA’s grip on Pristina tightened.”

However, KLA fighters were shielded from ICTY prosecution for their innumerable horrific crimes by direct NATO decree. Only today is justice being vaguely served, to almost total Western indifference. In many cases, American politicians continue to sing the praises of brutal KLA leaders. In 2010, then-Vice President Joe Biden referred to later-indicted war criminal Hashim Thaci as Pristina’s “George Washington.” Thaci’s 2018 autobiography proudly features fawning promotional quotes from the current Oval Office occupant on its sleeve.

Since 1945, British officials have been overwhelmingly preoccupied with maintaining the bigger, richer, more powerful US Empire’s global dominance, so as to surreptitiously guide it in direction of their choosing. Rarely is this sinister mission so candidly articulated as in the documents presented here. While Blair’s reverie of “toppling” Milosevic via US force was unrequited, Washington’s calamitous post-9/11 “Global War on Terror” was explicitly British-inspired.

Not long after planes hit the World Trade Center that fateful day, Blair dispatched a bust of Winston Churchill to the White House, evoking the wartime leader’s famed December 1941 address to Congress, which heralded Washington’s entry into World War II. At the same time, the British premier privately wrote to President George W. Bush, urging him to exploit “maximum” global sympathy produced by 9/11 to launch military interventions across West Asia. This wave of belligerence was foreshadowed during Blair’s 1997 election campaign:

“Century upon century it has been the destiny of Britain to lead other nations. That should not be a destiny that is part of our history. It should be part of our future… We are a leader of nations, or we are nothing.”

A British-steered global Pax Americana was forged in Yugoslavia 25 years ago, in an incendiary baptism of airstrikes and atrocity propaganda, which subsequently inflicted death, destruction, and misery throughout the Global South. Today, untold millions across the world grapple with the painful legacy of Blair’s determination to fulfill London’s “destiny.”

Download this article: China Investment Zivadin Jovanovic New Era Jan Feb 2024.pdf

Download and read the article in PDF format here:
Hommage to Dick Marty and John Pilger.pdf

By John Pilger
Global Research, January 02, 2024

John Pilger’s legacy will live.

Global Research will be featuring in the next few days several of his most important writings.

To access his archive of Global Research articles (2007-2023), click here.

This article focussing on media propaganda was first published on August 22, 2023, is John Pilger’s edited version of an address to the Trondheim World Festival, Norway, on 6 September, 2022.

In an address to the Trondheim World Festival in Norway, John Pilger charts the history of power propaganda and describes how it appropriates journalism in a ‘profound imperialism’ and is likely to entrap us all, if we allow it.


In the 1970s, I met one of Hitler’s leading propagandists, Leni Riefenstahl, whose epic films glorified the Nazis. We happened to be staying at the same lodge in Kenya, where she was on a photography assignment, having escaped the fate of other friends of the Fuhrer.

She told me that the ‘patriotic messages’ of her films were dependent not on ‘orders from above’ but on what she called the ‘submissive void’ of the German public.

Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? I asked. ‘Yes, especially them,’ she said.

I think of this as I look around at the propaganda now consuming Western societies.

Of course, we are very different from Germany in the 1930s. We live in information societies. We are globalists. We have never been more aware, more in touch, better connected.

Are we? Or do we live in a Media Society where brainwashing is insidious and relentless, and perception is filtered according to the needs and lies of state and corporate power?

The United States dominates the Western world’s media. All but one of the top ten media companies are based in North America. The internet and social media – Google, Twitter, Facebook – are mostly American owned and controlled.

In my lifetime, the United States has overthrown or attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, mostly democracies. It has interfered in democratic elections in 30 countries. It has dropped bombs on the people of 30 countries, most of them poor and defenceless. It has attempted to murder the leaders of 50 countries.  It has fought to suppress liberation movements in 20 countries.

The extent and scale of this carnage is largely unreported, unrecognised; and those responsible continue to dominate Anglo-American political life.

In the years before he died in 2008, the playwright made two extraordinary speeches, which broke a silence:

‘US foreign policy,’ he said, is ‘best defined as follows: kiss my arse or I’ll kick your head in’.

It is as simple and as crude as that. What is interesting about it is that it’s so incredibly successful.

It possesses the structures of disinformation, use of rhetoric, distortion of language, which are very persuasive, but are actually a pack of lies. It is very successful propaganda. They have the money, they have the technology, they have all the means to get away with it, and they do.’

In accepting the Nobel Prize for Literature, Pinter said this:

‘The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America.

It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.’

Pinter was a friend of mine and possibly the last great political sage – that is, before dissenting politics were gentrified. I asked him if the ‘hypnosis’ he referred to was the ‘submissive void’ described by Leni Riefenstahl.
The All-American Lie Factory

‘It’s the same,’ he replied.

‘It means the brainwashing is so thorough we are programmed to swallow a pack of lies. If we don’t recognise propaganda, we may accept it as normal and believe it. That’s the submissive void.’

In our systems of corporate democracy, war is an economic necessity, the perfect marriage of public subsidy and private profit: socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. The day after 9/11 the stock prices of the war industry soared. More bloodshed was coming, which is great for business.

Today, the most profitable wars have their own brand. They are called ‘forever wars’: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and now Ukraine. All are based on a pack of lies.

Iraq is the most infamous, with its weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist.

Nato’s destruction of Libya in 2011 was justified by a massacre in Benghazi that didn’t happen. Afghanistan was a convenient revenge war for 9/11, which had nothing to do with the people of Afghanistan.

Today, the news from Afghanistan is how evil the Taliban are – not that Joe Biden’s theft of $7billion of the country’s bank reserves is causing widespread suffering. Recently, National Public Radio in Washington devoted two hours to Afghanistan – and 30 seconds to its starving people.

At its summit in Madrid in June, Nato, which is controlled by the United States, adopted a strategy document that militarises the European continent, and escalates the prospect of war with Russia and China. It proposes ‘multi domain warfighting against nuclear-armed peer-competitor. In other words, nuclear war.

It says: ‘Nato’s enlargement has been an historic success’.

I read that in disbelief.

A measure of this ‘historic success’ is the war in Ukraine, news of which is mostly not news, but a one-sided litany of jingoism, distortion, omission.  I have reported a number of wars and have never known such blanket propaganda.

In February, Russia invaded Ukraine as a response to almost eight years of killing and criminal destruction in the Russian-speaking region of Donbass on their border.

In 2014, the United States had sponsored a coup in Kyiv that got rid of Ukraine’s democratically elected, Russian-friendly president and installed a successor whom the Americans made clear was their man.

In recent years, American ‘defender’ missiles have been installed in eastern Europe, Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, almost certainly aimed at Russia, accompanied by false assurances all the way back to James Baker’s ‘promise’ to Gorbachev in February 1990 that Nato would never expand beyond Germany.

Ukraine is the frontline. Nato has effectively reached the very borderland through which Hitler’s army stormed in 1941, leaving more than 23 million dead in the Soviet Union.

Last December, Russia proposed a far-reaching security plan for Europe.

This was dismissed, derided or suppressed in the Western media. Who read its step-by-step proposals? On 24 February, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy threatened to develop nuclear weapons unless America armed and protected Ukraine.  This was the final straw.

On the same day, Russia invaded – according to the Western media, an unprovoked act of congenital infamy. The history, the lies, the peace proposals, the solemn agreements on Donbass at Minsk counted for nothing.

On 25 April, the US Defence Secretary, General Lloyd Austin, flew into Kyiv and confirmed that America’s aim was to destroy the Russian Federation – the word he used was ‘weaken’. America had got the war it wanted, waged by an American bankrolled and armed proxy and expendable pawn.

Almost none of this was explained to Western audiences.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is wanton and inexcusable. It is a crime to invade a sovereign country. There are no ‘buts’ – except one.

When did the present war in Ukraine begin and who started it? According to the United Nations, between 2014 and this year, some 14,000 people have been killed in the Kyiv regime’s civil war on the Donbass. Many of the attacks were carried out by neo-Nazis.

Watch an ITV news report from May 2014, by the veteran reporter James Mates, who is shelled, along with civilians in the city of Mariupol, by Ukraine’s Azov (neo-Nazi) battalion.

In the same month, dozens of Russian-speaking people were burned alive or suffocated in a trade union building in Odessa besieged by fascist thugs, the followers of the Nazi collaborator and anti-Semitic fanatic Stephen Bandera.  The New York Times called the thugs ‘nationalists’.

‘The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment,’ said Andreiy Biletsky, founder of the Azov Battaltion, ‘is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival, a crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.’

Since February, a campaign of self-appointed ‘news monitors’ (mostly funded by the Americans and British with links to governments) have sought to maintain the absurdity that Ukraine’s neo-Nazis don’t exist.

Airbrushing, a term once associated with Stalin’s purges, has become a tool of mainstream journalism.

In less than a decade, a ‘good’ China has been airbrushed and a ‘bad’ China has replaced it: from the world’s workshop to a budding new Satan.

Much of this propaganda originates in the US, and is transmitted through proxies and ‘think-tanks’, such as the notorious Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the voice of the arms industry, and by zealous journalists such as Peter Hartcher of the Sydney Morning Herald, who labeled those spreading Chinese influence as ‘rats, flies, mosquitoes and sparrows’ and called for these ‘pests’ to be ‘eradicated’.

News about China in the West is almost entirely about the threat from Beijing.

Airbrushed are the 400 American military bases that surround most of China, an armed necklace that reaches from Australia to the Pacific and south east Asia, Japan and Korea. The Japanese island of Okinawa and the Korean island of Jeju are loaded guns aimed point blank at the industrial heart of China. A Pentagon official described this as a ‘noose’.

Palestine has been misreported for as long as I can remember. To the BBC, there is the ‘conflict’ of ‘two narratives’. The longest, most brutal, lawless military occupation in modern times is unmentionable.

The stricken people of Yemen barely exist. They are media unpeople.  While the Saudis rain down their American cluster bombs with British advisors working alongside the Saudi targeting officers, more than half a million children face starvation.

This brainwashing by omission has a long history. The slaughter of the First World War was suppressed by reporters who were knighted for their compliance and confessed in their memoirs.  In 1917, the editor of the Manchester Guardian, C.P. Scott, confided to prime minister Lloyd George:

‘If people really knew [the truth], the war would be stopped tomorrow, but they don’t know and can’t know.’

The refusal to see people and events as those in other countries see them is a media virus in the West, as debilitating as Covid.  It is as if we see the world through a one-way mirror, in which ‘we’ are moral and benign and ‘they’ are not. It is a profoundly imperial view.

The history that is a living presence in China and Russia is rarely explained and rarely understood. Vladimir Putin is Adolf Hitler. Xi Jinping is Fu Man Chu. Epic achievements, such as the eradication of abject poverty in China, are barely known. How perverse and squalid this is.

When will we allow ourselves to understand? Training journalists factory style is not the answer. Neither is the wondrous digital tool, which is a means, not an end, like the one-finger typewriter and the linotype machine.

In recent years, some of the best journalists have been eased out of the mainstream. ‘Defenestrated’ is the word used. The spaces once open to mavericks, to journalists who went against the grain, truth-tellers, have closed.

The case of Julian Assange is the most shocking.  When Julian and WikiLeaks could win readers and prizes for the Guardian, the New York Times and other self-important ‘papers of record’, he was celebrated.

When the dark state objected and demanded the destruction of hard drives and the assassination of Julian’s character, he was made a public enemy. Vice President Biden called him a ‘hi-tech terrorist’. Hillary Clinton asked, ‘Can’t we just drone this guy?’

The ensuing campaign of abuse and vilification against Julian Assange – the UN Rapporteur on Torture called it ‘mobbing’ — brought the liberal press to its lowest ebb. We know who they are. I think of them as collaborators: as Vichy journalists.

When will real journalists stand up? An inspirational samizdat  already exists on the internet:

Consortium News, founded by the great reporter Robert Parry, Max Blumenthal’s  Grayzone, Mint Press News, Media Lens, Declassified UK, Alborada, Electronic Intifada, WSWS, ZNet, ICH, Counter Punch, Independent Australia, the work of Chris Hedges, Patrick Lawrence, Jonathan Cook, Diana Johnstone, Caitlin Johnstone and others who will forgive me for not mentioning them here.

And when will writers stand up, as they did against the rise of fascism in the 1930s?

When will film-makers stand up, as they did against the Cold War in the 1940s?

When will satirists stand up, as they did a generation ago?

Having soaked for 82 years in a deep bath of righteousness that is the official version of the last world war, isn’t it time those who are meant to keep the record straight declared their independence and decoded the propaganda?

The urgency is greater than ever.

Source: globalresearch.ca

Empires rise and empires fall, often through the looking glass of their own internally destructive and self-inflicted wounds.

The Roman Empire, it is said, collapsed under the circumstances of unsustainable debt driven by fiat currency, insatiable desire for war and conquest, disintegration of the moral and social fabric, corrupt degeneracy of its elite, and absorption of foreign elements that never integrated into the pre-established Roman social norms.

The Global American Empire, sometimes known as the Empire of Chaos, will regrettably meet a similar end if it continues on its current path.

As hard-working Americans gathered their families around the Thanksgiving table, more expensive from year to year, the nation’s disengaged ruling elite had no real strategy or willingness to assist their own deteriorating country or citizens. The uni-war party on both sides of the political landscape is rather full of nationalistic fervor, sympathy and passion for every nation and people not named America or American.

In a similar vein, the administration of President Joe Biden continues to be cloaked in secrecy due to a number of controversies that tangle like webs.

The latest polls indicate a significant decrease in popular support for the president and his administration, with the majority of voters agreeing that the country is falling into the abyss. Given Biden’s questionable mental capacity to serve, Americans are left wondering who actually is conducting this train as it runs off the tracks.

Moreover, the administration is perceived as a third Obama mandate, especially when it comes to foreign policy. There are even explicit suggestions that Biden should be openly viewed as the worst president in history, seeing him as the deceitful embodiment of every destructive system and regime.

His policies blatantly threaten to undermine the founding principles, upending established social norms and family structure, destabilizing the economy, engaging in entangling alliances, and violating every civil right and religious freedom that our forefathers struggled for.

Unbothered by criticism and questionable cognitive abilities, Biden and his political allies appear to be eyeing a second presidential term. This means a continued squandering of tax dollars on things like never-ending wars, foreign aid to nations that hate us, welfare for illegal immigrants via the unprotected and open borders, the World Economic Forum’s “green” agenda, persecution of political opponents, sexualization of children, and 10 percent for the Big Guy as usual.

Meanwhile, mounting discontent and public protest are audible across the political spectrum, leading to further polarization and growing resentment toward the entire ruling political elite. Both the Ukraine and Israel fallouts serve as a massive blemish on Biden’s administration, bringing about escalating global chaos and a potential World War III that could go nuclear.

It is more than evident that a number of fundamentalist organizations operate freely in the U.S. under the convenient and now clearly failed pretext of “multiculturalism,” encouraging intolerance, undermining our American traditions, and using racial and economic unrest as a weapon against the majority of the population.

America is being inundated with large numbers of people — receiving full social assistance, which adds to the economic burden — who despise it and would stop at nothing to undermine its Christian customs and values. Through cunning manipulation of ignorant voters with a mask of social problems and policies like women’s rights and abortion, LGBT rights and gay marriage, minorities’ rights, and racial divisions, radical leftist ideology is progressively gaining more power, dividing and conquering, affirmed by the spineless uni-party.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the architects of leftist globalist policy, warned us a long time ago that Russia and China would gradually overtake America as the world’s superpowers, ushering in a new era of multipolarity.

The unaffordable national debt, economic outsourcing, and a financial system controlled by the private Federal Reserve Bank that enslaved the American people and created widening income disparity with an impoverished middle class are the main causes of the pessimistic outlook for America’s future. The world’s developing nations are investing in infrastructure while America is aging, worn out and collapsing under its own unsustainable weight.

America’s single constant investment — more than the combined GDP of the top 10 nations and with ample support from the uni-war party — is in armaments, demonstrating the single-minded continuation of the global racket — WAR.

Given that the U.S. is led by selected avaricious and corrupt people and policies, it is unclear how and when the world’s most powerful nation will fall, as well as who will fall with it into the abyss. The greatest nation on earth has been built by generations of honorable and unselfish Americans, but sadly, the worst forms of greed, corporatism, kleptocracy and never-ending hostility are destroying it.

Like many people worldwide, Americans are victims of a governmental, media and financial empire of political duopoly — one party with two faces — that continues to mislead and manipulate. This is an existential battle in which Americans must awaken from their apathy and lethargy if we are to not only survive, but leave a lasting legacy to future generations.

Will the American-created geopolitical West face its permanent sundown as freedom ventures East where the sun rises, or are we going to fight unconditionally for America First: of, for and by We the People?

Source: https://www.westernjournal.com/op-ed-collapse-global-american-empire/

Manlio Dinucci

“Israel has known Hamas' attack plan for over a year,” reveals the New York Times. A 40-page document code-named by Israeli intelligence as "Walls of Jericho" proves it. Without specifying the date, it outlines point by point exactly the attack carried out by Hamas on October 7, 2023. The plan has circulated widely for over a year before October 7, 2023, among Israeli military and intelligence leaders. Still, they concluded that “an attack of this magnitude is beyond the capabilities of Hamas.” Last July, just three months before the attack, a veteran analyst from Unit 8200 Israel's intelligence agency warned that Hamas had conducted an intense exercise similar to the one described in the plan. But an intelligence agency colonel trashed her report. On October 7, 2023, Hamas executed the attack plan with "astonishing precision": a barrage of rockets, drones to disable security cameras and automatic machine guns along the barrier surrounding Gaza, armed men entering Israeli territory from gaps opened with bulldozers in the barrier. Exactly as it was written in the plan called the "Walls of Jericho" by Israeli intelligence.

This exceptional documentation - the political-media mainstream has essentially passed over it in silence - confirms what we have demonstrated based on facts and not opinions since episode 113 of Grandangolo entitled "September 11th in the Middle East": the leaders of Israel were not taken by surprise by the Hamas attack, but contributed to its execution to have the pretext of implementing their strategic plan. It consists of exterminating the population of Gaza: the dead and seriously injured people, mostly women and children, have so far amounted to around 60 thousand, equivalent to around 2 million dead and seriously injured in Italy (if we were in a similar situation). At the same time, the plan consists of making Gaza uninhabitable by pounding it with thousands of bombs supplied by the USA: in less than seven weeks Israeli bombings have destroyed almost 70% of the buildings in the North, and they are now doing the same in the South, while in throughout the Second World War, Allied bombing of Germany destroyed 60% of the buildings in Dresden and other cities.

In the plan of Israeli leaders, the final solution involves the deportation of the Gaza population to the Sinai desert and the cancellation of Gaza as  Palestinian territory, then they will do the same thing with the West Bank. The leaders of Israel are thus committing not only crimes of war but a real crime of genocide. This international crime consists of the methodical destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group as such, carried out through the extermination of individuals, the dissociation and dispersion of family groups, and the dismantling of all social, political, religious, and cultural institutions.

Renown Chinese and World economic magazine China Investment has published in its December 2023 issue the article authored by Zivadin Jovanovic, president of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals titled "The Belt and Road to Better Life", which is reproduced bellow.

Link to the article: mp.weixin.qq.com

November 29th 2023

Dear friends,

On occasion of the Day of International Solidarity with the Palestinian People the Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals expresses sincere solidarity with the friendly people of Palestine and strong support for their long-standing just struggle for freedom, and the realization of legitimate national rights, based on the universal principles of International Law, and relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council.

We deeply sympathize Palestinian people which is exposed to the tragic humanitarian consequences of Israel`s brutal military action in the Gaza Strip. We strongly condemn the forcible displacement of the Palestinian people and the brutal attacks by Israel in the Gaza Strip, which have been followed by the indiscriminate destruction of Palestinian population, hospitals, schools and children`s institutions, which led to thousands of innocent victims, particularly among children, women and disabled persons. Contrary to the international law, Palestinian people of Gaza has been exposed to a total blockade leaving two million civilian people without food, water, electricity, medicine, fuel and other necessities.

The current military attack on the Gaza has become one of the largest humanitarian tragedies of the recent history. It is direct consequence of the 75-year of occupation by Israel, of the violent expulsion of hundreds of thousands of the Palestinian people from their land, of establishment of illegal settlements on the Palestinian territory, and of the prolonged denial of their legitimate national rights.

In order to uproot the causes of the current conflict, avoid any further human tragedies, prevent spillover of the war and create conditions for lasting peace in the
Middle East, the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals calls that the current cease fire be extended indefinitely, and negotiations under auspices of the UN be renewed on the principles of existence of the two independent states, and ending of any occupation, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations.

We also demand the unconditional release of all Israelis prisoners of Hamas, and Palestinians political prisoners from Israeli prisons.

We call on the international community, especially the United Nations, to urgently provide the people of Gaza and the entire Palestinian people with the necessary humanitarian and reconstruction aid, in urgent elimination of the tragic consequences of war conflicts, and for the establishment of lasting peace in the Middle East.

Friendly greetings,    
Zivadin Jovanovic
President of Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Mensaje de Zivadin Jovanović
Presidente del Foro de Belgrado por un Mundo de Iguales

El bloqueo de los EE.UU a es ilegal e inhumano. Contrario a la Carta de la ONU y el derecho internacional

FINAL DECLARATION OF THE ROME PEACE CONFERENCE
[Rome, October 28, 2023]

Delegates from 40 organizations and individuals from 25 countries gathered in Rome on October 27 - 28, 2023, to discuss the causes of the current war in Ukraine, the war’s impact on international peace, the dangers facing our people and the tasks of the movement for a fair and permanent peace.

Our conclusions:

- The aggressive policies of the United States and its closest allies (the West) are the root causes of the war in Ukraine and, as we see in Palestine, are pushing humanity to the brink of a third world war.
- In order to maintain a unipolar world order, the West needs imperialist domination. It aims to transform the great majority of the world’s countries into vassal states, leading to a neocolonial international system.
- The imperialist elite uses the pseudo-progressive ideological mask of “democratic globalization”, the defense of human and civil rights and the overcoming of national states as a pretext for their domination. They use institutions such as the E.U., the World Bank, the I.M.F., and W.E.F. to impose economic domination, and NATO to impose military domination.

In this framework the West:

- Attacks Russia with the clear goal to destroy it as a sovereign state and split it into a collection of weak vassal states.
- Encircles China with military bases, warships and new military alliances; escalates arms deliveries to Taiwan and continues provocations in the South China Sea in order to force China into a military response that can be used as a pretext for war.
- Continues the war provocations around the Korean peninsula.
- Supports Israel, its main instrument for its neo-colonial politics in the Middle East, in order to extinguish the Palestinian people and to force Iran into war.
- Maintains the occupation of Iraq, maintains the conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Libya, Lebanon ---- and above all continues the occupation of Palestine.
- Constantly plunders Africa and Latin America while imposing puppet governments and instigating its vassal states to invade independent countries — for example in the Sahel.
- Employs armed militias in regime change operations and organizes assassinations of Russian and Iranian intellectuals, politicians, scientists and journalists; commits terrorist actions like blowing up Nord Stream 2 .
- Through illegal unilateral coercive measures (UCMs), tries to strangle the economies of the countries that resist imperialism, callous regarding the catastrophic consequences for these countries’ populations and for the working class and all poor people in the West itself.
- Poisons and kills. The U.S. has already used nuclear weapons, not only in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also by using depleted uranium weapons (DUW) against Iraq, Serbia and now against Russia. DUW permanently contaminate the land and have killed a yet uncounted number of people.
For these reasons the Western elites amount to a permanent threat against peace and development of the world and threaten the very existence of humanity.

Our stance regarding the current war in Ukraine:

It was not on Feb. 24, 2022, that the war in Ukraine started, nor even when the U.S. incited the 2014 coup, but further back in time, with the bloody expansion of NATO towards  East Europe. The dirty wars in Yugoslavia and  the disintegration of the once strongest Balkan state, the instigation of wars in Caucasus were all phases of the same project. The war against Russia had already started right after the illegal dissolution of the USSR, which was imposed against the will of its citizens. The formation of new borders in Eastern Europe and Central Asia has been imposed outside the framework of international law.

NATO was the instrument of the U.S. to impose its control over all Europe. Its  expansion to the East was illegal and presents a permanent threat against all sovereign and independent countries.

The Russian government tried to avoid the current phase of the war, but the West, through its proxies in Ukraine, has continued targeting the Russian populations and has refused any peace agreement based on equal security, as proposed by Russia. The West’s actions made the war unavoidable.

How the West conducts the war shows that it aims at an unending escalation and to exhaust both Ukrainians and Russians to the maximum. The use of illegal weapons like cluster bombs and depleted uranium ammunition shows that the inhumane action of the western elites has been without limits. Their efforts to involve all the Eastern European countries −− as well as other countries −− in the conflict show that the West’s leading elites are trying to use the European population as cannon fodder just as they now use Ukrainians.

The only basis for solving international disputes should remain International Law, which has at its core the UN Charter. The will of the U.S. and its allies −− the so-called “rules-based order” −− should no longer be a compulsory rule for the world. .

What the world’s people need:

- A defeat of NATO in Ukraine. Without this prerequisite there is no possibility for a durable peace. A Western victory over Russia would be a new disaster for humanity. It would become a starting point for new wars in the Balkans, the Middle East and in East Asia, significantly in South China Sea and Korean peninsula,that is a protracted third world war.

- A new framework of cooperation in East Europe and Balkans, liberated from U.S.-EU control, based on equal relations and reshaping the catastrophic consequences of the West’s victory in the Cold War.

- A world of sovereign countries where peoples can determine their future, free of the global economic dictatorship imposed by the West, free of Unilateral Coercive Measures. The world needs commercial, financial, communication and transportation networks free from the West’s control. In this direction, the formation of new organizations for cooperation between states, free from Western control, and the enhanced role of the Global South in the existing international organizations are positive developments.

- A new architecture in the UN reflecting the rights of the global South and the principle of equal sovereignty for all states.

Our tasks

- We have much to do regarding information and education. There exists in NATO-EU countries and other U.S.-dominated countries a virtual total censorship. We should inform these populations that the West’s war in Ukraine is an unjust war.
- We must stop the dispatch of weapons, ammunition, equipment and personnel to the battlefield but,
- Our main task should be to liberate our countries from NATO membership, from U.S. control and from U.S. military bases. This will be the pinnacle of our solidarity to the resisting people of the world.

We have decided

1. To form a permanent network to coordinate the above tasks under the name of
“Stop World Word 3 – International Initiative for Peace”
2. To organize  international actions and  solidarity delegations to  Russia – Donbass and Palestine
3. To organize the 2nd international peace conference by the end of 2024

The World Peace Council expresses its deep concern about the circle of bloodshed in Palestine and Israel which has led already to the loss of lives of hundreds of civilians on both sides along with thousands of injuries. As WPC we state clearly that the root cause for this escalation is and remains the decades’ long Israeli occupation of the Palestinian lands, the policies of settlements, land robbing, the separation wall in the West Bank and the daily humiliation, harassment and killings of Palestinians by the regime of occupation, the thousands of Palestinian prisoners, the road blocks, the discrimination and deprivation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to their own state.

It would not be wise to expect that the accumulated injustice and occupation would not trigger and produce reactions of the Palestinian people who have the legitimate right to resist the occupation, as it is clearly stated in the International Law. The current Israeli government, in continuation of all previous ones, has escalated further the provocations in the West Bank, in East Jerusalem and the live of millions of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is more of an “open air” prison.

The decision to end the current hostilities lies with the Israeli government, which tries to take advantage of the situation by heavy bombardment of the Palestinian Gaza Strip while heavy and severe responsibilities belong to the USA, the EU and their allies in the region and the world, who not only support and endorse the ongoing occupation and all its actions but also speak today hypocritically about the “right for self-defense of Israel”, neglecting provocatively any such right to the Palestinian people.

The government of Israel is actually hostile also to its own people (Jews and Arabs) by the ongoing occupation of Palestine; the current escalation proves that the denial of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people does not allow peace and stability in the whole region and especially these hours where the danger for a regional war exists.

The WPC reiterates and underlines its demand for the end of the occupation of all Palestinian lands by Israel, the establishment of an independent State of Palestine within the borders of pre-4th June 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital. We demand the release of all Palestinian political prisoners from Israeli jails and the right to return of all the Palestinian refugees according to the UN resolution 194. Occupation and Injustice cannot last forever!

The WPC Secretariat   8th October 2023

Alexander Wolfheze
A Serbian Triptych

Preliminaries

(*) Dedication: This three-fold ‘iconostasis’ is dedicated to an Eagle in the East: the Serbian nation and its courageous freedom fight against truly overwhelming odds.

(*) Organization: Part One of this three-part essay gives a written outline of the author’s presentation for the Serbian Eurasianist Movement in May 2023. It serves to remind the international reader of the fact that the anti-globalist struggle, at the highest level of international diplomacy and military effort, not only has an Eastern Front, where a titanic, truly world-changing battle is currently being fought over the Eastern Slav lands, but also a Balkan Front, where a smaller, true David-against-Goliath battle was recently fought over the South Slav lands. Part Two, the centrepiece of this essay, gives the author’s review of Michel Chossudovsky’s book The US-NATO War of Aggression against Yugoslavia, one of the few impartial English-language treatises on the largely ‘memory-holed’ topic of the West’s ‘controlled demolition’ of Yugoslavia. It serves to remind the reader of the Yugoslav War antecedents of the current Ukraine War: the former prefigures the latter as a stand-off between Western sea-power, which aims at imposing Atlanticist hegemony and globalist uni-polarity, and Eastern land-power, which aims at creating Eurasianist sovereignty and non-globalist multi-polarity. Part Three concludes this essay with the author’s report on his July 2023 attempt to visit General Ratko Mladic, a long-term political prisoner in a United Nations-sponsored facility located in the author’s old home city of The Hague, the Netherlands. For over twelve years now, General Mladic is serving a life sentence, allegedly for ‘war crimes’ but actually for defending his country and his people against Atlanticist aggression, while people like Clinton and Blair, the actual instigators of the first European war of aggression since 1945, walk free. This third part serves to remind the reader that doing the right thing in the present must start with righting the wrongs of the past.

(*) Acknowledgements: The author wishes to express his gratitude to Rade Drobats, Deputy President of the Belgrade Forum for Equals, for providing a review copy of Michel Chossudovsky’s book The US-NATO War, to Milorad Djoshic, Editor-in-Chief of publishing house Cirilitsa, for facilitating an important forum discussion, and to Bobana Andjelkovits, Eurasianist Movement representative, for her many useful introductions and good conversations.

Part One: ‘Unforgiven’

Presentation for the Serbian Eurasianist Movement

(Belgrade, May 2023)

Errare humanum est sed perservare diabolicum

The first time the author of this essay visited Serbia, then still at the heart of the Yugoslavian state, was in the summer of 2000, a little over a year after NATO’s ‘humanitarian intervention’ and a few months before the colour ‘Bulldozer Revolution’ overthrow of President Slobodan Milosevic. At that time, Belgrade was undoubtedly one of Europe’s most tourist-proof capital cities: that year, very few visitors from NATO aggressor states were tempted to visit Belgrade. Admittedly, it was a surreal experience: the city was studded with patches of bombed-out buildings, suffering frequent utility blackouts and many city centre shops and establishments were permanently boarded up. The train connection from Budapest was interrupted at Novi Sad due to the NATO bombing of some bridge - the journey had to be continued by car, with taxis slowly slaloming around bomb-damaged intersections on improvised field roads and endlessly queuing at supply-starved fuel stations. Although wads of worthless billion-dominated old banknotes still adorned the few tourist kiosks of the near-empty Kalemegdan park avenues, hyperinflation had already given way to the grim austerity of the Deutschmark-pegged last Yugoslav Dinar. The sanction-struck economy was clearly on its last legs: during that last summer of independent Yugoslavia, scarcity and poverty had already pushed many citizens to the standard responses of ‘disaster capitalism’: the black market, emigration and despair. The vacant stare of young soldiers in well-worn uniforms on the bus stops, the resigned patience of old women in tattered scarves scouring the markets and the paranoid alertness of dark-suited body-guards at Mercedes car doors - all these tell-tale signs pointed to the impending ‘final victory’ of ‘market economy’ and ‘democratic values’. Rump-Yugoslavia, by then reduced to Montenegro and Serbia (minus its NATO-occupied southwest), simply constituted the very last outpost of the doomed Second World, just about to disappear.

Clearly, this was the terminus of the old Eastern Bloc, the very edge of the blank slate that is supposed to come with the ‘End of History’, reached only after a full decade of the West’s full-spectrum assault on the East. The full history of this decade of systematic and coordinated Western infiltration, bribery, sabotage, blackmail, sanctions and violence perpetrated on the then-Eastern Bloc - with multiple variations on the theme of Stunde Null for each of the affected countries - has yet to be written, but it is unlikely to be well-received until some great historical change has occurred within the current Western Bloc. Any attempt at historical fact-finding regarding the defeat of the Eastern Bloc is, in fact, sure to be carefully censored as long as the victors’ narrative stands - and it will stand as long as its beneficiaries stand: the corrupt sell-outs of the old communist nomenclature, the shameless traitors of the abolished nation-states and the collaborating conmen of the neo-liberal order. In the widest sense, this beneficiary category includes all those belonging to the nouveau riche ‘money class’ that grew fat on the corpse of the Eastern Bloc during the wild 90’s ‘regime change’ decade - from the handful of oligarch billionaires who came out on top during the ‘privatization’ gold-rush, to the multitudes of now-‘legit’ black market pioneers who pocketed the last savings of the betrayed workers and peasants of East Europe’s former ‘people’s republics’. And the ex-Eastern Bloc’s successor generation, its present-day gilded youth, comfortably wrapped in a ‘virtual reality’ bubble-life of Western-style materialism and hedonism, is unlikely to be interested in the true story of their parents’ path to status and money. Their parents’ true story, crawling through the ‘90s open sewer of raw gangsterism, naked prostitution and shameless grifting, has been glossed over by a very carefully crafted narrative that permits no substantial questioning of its ideological dogmas - especially any actual content investigation of its ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘meritocracy’.

But if it is still too early to write a full history of the fall of the Eastern Bloc and the break-up of its larger states, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, it is not too early to learn some preliminary lessons about the geopolitical strategies by which these larger states were defeated, strategies that allowed the First World West to quite literally devour the Second World East. Such propaedeutics, a collection of well-researched case studies on the agony of Yugoslavia, are now available in Michel Chossudovsky’s book The US-NATO War of Aggression against Yugoslavia, which is reviewed in Part Two of this essay. It would be highly perilous for the presently rising Multipolarity and Eurasianist movements to ignore the lessons that can be learnt from Professor Chossudovsky’s historical study because it describes the globalist West’s standard multi-dimensional warfare strategies, strategies by which it not only defeated, divided and enslaved Yugoslavia but by which it exercises hegemonic power all around the world. Since the Western conquest of Yugoslavia, these same strategies, ranging from media manipulation and economic blackmail to colour revolution and military invasion, have been used against many minor and medium-sized ‘poles’ of resistance to the Western hegemon’s unipolar New World Order project, from Venezuela to Iraq, from Hungary to Hongkong and from Belarus to Yemen. More importantly, the Western hegemon has recently engaged these same strategies  - albeit with ‘updated’ technical instruments and on a much larger scale - in what appears to be meant as a final offensive against the world’s last major sovereign powers, Russia and China. The neocon-created Ukrainian phantom-state - effectively a Neo-Khazarian anti-state, is meant to handicap, challenge and degrade Russian sovereignty, most directly through proxy war, in the same way that the phantom-state of ‘Kosovo’ was (and continues to be) meant to handicap, challenge and degrade Yugoslavian and Serbian sovereignty. Anyone studying Professor Chossudovsky’s work will immediately notice the similarity in the schemes of the Western hegemon: it should be compulsory reading for all those who wish to understand current global geopolitics as well as for all those who are engaged in realpolitik resistance to the Western hegemon’s imperialist agenda.

But before proceeding to the review of Professor Chossudovsky’s book the author, who was born, raised and educated in the West, here wishes to address a few words to his ex-Yugoslav and especially his Serbian audience. It is only proper to state the obvious: that no words of apology, however well meant, would undo the evil done to Yugoslavia as a whole, and to Serbia in particular, by the Western war-mongers responsible for that evil - such words would neither bring back the dead to life nor undo the tangible (‘depleted uranium’) and intangible (‘guilt narrative’) poison that the West injected into the Balkans during the ‘90s. But is also important to state the less obvious: that no such words can be expected to be spoken unless and until the Western Empire of Lies collapses in on itself - an outcome that may be hoped for and striven to, but that only Divine Providence can have the final word on. The burden of guilt and shame, created by the Yugoslav war and many other subsequent wars of aggression farther afield, now accumulated by the collective West, is simply too great. It would require a true revolution of mind and soul (in more archaic words: repentance and atonement) to acknowledge and discharge this burden - and no such revolution is possible as long the key institutions of the Empire of Lies - NATO, EU, IMF, World Bank - endure.

The author’s memory may here serve to illustrate the true weight of this collective burden. One day during the first week of ‘Operation Noble Anvil’, i.e. the NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999, when the author was still employed by a large financial corporation in Amsterdam, during his break, he joined his colleagues in the corporate canteen where a large crowd of office staff watched the TV news on a large screen. Almost without exception, his colleagues cheered and clapped as they watched a barrage of missiles and bombs hitting Belgrade, much like a crowd of football fans watching an exciting match. Then and there, the author realized that talking and arguing with such people is useless: these people unthinkingly cheered on the death of innocent people and the destruction of precious work, for reasons that they were too stupid to understand and under pretences that they were too lazy to investigate - all from the safety of their spacy offices and their luxury apartments, filling their fat bellies from their fat paychecks. No meaningful apologies can ever come from such people: these are not merely docile ‘sheeple’ - these are accessories to murder and accomplices to evil. Since that time, these people and their brood - and there should be no mistake about it: there are still masses of them around the West - have consistently added to the mountain of their collective guilt, now weighing down on the collective West to the point of altering its collective consciousness. These people are complicit in the reign of terror that the Western ‘rules-based order’ has unleashed on the world and that has, over decades, drowned entire nations in blood, tears and sweat, first far away - Libya, Syria, Yemen and Syria to name but the most obvious places were suffering was deliberately imposed - and then nearer to home, in Ukraine. They have, again and again, swallowed the MSM lies hook and sinker (‘911’, ‘weapons of mass destruction’, ‘Russian collusion’, ‘MH17’, ‘Putin is Hitler’), they have, again and again, voted in obvious cheats, liars and war criminals (Clinton, Blair, Bush, Johnson, Biden), they have, again and again, enthusiastically supported degeneracy exports (‘Femen’, ‘Moscow Pride’, ‘SOVA Centre’) and they have, again and again, generously funded war-mongering puppets (Saakashvili, Guaidó, Zelensky).

By now, the West - one could say: ex-West because it lost the soul that gave it life[i] - is so deeply mired in sin, having deliberately distanced itself from redemption, that the crimes it has committed, and continues to commit, at the collective level have surpassed the level of mere ‘deadly sins’: these sins are now attaining the level of what, once upon a (pre-Vatican II) time, the now effective defunct Catholic Church recognized as peccata clamantia: ‘screaming sins’, i.e. sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, designed to deliberate provoke the Wrath of the Creator. There is, however, one level of sin deeper still: the unforgivable sin, i.e. the kind of persistence in mortal sin, without penitence, that is inspired by sheer malice. In the final analysis, this ultimate sin involves the sinner’s self-condemnation, by-passing divine mercy by the sinner’s free and conscious choice, to hell. Of course, hell on earth is exactly what the West’s radical nihilism, taken to its logical consequences, aims at. Within the ex-West, that hell has already been realized in many ways and many spheres. One need only look at the unspeakable filth of the West’s online ‘sexual liberation’, the industrial-scale genital mutilation of its children, the massive child sacrifice resulting from its ‘abortion’ and ‘vaccination’ rituals, the perversely inverted ‘justice system’ that glorifies criminals (‘BLM’) and punishes the innocent (‘J6’), the institutionalized racism that gives preferential treatment of colonizing invaders (represented as being ‘asylum seekers’) while dispossessing innocent natives (represented as having ‘white privilege’) and the shameless lies and false flags by which it justifies its ever-escalating wars of imperialist conquest, aimed at carving up resource-rich states that dare resist its demands (Libya, Syria, Russia). Once these sins, deadly and screaming to Heaven for vengeance, do finally reach the status of unforgivable sin, a time of reckoning is sure to follow. Without excluding a truly (eschatology-) ‘based’ scenario, in which the ex-West drags all of humanity into a fire-and-brimstone final reckoning, we should remember that it is also possible - and it would not be the first time in human history - that the Wrath of the Creator is channelled through human agents. Sometimes, the avenging angel is just a man who decides he has had enough. It is not inconceivable that, at some point in the not-too-distant future, enough good men will have had enough and decide that they will settle the score once and for all. The Eurasianist mission is to work towards just such a brotherhood:

эа вашу и нашу свободу.

Part Two: The Yugoslav Crucible Revisited

Review of Michel Chossudovsky, The US-NATO War of Aggression against Yugoslavia (Belgrade Forum for Equals: Belgrade, 2021)

Vae victis

Preliminaries

(*) Overall assessment: Chossudovsky’s book is one of the very few solid, i.e. professionally researched and historically contextualized, English-language publications on the Yugoslav conflict in which the author is brave enough to take draw honest conclusions about its root causes, narrative repercussions and moral implications. The main reason Chossudovsky manages to avoid standard-narrative pitfalls, such as ‘end of history’ teleology or ‘clash of civilization’ schematism, is that he manages to consistently maintain an older and more realistic analytic model, viz. the Marxist model of capital accumulation and imperialist expansion as important geopolitical factors. Especially useful contributions by Professor Chossudovky are his depth-analysis case study studies of specific episodes from the long-drawn out agony of Yugoslavia, such as the strategic and financial foundations of Camp Bondsteel (appendix to his Ch. 5), the eco-warfare bombing of the Panchevo petrochemical plant (his Ch. 6) and the human impact of NATO’s uses of depleted uranium ammunition in a de facto campaign of low-intensity nuclear warfare (his Ch. 7). Chossudovsky ruthlessly exposes a number of deeply disturbing  - and equally deeply memory-holed - ‘hybrid warfare’ strategies of the West’s war on Yugoslavia, including the West’s deliberate and extensive employment of drug mafias and terror networks, and he shows how the West’s take-down of Yugoslavia was in some ways a ‘test run’, after which they became standard instruments in the globalist cabal’s foreign policy tool kit.

(*) Review aim: Above all, this review aims to ‘operationalize’ the lessons of Chossudovsky’s book, i.e. to show how they are useful in exposing the main strategies and the overall aims of the West-based globalist cabal in their ‘inverse crusade’ to make the world ‘safe for tyranny’ ever since the end of the Cold War. If what the West did to Yugoslavia in the ‘90s is taken as a comprehensive ‘test run’ of full-spectrum ‘hybrid warfare’, then what the West is now doing to Russia in the ‘20s may be looked at as the ultimate test of the ‘hybrid warfare’ tools and mechanisms ‘tested’ in Yugoslavia. It should be noted that this perspective in no way diminishes the sufferings and injustices inflicted upon the people of Yugoslavia: rather, the lessons that can be learnt from the globalist cabal’s successful dismantling and recolonization of Yugoslavia in the ‘90s should be taken to heart by those tasked with preserving the integrity and independence of Russia in the ‘20s - and by all those dedicated to the defence of all authentic forms of state sovereignty and national identity. Above all, the various means and mechanisms of the globalist cabal’s ‘hybrid warfare’ should be understood as mutually reinforcing, continually improved and carefully selected tools and mechanisms from within a fairly standard ‘tool kit’. Their ultimate aim is nothing less than ‘multi-dimensional’ and ‘full-spectrum’ dominance: not merely the subjugation of nations, groups and individuals and the achievement of political and economic control, but their essential alteration and the utter destruction of their original identities. The ever more transparently anti-human, trans-human and post-human nature of the globalist hegemon’s policies is explained by the ever more consistent, sophisticated and invasive application of these tools and mechanisms in pursuit of total control. Currently, the globalist cabal is engaged in a crucial campaign in its quest for world dominance: its ‘Ukraine War’ campaign against Russia aims at taking down its single most important state-sovereign challenger in the international agenda. It cannot afford to lose this campaign and is bound to use its entire ‘multi-dimensional warfare’ arsenal: it is important that those entrusted with the defence of state sovereignty and national identity in the face of the globalist onslaught, now reaching its climax in the West’s war on Russia, a take full cognizance of the precedents and antecedents of the West’s war on Yugoslavia. This applies especially to those operating in the very vanguard of cognitive warfare - above all, the Eurasianist movement.

(*) Reader alert: The lessons to be learnt from the West’s war on Yugoslavia are inevitably shaped by historical and geopolitical settings and well-educated and tradition-informed readers will appreciate the importance of a firm grasp of history and geography as the necessary basis of classical international diplomacy and politics, i.e. the realm of pre-globalist international relations and statecraft. But this appreciation - and this may seem to be a contradiction but is anything but - also constitutes a grave danger in the sense that it may skew the reader’s view, blinding him to the fact that the globalist cabal acts, thinks and feels in direct defiance of history and geography - and of reality itself. It insists upon altering reality, completely and forever: it seeks to rule the world and reshape it, erasing history, overcoming geography and destroying reality. The more intelligent of the globalist cabal’s puppets and mouthpieces, the Blinkens, the Nulands, the Sunaks, the Macrons, are not blind ignoramuses: they just deliberately chose to ignore history, geography and reality. They are driven by a ‘greater’ vision that is stamped upon them and maintained in the very peculiar ‘cultic bubble’ void in which they ‘live’. Essentially, it is an anti-human, trans-human and post-human vision - a vision that undoubtedly anticipates and prepares the as-yet-unrealized vision of the Antichrist, who long ago deliberately set himself up against the reality of creation. Thus, the tools and mechanisms of the globalist cabal’s arsenals are deliberately applied against history, geography and reality. The entire package - military aggression (from ‘humanitarian intervention’ to ‘regime change’), economic warfare (from ‘sanction regime’ to ‘market reform’), bio-leninist subversion (from ‘women’s suffrage’ to ‘critical race theory’), psycho-social deconstruction (from ‘MK Ultra’ experiments to ‘transgender’ legislation), biotechnical control (from to ‘morning-after pill’ to ‘vaccination mandate’) - has only one direction and one exit. The anti-globalist East now experiences the ruthless real-world application of these tools and mechanisms to its collective body and mind, but it should know that there is something still worse than being killed and maimed in body and mind. The still-standing East only has to look to the already-fallen West, to look at its zombified masses, and it will know what it means for the soul to be killed and maimed:

fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul

but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell

- Matthew 10:28

Tools and techniques

After showing how the demolition of Yugoslavia was planned by the US-led West as far back as the early ‘80s (tracing such planning back to the Reagan administration’s 1982 National Decision Directive 64), Chossudovsky groups the tools and mechanisms by which this demolition was achieved into two main categories: (1) economic-financial and (2) political-military.

(Ad 1) The West’s economic-financial assault on Yugoslavia involved the ‘opening up’, through a combination of bullying, bribery and blackmail at the highest policy-making levels, of the Yugoslav economy to neo-liberal (‘Reagonomic’/’Thatcherite’) ‘free market’ mechanisms. The dictates of the high finance-directed ‘international institutions’ (International Monetary Fund, World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Bank of International Settlement), always imposed with the help of and for the benefit of ‘venture capitalist’ ‘investors’ such as George Soros, resulted in a round of economic ‘shock therapy’ (‘market reforms’, ‘austerity programs’) that destroyed the Yugoslav economy and Yugoslav society as well as - indirectly - the Yugoslav state. The de-regulation of foreign trade led to grotesque ‘dumping’ practices: markets were flooded with cheaply imported commodities, elbowing out domestic producers. The abolition of protective trade barriers led to the mass insolvency of state- and worker-owned enterprises: these found themselves suddenly and artificially ‘indebted’ and forced into fire-sale liquidation. These state- and worker-owned assets, including real estate, industrial facilities and inventory stocks, were then sold off to foreign ‘vulture fund’ investors at bargain prices: local currency-nominated ‘book values’ were signed off by corrupt bureaucrats and managers who were either bribed or ‘partnered in’. These - largely communist party - apparatchiks were directly complicit in the economic demolition of their own nation’s economy and state.[ii] In the course of ‘liberalizing’ foreign investment legislation, state revenue became collateral for foreign debt servicing, which meant that a sovereign economic policy was no longer possible. At the same time, foreign donor support and international reconstruction loans were made conditional on the implementation of legal and political ‘structural reforms’, allowing foreign powers to effectively impose their legal frames and political ideas on Yugoslavia. Yugoslav federal government control was systematically degraded and thwarted as loan conditions were imposed, credit lines were threatened and budget controls were imposed. Crucially, transfer payments by the federal government funds to Yugoslavia’s constituent republics and autonomous regions were interrupted and federal government tax powers were devolved to these republics and regions: federal government authority was fatally compromised. At the same time, Yugoslavia’s social fabric started coming apart under sheer economic pressure: plant closure and budget cuts led to mass unemployment, ‘austerity’ imposed wage freezes and ‘privatization’ imposed utility price-rises led to collapsing living standards. Faced with reform-mandated currency devaluation, shrinking government tax revenue and ballooning foreign currency-denominated external debt the federal government resorted to money printing, leading to skyrocketing inflation. Between 1990 and 1994, Yugoslavia went through five currencies and multiple cycles of hyper-inflation, ending only when the final Yugoslav dinar (Novi Dinar), the YUM, was pegged to the Deutsch Mark, replacing the previous dinar, the YUG at a rate of 1 YUM to 13 million YUG (some months before, the YUG had itself replaced the earlier YUO at a rate of 1 YUG to 1 billion YUO). Over this time, the destruction of industry, the roll-back of workers’ rights and the dismantling of the welfare state, meant that the mass of people lost their rights and livelihoods: rights and livelihoods that had been carefully built up over decades were erased in the course of a few months. Ordinary people, wage-earners, the unemployed, the sick, and pensioners, were exposed to pre-modern living conditions, often thrown into Dickens-style poverty and squalor. The social fall-out was catastrophic, as evidenced by mass emigration, spiking crime rates, endemic substance abuse and widespread prostitution. Even today, Yugoslavia’s successor states still struggle to overcome the impact of Yugoslavia’s ‘controlled demolition’: the legacy of mass emigration, the ‘brain-drain’ of young professionals, the exodus from the countryside, the degradation of honest work and dignified retirement, the mafia culture of gangster survivalism and the culture-distorting impact of decades of negative birth-rates are heavy mortgages, weakening the successor states’ social fabric and stunting their socio-cultural development. As usual, however, history is written by the victors: Administered in several doses since the 1980s, NATO-backed neo-liberal medicine has helped destroy Yugoslavia. Yet, the global media [and academia] ha[ve] carefully overlooked or denied its central role. Instead, they.. sing.. the praises of the ‘free market’… The social and political impact of economic restructuring in Yugoslavia has been carefully erased from our collective understanding. Opinion-makers instead dogmatically present cultural, ethnic, and religious divisions as the sole cause of war and devastation. …Such false consciousness not only masks the truth, it also prevents us from acknowledging precise historical occurrences. Ultimately, it distorts the true sources of social conflict. When applied to the former Yugoslavia, it obscures the historical foundations of South Slavic unity, solidarity and identity in what constituted a multiethnic society. (p. 43-4) …The eventual ‘reconstruction’ of Yugoslavia formulated in the context of the ‘free market’ reforms and financed by international debt largely purport to create a safe haven for foreign investors rather than to rehabilitate the country’s economic and social infrastructure. The… national economy will be dismantled, [Western] banks will take over financial institutions, local industrial enterprises which have not been totally destroyed will be driven into bankruptcy. The most profitable state assets will be transferred into the hands of foreign capital under the World Bank sponsored privatisation programme. In turn, [this]

‘strong economic medicine’ imposed by external creditors will contribute to further boosting a criminal economy… which feeds on poverty and dislocation. (80-1)

(Ad 2) The West’s initial political-military strategy involved the systematic fostering of secessionist political movements and the undercover organization of armed secessionist militias in the constituent republics and autonomous regions of Yugoslavia, which was a federal state inhabited by a large number of different ethnicities with widely diverging languages, religions and culture. This strategy aimed at undermining Yugoslavia’s relatively young and tenuous state identity, which dated back to the assertion of a common Southern Slav national idea during the weakening and the collapse of the Ottoman and Hapsburg rule throughout the Balkan between the early 19th Century rise of the independent Serbian state and the early 20th Century fall of the Austria-Hungarian state. Yugoslav state identity was based on the shared history, the common culture and the Serbo-Croatian lingua franca. After Yugoslavia’s liberation struggle during World War II, this state identity was expanded to include a state ideology of moderate ‘market-socialism’ at home and ‘non-alignment’ abroad. As ‘market socialism’ allowed Yugoslav society a balance between the extremes of capitalism’s Darwinist ‘war of all against all’ and communism’s all-levelling ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ domestically, so ‘non-alignment’ allowed the Yugoslav state to balance between the West Bloc and the East Bloc internationally. Thus, Yugoslavia managed to remain truly independent during the Cold War, when almost all of Europe was effectively reduced to vassal status under either the United States or the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia also gained diplomatic leverage and international prestige as the de facto centre of the Non-Alignment Movement, founded in Belgrade in 1961 at the initiative of President Tito, supported by international heavy-weights such as India’s Nehru, Indonesia’s Sukarno, Egypt’s Nasser and Ghana’s Nkrumah: it effectively led much of the Third World on the ‘third way’ of non-alignment. As the Cold War drew to a close and as the communist East Bloc started to dissolve, however, Yugoslavia could no longer sustain its ideological and geopolitical balancing act: its sovereignty at home and its status abroad had been a function of the ‘bipolar’ Cold War global balance of power and were no longer sustainable at the start of the ‘unipolar’ era: after the fall of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, Yugoslavia faced the full, unchallenged might of Atlanticist power alone. The Western purpose was to split Yugoslavia, a medium-size, semi-autarkic state of considerable demographic, economic and military weight, into a patchwork of small-size, import-dependent vassal-states unable to challenge the hegemonic power of Anglosphere-based Atlanticist hegemon. Divide et impera. Ideally, from an Atlanticist perspective, would be an ex-Yugoslavian space crowded by a maximum number of sub-sovereign successor states, thoroughly alienated from each other and each separately subject to ‘foreign debt rescheduling’ and ‘structural readjustment negotiations’. From a larger historical perspective, the ‘leaders’ of these successor states would be nothing but collaborators with an informal but no less real Atlanticist occupation regime. As Chossudovsky points out repeatedly, these ‘leaders’ are nothing but vassals in a system of globalist colonial rule imposed on the former Yugoslavia, as proven by the fact that they enthusiastically lined up to join globalist trans-nationalist power structures - EU, NATO - as soon as possible. In those cases where successor states are so grossly artificial that joining these formal structures is problematic, as in Bosnia and Kosovo, openly neo-colonial regimes are imposed, with globalist-written ‘constitutions’, globalist-cloned legal systems and un-elected, non-native UN ‘high representatives’. The West’s political-military campaign to achieve Yugoslavia’s formal division into successor states, more or less along ethnic and religious lines, began with covert sponsorship of separatist politicians and militias (ranging from intelligence and funding to military training and equipment), it continued with overt propaganda for separatist movements (including ‘atrocity propaganda), it expanded to include diplomatic pressure (newly-united Germany obliged its Atlanticists masters by initiating the ‘diplomatic recognition’ of break-away states) and it finally peaked in direct military intervention (in Bosnia and Kosovo). Of course, the West’s political-military campaign ran simultaneously with the West’s economic-financial campaign: the latter undermined Yugoslavia’s civilian economy and it destroyed Yugoslavia’s social cohesion to such an extent that its people lost their trust in the old system, the old state and the old leadership, making them susceptible to the Western-sponsored narratives of ‘market reforms’ and ‘national self-determination’. Even so, the demolition of Yugoslavia was far from easy: the Yugoslav state died hard and it only did so after the application of the full force of Western military might. The greatest challenge to the Western campaign of demolition was Serbian nationalism: in many ways, the first Yugoslav state had been the natural extension and crowning achievement of Serbia’s struggle for independence. After a series of ferocious freedom fights against its old-empire Ottoman and Hapsburg overlords and a series of brutal border wars against its new-nation Italian, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Albanian neighbours, Serbia had effectively created Yugoslavia as the logical expression of its maximal territorial aspirations (the unification of all Serbs and their fellow South Slaves in one state) and its maximal strategic needs (the creation of a land-corridor to allied Greece, broad access to the Adriatic Sea and a territorial buffer around its capital). The Western demolition of Yugoslavia, however, required more than the mere roll-back of Serbia’s gains: it also required the permanent impairment of Serbia’s status as a regional power. This means permanently ‘disabling’ and ‘handicapping’ Serbia, which is why it has been reduced to a small land-locked state, why it has been isolated as an island surrounded by a sea of EU-NATO enemies and why it has been made to suffer the amputation of sacred soil in Kosovo - so that it can never recover and stand up again. Aside from the fact that the Serbian state’s tradition of political independence and military prowess was bound to make Serbian revanchism inevitable, the main reason for the West’s implacable animosity towards Serbia was Serbia’s natural alliance with Russia. Throughout its existence, which overlapped with the late 19th and early 20th Century ‘Great Game’ period and Russia’s expansion towards Tsargrad-Constantinople and the Turkish Straits, the Serbian state had been Russia’s most consistent ally: fellow Slav and fellow Orthodox Russia had been Serbia’s faithful sponsor, ally and protector. It was, in fact, Russia’s commitment to the preservation of Serbian independence in the face of the Hapsburg intervention that triggered the outbreak of World War I. At the level of nationalist sentiment, Serbia’s historically intimate ties to Russia did survive Russia’s switch from devout Orthodoxy to communist atheism: the first Yugoslav state gave shelter to large numbers of White Russian refugees and the second Yugoslav state was founded on the strategic partnership between its founders and the Soviet Union. After the fall of the Soviet Union and communism, Serbia and Russia are again naturally aligned. This alignment follows from simple geo-political logic: they have a common enemy, viz. the Atlanticist hegemon invading the former Serbian and Russian imperial spaces. But this also follows simple cultural-historical logic: both are crowned with the double-headed eagle of Byzantium and both are called to defend Europe and Christianity against the double-tongued Atlanticist-globalist Empire of Lies:

they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength

they shall mount up with wings as eagles

they shall run, and not be weary

and they shall walk, and not faint

- Isaiah 40:31

Time-lines and fault-lines

This review of Chossudovsky’s book does not need to reconstruct the entire time-line of the prolonged agony of ex-Yugoslavia at the hands of its Atlanticist tormentors. Of course, Chossudovsky’s book focuses on the culminating stage of Yugoslavia’s defeat: the ‘Kosovo War’ of 1999, but he does repeatedly pay attention to its earlier (Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian) and the later (‘Bulldozer Revolution’, ‘Macedonian Insurgency’) stages. It is important to note that Chossudovsky does so in terms of ‘parallel viewing’ and ‘pattern recognition’: he clearly shows how it is useful to view the entire process of Yugoslavia’s demolition - spread out over one and half decades if formally defined by the state’s break-up from 25 June 1991 (Slovenian and Croatian independence) to 3 June 2006 (Montenegrin independence) - as one single campaign. Or rather as a coherent ‘rolling operation’ showing consistent strategy patterns: …Washington’s military-intelligence ploy is… to replicate pattern[s]: …to fracture… territory, foster internal social divisions and fuel ethnic strife. The design is to destroy all social and political ties between [groups], who have coexisted for more than half a century within a multi-ethnic society. These socio-ethnic divisions are deliberately created so as to curb all forms of social resistance [and], more importantly, …to prevent the development of a broader ‘common front’ against the enemy. (p. 139) One very specific strategy pattern was the re-use of the personnel employed by Atlanticist organizations for the neo-colonial occupation and administration of various parts of Yugoslavia: [NATO] personnel and UN bureaucrats previously stationed in Croatia and Bosnia have been routinely reassigned to Kosovo. (p. 96) Many strategic patterns can be discerned within the domain of ‘information warfare’. On the one hand, the Western MSM consistently portrayed Atlanticist military aggression as ‘justified’ as a response to refugee crises that were actually deliberately engineered and to atrocity stories that were entirely fabricated. Thus, NATO air strikes against Yugoslav targets were consistently portrayed as ‘humanitarian interventions’ meant to ‘save’ Bosniaks in 1992 and Kosovars in 1999. On the other hand, the Western MSM consistently ignored the massive refugee crises and very real atrocities caused by Atlanticist-sponsored anti-Yugoslav militias. Thus, the systematic reign of terror unleashed by the KLA (‘Kosovo Liberation Army’, the ethnic Albanian militia set up by Western intelligence services to destabilize south-west Serbia) during the Kosovo crisis was deliberately glossed over. The massacres of civilians in Kosovo [we]re not disconnected acts of revenge by civilians by so-called ‘rogue elements’ within the KLA, as claimed by NATO and the UN. They [we]re part of a consistent and coherent pattern. The intent and result of the KLA sponsored atrocities have been to trigger the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Serbs, Roma and other minorities in Kosovo. (p. 89) In the reviewer’s opinion, however, the most important strategy pattern distinguished by Chossudovsky is the economic strategy pattern by which Yugoslavia’s successor states were effectively turned into Western colonies, with (‘privatized’) natural resources plundered and (‘debt interest’) tribute extracted to boost the profits of Western ‘venture capital’. An important part of the Western economic war strategy vis-à-vis Yugoslavia was to let war pay for itself: neo-colonial profits extracted from Western-conquered parts of Yugoslavia were used first to pay for the maintenance of occupation troops, (‘peacekeepers’, ‘security presence’) and then for the build-up of the armed forces of the newly ‘independent’ successor-states, with handsome profits boosting the Western military-industrial complex, including many private military contractors. Chossudovsky gives a particularly insightful analysis of how Camp Bondsteel (the grande dame in a network of US bases running both sides of the border between Kosovo and Macedonia – p. 106) was funded, making the fortunes of the defence contractors involved, including US Vice President Cheney’s Halliburton company (cf. appendix to his Ch. 5). In the final analysis, the West managed to make the chunk-by-chunk conquest and occupation of Yugoslavia pay for itself. In passing, Chossudovsky mentions that this very same strategic pattern, virtually ignored by Western historians and journalists, also applies to other - earlier and later - Western wars of aggression: few people realize Vietnam and Iraq were both billed for the West’s war expenses as a condition for the lifting of economic sanctions and the resumption of diplomatic relations.

This review of Chossudovsky’s book does not need to reconstruct all the ethnic, religious and cultural fault-lines that the Western aggressors managed to exploit during their campaign to bring down the Yugoslav state. It is important to note, however, that he sheds light on many frequently overlooked episodes in the long-drawn out Western campaign against Yugoslavia. Thus, he reminds the reader of the true background, the true nature and the true impact of ‘Operation Storm’, i.e. Western-backed Croatian conquest of the internationally unrecognized Serbian break-away proto-state of Kraina in August 1995. ‘Operation Storm’ involved foreign investors (eying newly-discovered coal and oil deposits) guiding Croatian policy making, foreign specialists (including retired US generals and German mercenaries) guiding Croatian military actions and foreign media ignoring massive suffering among the Kraina Serb civilian population (at least 420 killed and up to 180.000 displaced). Chossudovsky also reminds the reader of the equally overlooked episode of the ‘Macedonian Insurgency’, i.e. the Western-backed terror campaign by the NLA (‘National Liberation Army’, the ethnic Albanian militia set up by Western intelligence services to destabilize Macedonia) between January and November 2001. Similar to the KLA, its equivalent in Kosovo, the NLA was set up by Western intelligence services, funded by Western-facilitated drugs networks, trained by Western military contractors and, once put in action, directly supported by Western armed forces. The NLA’s terror campaign in north-west Macedonia served a similar purpose to the KLA’s terror campaign in south-west Serbia: to create ethnically cleansed base territories for these groups, which are meant to serve as safe zones for criminal activities and Western military bases, to weaken the central government and, last but not least, to generate long-term revenue for the West’s military-industrial complex. For Western policymakers, the ‘Macedonian Insurgency’ was a far easier operation to pull off than the ‘Kosovo War, because it was aided and abetted by corrupt Macedonian government officials and treacherous Macedonian army officers. The cost in terms of civilian suffering, however, was considerable: at least up to 100 dead and 140.000 displaced, almost all ethnic Macedonians and Bulgarians - this in one of Europe’s smaller countries, inhabited by only 1,8 million people. Once again, the true background, true nature and true impact of this campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing were either entirely ignored or thoroughly distorted in the Western press.

Lest we forget the true depths to which the West’s Empire of Lies has sunken over the last decades, it is only proper that we occasionally remind ourselves of all the injustices and crimes described in Chossudovsky’s book. And of the fact that we should not despair of justice:

the eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good

- Proverbs 15:3

Pirates and prostitutes

Over the last four or three decades, under the impact of transnationalist power accumulation covered by liberal-normative ideology, all the formerly sovereign states of the West have undergone a slow but steady - albeit recently ‘reset’-accelerated - process of politicide. The power once vested in these states, and by extension the political power once held by the nations represented by their governments, has been almost entirely erased, to be replaced by a faceless ‘globalist’ power, increasingly overtly totalitarian in character as the ‘reset’ progresses. The power of the globalist regime ruling the West is financial and economic in nature, it is embodied in international banks and multi-national cooperations, and its interests are served by trans-national institutions, ranging from truly global organizations such as the UN, the IMF and the World Bank to large regional organizations such as the NATO, the EU and the ECB. Under this transnational level, the globalist regime’s political agenda is entirely negative: it aims at preventing, thwarting and undermining all forms of political action that would threaten the maximal exploitation of natural and human resources. Any exercise of political power that threatens the interests of globalist high finance and globalist big business - effectively the unrestrained and borderless rule of bankster usury and capitalist exploitation - is anathema to the globalist regime: any sovereign state threatening open borders, any religious institution threatening social atomization and any traditional family-structure incompatible with narcissist consumerism is will inevitably find itself the target of globalist demolition. Under the trans-national level of globalist control, the true aim of the globalist regime is the creation and maintenance of an anarcho-tyrannical anti-order: a permanent ‘free for all’ economic ‘jungle war’ of ‘all-against-all’, creating a ‘market-society’ in which literally everything is for sale, including people and ideas. To put it bluntly: the ideal globalist ‘state’ - referring to the psycho-dynamic ‘state’ of a people rather than a government - would only have gangsters and prostitutes as its inhabitants, with minor variants within the first category (pirates, pimps) as well as the last (pop-stars, porn-stars). Ideally, such a ‘pirate republic’ would be ‘charismatically’ led by the 21st Century equivalent of the 20th Century ‘five family’-style mafia council: a WEF/Davos-style Chief Executive Officer/Public Relation Manager congregation of compradors-in-chief. In such an ideal ‘state’, which may be provisionally termed the Gangster-Prostitute State (GPS) - of course, Made in USA - any deviation would be considered an anachronism and an obstacle: it would not leave any space for non-materialist vocations and non-hedonistic ideas. In the GPS, there would be no place for martial heroism, knightly honour, priestly piety, monastic celibacy, philosophical contemplation, scholarly wisdom, paternal responsibility, maternal love, marital fidelity or pre-marital chastity. There would be no love of any object except the ‘self’, baby boomer-style inflated into the narcissist stratosphere: no love for nation, tribe, family, spouse - least of all God. To the extent that any such anachronistic notions would still marginally exist, the GPS would be bound to erase them from the public sphere for the sake of the undisturbed ‘bubble life’ of the masses: it would be bound to impose an all-levelling weight of hyper-egalitarian legislation, to instil an anti-meritocratic ethos and to create an all-smothering blanket of perversion-propaganda. Throughout the Western world, huge strides towards the GPS utopia have already been made on each of these three fronts: tradition-killing matriarchy and xenocracy (the rule of post-gender ‘women’ and post-racial ‘immigrants’), ethos-killing plutocracy and idiocracy (the rule of the corruption-only ‘rich’ and the paper-only ‘higher educated’) and civilization-killing kakocracy and pornocracy (the rule of the lowest and dirtiest) are already facts of life. Throughout the Western world, however, there remains a significant residue of ‘legacy institutions’ (be it monarchic, parliamentary, ecclesiastic, academic, artisanal, entrepreneurial, literary or artistic in nature), delaying the full flowering of the GPS. Of course, the early ‘20s’ Great Reset has greatly accelerated the take-down of these institutions: ‘Covid’ lockdowns undermined the economically independent small business sector and the cognitively conservative middle class, ‘BLM’ activism undermined public safety and the rule of law, the ‘Biden’ coup undermined representative government and freedom of speech and the ‘Ukraine’ campaign undermined the economic system and global security - but the West has yet to achieve full-blown GPS utopia.

For a sneak preview of GPS utopia in action, it is necessary to look East, to ex-Yugoslavia, where a ‘model GPS’ of sorts has already been created in Kosovo, a.k.a. the ‘black hole of Europe’. In some ways, Kosovo may be considered the geopolitical equivalent of an anti-gravity experiment: within this ‘black hole’ the rules of geopolitics are suspended. The founding of the entirely artificial statelet of Kosovo constitutes the crowning achievement in terms of globalist ‘state building’: it embodies the highest achievemeny of what the globalist ‘rules-based order’ may achieve if left unopposed. Chossudovsky analyses the genesis of the Kosovo ‘state’ in great detail, describing it as a mafia-run pirate-state ‘safe haven’ for globalism’s many grey and black channels, created as a de facto safe zone for drugs traders, arms dealers, organ traders, people smugglers, money-launderers and terror-funders, and as a ‘safe house’ for compromised, redundant or retired ‘assets’. It is an arrangement that equally benefits the local mafia underlings, who are promoted to ‘legit’ status and gain legal immunity in charge of their own ‘state’, and their globalist overlords, who can ‘skim’ Kosovo for resource profits and showcase Kosovo as a model achievement of ‘international governance’. Western big business was able to buy up Kosovo’s mines (copper, zinc, gold, silver, coal) and industry (metal smelting plants, power plants, battery plants) at fire sale prices, Western high finance was able to take-over Kosovo’s currency (imposing the Deutsch Mark and then the Euro) and banks (taking over expropriated and excluded Yugoslav banks) and Western NGOs were able to sign lucrative ‘assistance’ and ‘training’ contracts (as in George Soros’ Open Society branch office in Pristina in support of ‘governance development’.

The vital link between the Kosovo mafia ‘government’ and its globalist overlords is found in the narcotics trade, which started with the KLA being funded from the highly lucrative Balkans narcotics route, linking corrupt Turkish officials to the East with Albanian emigrants to the West: …the KLA is sustained by organised crime with the tacit approval of the US and its allies. Following the pattern set during the war in Bosnia, public opinion has been carefully misled. The multibillion dollar Balkans narcotics trade has played a crucial role in ‘financing the conflict’ in Kosovo in accordance with Western economic, strategic and military objectives. (p. 48) …Western intelligence agencies have developed a complex relationship to the illegal narcotics trade. In case after case, drug money laundered in the international banking system has financed covert operations. …The pattern in Kosovo is similar to other CIA covert operations in Central America, Haiti and Afghanistan, where ‘freedom fighters’ were financed through the laundering of drug money. (p. 50) …The extensive links of the Kosovo Liberation Army to organized crime and the Balkans narcotics trade were not seen by the ‘international community’ as an obstacle to the installation of ‘democracy’ and ‘good governance’. (p. 41) The narcotics trade, however, was not the only ‘cash cow’ that was milked to raise the KLA: since the early ‘90s, with the international embargo on Yugoslavia and the Greek blockade of Macedonia, a triangular narcotics-oil-arms trade network had developed in the Balkans, expanded to Western Europe through the increasing corporation between Albanian and Italian crime syndicates in arms smuggling and prostitution racketeering. Soon, not only simple light arms but sophisticated anti-aircraft, anti-armour and electronic surveillance systems (the latter connected to NATO satellites) found their way to the KLA. At the same time, the KLA was provided with professional and motivated cadres through the enlistment of mujahideen fighters, often trained by Al-Qaeda affiliates in secret camps in Afghanistan and Bosnia. All this took place with the full knowledge of, and indeed at the instigation of, Western intelligence services.

The built-up of the KLA, its funding, equipment, intelligence and training were all instigated, funded and facilitated by the West and the same applies to the KLA’s terror campaign: in fact, Chossudovsky states that [t]he KLA killings [of civilians] were ordered by NATO. Blamed on Serbian police and armed forces, th[ey] were used as a pretext and justification to wage a ‘humanitarian war’ on Yugoslavia. The ties of the KLA to organized crime were actively fostered by the US and NATO. The result was the formation of what is best described as a ‘mafia state’. (p. 45) In the aftermath of the NATO air war, the Western occupation powers aided and abetted the KLA’s subsequent reign of terror, protecting KLA commanders responsible for crimes committed against the Serbian, Roma, Gorani and Turkish minorities, under the pretext of suspected collaboration with the Yugoslav authorities but often just as a simple settling of personal scores. Those Western-created organizations that were specifically supposed to uphold law and order, the peace-keeping ‘Kosovo Force’ (KFOR) and the ‘International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’ (ICTY) above all, consistently turned a blind eye to the systematic campaign of confiscation, looting, arson, abduction, rape and murder by the KLA, with the Western MSM either ignoring or white-washing these atrocities as ‘regrettable but justifiable acts of vengeance’. Thus, through their direct involvement in NATO’s military action (in a particularly cowardly form, viz. a push-button air war), their indirect involvement in the KLA’s terror campaign and their deliberate inaction in the face of the KLA’s subsequent lawlessness, Western governments… bear a heavy burden of responsibility in the deaths of civilians, the impoverishment of both the ethnic Albanian and Serbian populations and the plight of those who were brutally uprooted from towns and villages in Kosovo as a result of the bombings. (p. 56) Thus, the geopolitical void in which the ‘Kosovo’ CPS took shape was created by the West: Chossudovsky’s analyses leave no room for ‘plausible deniability’ cover stories.

After the Kosovo War and the KLA take-over, Chossudovsky describes how Kosovo became a true ‘narco-democracy under NATO protection’ (Chossudovsky, 79): [n]arcodollars from the multibillion dollar Balkans drug trade [were] recycled towards servicing the external debt as well as ‘financing’ the costs of ‘reconstruction’. The lucrative flow of narcodollars thus ensures that foreign investors involved in the ‘reconstruction’ programme will be able to reap substantial returns. In turn, the existence of a Kosovar ‘narco-state’ ensures the orderly reimbursement of international donors and creditors, [who] are prepared to turn a blind eye [because t]hey have a tacit vested interest in installing [and maintaining] a government which facilitates the laundering of drug money. (p. 99) Following Chossudovsky’s analysis, Kosovo truly represents a GPS utopia: there, the West has truly created an ‘anti-state’: While calling for democracy and ‘good governance’ in the Balkans, the US and its allies have installed in Kosovo a paramilitary government with links to organized crime. The… outcome [has been] the outright ‘criminalization’ of civilian state institutions and the establishment of what can be best described as a ‘mafia state’. The complicity of NATO and the alliance governments, namely their relentless support of the KLA, points to the de facto ‘criminalisation’ of KFOR and of the UN peacekeeping apparatus in Kosovo. The donor agencies and governments providing financial support to the KLA, e.g. the funds approved by the US Congress in violation of several UN Security Council resolutions, are in this regard also ‘accessories’ to the de facto criminalisation of state institutions. (p. 96) …Under NATO occupation, the rule of law has visibly been turned upside down. Criminals and terrorists [have] become law enforcement officers. (p. 87)

With the KLA pirate regime in place, the prostitution of Kosovo began. Its resources, its industry and its infrastructure were ‘pimped out’ - sold to the lowest foreign bidder. Its Serbian, Roma and Gorani minority communities were ‘shunned’ - demoted to dispossession, displacement and discrimination. Its old and sick, its village folk and its working people were left ‘to fend for themselves’ - exposed to the elements (container ‘housing’, electricity ‘black-outs’), to disease (depleted uranium poisoning, land-mine injury) and to grinding poverty (record unemployment, sky-rocketing prices). Most of the middle-aged population, previously raised, educated and shielded by Yugoslavia’s semi-socialist system, was suddenly thrown into a free-for-all cauldron of b/gangster-style capitalism, mostly suffering utter ruination. Youngsters, to the extent that they did not join, or liaise with, the gangsters and mobsters ruling the streets and the ‘state’, were left waiting on the gangster, doing expat laundry or otherwise ‘servicing’ the NATO-UN-NGO (more specifically: KFOR-UNMIK-OSCE) crowd. To this crowd, the lands, riches and people of Kosovo are nothing but ‘spoils of war’. This is what Kosovo, the ancient cradle of the Serbian state and a model of peaceful multi-ethnic coexistence in the Yugoslav state, was reduced to under Western occupation - a Gangster Prostitute State:

How is the faithful city become a harlot! It was full of judgment, righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water. Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards. They judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them. Therefore saith the Lord, the Lord of Hosts, the Mighty One of Israel: Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies - Isaiah 1:21-4

Echoes and omens

Undoubtedly, the most powerful message of Chossudovsky’s book is the importance of pattern recognition: readers are bound to be struck by its pin-point accuracy in recognizing certain strategic warfare patterns that recur throughout the West’s campaign against Yugoslavia. The historical patterns discerned by Chossudovsky in the Atlanticist take-down of Yugoslavia in the ‘90s may be said to constitute direct precursors to the fully-integrated strategy of fully-fledged multi-dimensional warfare waged by the Atlanticist West against the Eurasianist East in the ‘20s.[iii] It takes but a small step to project Chossudovsky’s pattern recognition forward, to the West’s current multi-dimensional ‘Ukraine’ campaign against Russia. As another reviewer of Chossudovsky’s book succinctly put it: time has confirmed [Chossudovsky’s] fear of the [Western] intervention [in Yugoslavia] being used to set a pattern, establish a principle to be used later on whenever convenient for the US. There have, in fact, ensued preventive and even preemptive wars, so-called ‘humanitarian bombings’ or colored revolutions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, Venezuela, Belarus. …[Chossudovsky] examines the consequences of such approach, and matters that the protagonists do not wish to discuss at all. Underlying the grand ideals of defending the human rights and freedoms of endangered people, are cruel operations which use depleted uranium-filled missiles, ecocides, and pacts with drug cartels or colorful radicals and fundamentalists. …[Chossudovsky’s] monograph, therefore, is more than a testimony in the search of truth, it is also a sort of warning. When the facts are ignored, there remains propaganda whose purpose is to conceal the truth, all that in order to enable various interest groups, be those official or behind the scenes, state, para-state or non-governmental ones, to achieve their goals even if they had, in the process, to violate international law, commit ecocides and war crimes, or cooperate with mobsters and terrorists. (Dushan Prorokovicj apud Chossudovsky, p. 162-3)

Following up on this important point of the West’s ‘information warfare’ - in other words: its war on the truth - it can be argued that the greatest value of Chossudovsky’s book is found in its break-out from the Western MSM ‘narrative bubble’. In the final analysis, the statement of truth about the Western campaign against Yugoslavia will be quite an important nail into the coffin of the Western Empire of Lies: the Yugoslav campaign was an important stepping-stone in the Western MSM’s achievement of ‘disinformation supremacy’ - it was its first systematic application of ‘inverse journalism’. For the first time, Western MSM’s blanket censorship of truthful reporting was systematically combined with deliberate and sustained disinformation: for over a decade, it managed to maintain a constant ‘firehose of falsehood’ on the topic of Yugoslavia, imposing a narrative of falsehood befitting the Western elite’s shift into fully-fledged ‘post-truth politics’.

One of the mechanisms by which the poison of the fork-tongued Western Lügenpresse worked its way into the Western collective psyche was the emotive and seductive use of ‘soothing’ and ‘therapeutic’ language, carefully calibrated to appeal to its key audience: the effeminate and reality-averse Western consumer masses. This sickening jargon, mixing ‘motivational’ management talk with ‘femo-feely’ psycho-babble, was designed to systematically prevent critical thoughts, sabotage realpolitik assessments and deceive gullible (‘midwit’, gutmensch) tv-audiences. In a mind-bending exercise of truly Orwellian proportions, ‘peace-keeping’ came to mean warfare, ‘good governance’ came to mean mafia rule, ‘confidence building’ came to mean word-breaking and ‘inter-ethnic reconciliation’ came to mean legal discrimination. The Western MSM, supported by well-paid academics and purged of honest journalists, deliberately engineered a ‘consensus’ that was so far removed from the truth that it may perhaps best be described as a ‘reality distortion field’. This war [wa]s also a war against the truth. …NATO has reinforced its clutch over the mass media. [Alongside] a stylized ‘wag the dog’ media masquerade, a full-fledged ‘cover-up operation’ has been set in motion with a view to thwarting public debate on the war. …[A]nti-war commentators have been carefully removed from mainstream public affairs programmes, TV content is closely scrutinised… [and] journalists are under tight supervision.…Public ‘disapproval’ of NATO bombings is immediately dismissed as ‘Serb propaganda’. Those who speak out against NATO are branded as ‘apologists of Milosevic’. …The hidden agenda is to ‘silence the silent majority’. The Western media heeding to the alliance’s demands has blatantly misled public opinion. (p. 61-3)

By and large, the Western MSM’s ‘information war’ during the Yugoslav campaign achieved its purpose. Undoubtedly, its most drastic cognitive effect was the utter erasure of the last remnants of geopolitical realism in the Western public sphere. Drowned in the barrage of media images and self-serving analyses, the broader strategic interests and economic causes of the war go unmentioned. The [West’s strategic goals] largely consisted in ‘installing a Western-style regime in Yugoslavia and reducing the geographic areas, power and influence of Serbia to a minimum’. In this context, the installation of American power in southern Europe and the Mediterranean also constitutes a step towards the extension of Washington’s geopolitical sphere of influence beyond the Balkans into the area of the Caspian Sea, Central Asia and West Asia. In this regard, NATO’s military intervention in Yugoslavia, in violation of international law, also sets a dangerous precedent. To achieve its strategic objectives, national economies are destabilized, regional conflicts are financed through the provision of covert support to armed insurgencies… The conflict in Yugoslavia creates conditions which provide legitimacy to future interventions of the alliance into the internal affairs of sovereign nations. (p. 59)

At the time that this review is written, Chossudovsky’s warning, that the West’s successful demolition of Yugoslavia would create a dangerous precedent in international relations, has been proven most accurate. The West’s ‘getting away’ with the demolition of Yugoslavia has merely whetted its appetite: it has since set its sights on much larger quarry. In fact, at the time of writing, the West’s multi-dimensional warfare arsenal is fully engaged in an all-out assault on the ultimate geopolitical prize: Russia. In hindsight, the Western campaign to divide and colonize the ex-Yugoslavia in the ‘90s was just a small-scale test run for the division and colonization of the ex-Soviet Union in the ‘20s. Much is at stake now: now in ex-Soviet space, as then in the ex-Yugoslav space, [i]n the name of global capital, borders [are being] redrawn, legal codes rewritten, industries destroyed, financial and banking systems [are being] dismantled, social programs eliminated. …At stake… are the lives of millions of people. [Globalist] macroeconomic reform combined with military conquest… [is] destroy[ing] livelihoods and [is making] a joke of the right to work. It put[s] basic needs such as food and shelter beyond the reach of many. It [is] degrading culture and national identity. (p. 44) Now, all the tools and techniques applied in the ex-Yugoslav space of the ‘90s are applied to the ex-Soviet space of the ‘20s, of course with slightly updated technology and on a hugely amplified scale. The same proxy strategy, now with Ukrainian instead of the Kosovar freedom fighter cannon fodder and ‘Azov’ instead of ‘mujahideen’ foreign volunteers. The same undeclared ground war, with the same ‘plausible deniability’ employment of the same ‘advisors’, ‘trainers’ and ‘special forces’. The same atrocity propaganda, now with a ‘Bucha Massacre’ instead of a ‘Ratchak Massacre’. The same ‘international outrage’, now with (cheaper) blue-yellow social media posts instead of Bosnia fundraising dinners. The same ‘international justice’ agenda, now indicting the Russian president instead of the Yugoslav president. The same nauseating self-righteousness, now starring ‘Biden’ and Johnson instead of Clinton and Blair.

But there is a difference: the sheer staleness of the West’s utterly worn-out slogans and the obvious futility of the West’s utterly predictable motions indicate that, after a long string of victories from Yugoslavia to Libya, the West has finally - and fatally - overreached itself. All indications are that it has fallen into the same age-old trap of triumphalist hubris and imperial overreach that finally brought down such once-invincible empires as Napoleon’s and Hitler’s. The West’s take-down of Yugoslav was possible in the limited regional setting of the Balkans, pitting the then substantial industrial and military resources of the combined West against a vastly outmatched enemy that lacked strategic depth and major power allies. None of these conditions apply now. Against Russia, the West operates in unlimited space on a global stage, possessing the world’s ultimate strategic depth in the Heartland of the World Island, and it is backed up by an ever-lengthening list of allies, including China, the world’s greatest industrial power. The West, on the other hand, has ‘outsourced’ its industry, ‘wokefied’ its military and ‘diversified’ its populace. The latter factor, ‘diluting’ the nations of the First World by decades of ‘immigration’ from the Third World, has fatally compromised the internal cohesion and core identity of the West: it is now but a shadow of its former self. This ex-West is rapidly decomposing in plain sight, transforming into a scary-looking but substance-less vampire, unable to substantially handle anything approaching a substantial ‘reality check’. Those that have to fight the ‘zombified’ ex-West would do well to remember that the ex-West has already largely abandoned actual reality: its people have largely retreated into virtual reality. The ex-West now bears all the classic hallmarks of the vampire, leading a ghostly existence of ‘virtualized’ experience, shunning the day-light of truth, leaching off the lifeblood of others and preying on the naive and vulnerable. That means, first of all, that the ex-West needs to be exorcized as much as it needs to be fought. For this to be accomplished, the ex-West’s now in-human nature and its now anti-human trajectory need to be properly understood. It needs to be understood that to collectively and consistently indulge in trans-human experiments - infanticidal ‘birth control’, black magic ‘transgenderism’, mRNA ‘gene-therapy’, AI technology ‘second life’ - is to abandon human rationality. It needs to be understood that to collectively and consistently indulge in sub-human experiences - eco-system destroying ‘conspicuous consumption’ gluttony, family-destroying ‘sexual revolution’ lust, society-destroying ‘Wolf of Wallstreet’ greed, world-destroying ‘rules-based order’ pride - is to abandon the human heart. Such things trigger a permanent severance from humanity.

After the ex-West severed itself from the Creator, it was just a matter of time before it severed itself from creation, first from the natural world and then from the human world - and, ultimately, from reality itself. Caught in a downward spiral of evil and madness, the West has now conclusively severed itself from the rest. De facto, the West is now at war with the rest. The rest must allow this harsh reality to sink in: reality must be accepted before it can be handled. The rest must choose - whether or not to follow the West on its chosen path. The echoes of the past and the omens of the present point to the end of that path - the path of

Severance:

the birds of leaving call to us

yet here we stand

endowed with the fear of flight

overland

the winds of change consume the land

while we remain

in the shadow of summers now past

indifference

the plague that moves throughout this land

omen signs

in the shapes of things to come

- Dead Can Dance, ‘Severance’

Part Three: Spandau-am-See

Report on an Attempted Visit to General Ratko Mladic

(The Hague, July 2023)

After being indicted by the Western-created International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 1995 and living in hiding after the Western-supported ‘Bulldozer’ colour revolution overthrow of (Yugoslav President) Slobodan Miloshevitj in 2001, General Ratko Mladic (born Bozhanovici, Bosnia,[iv] 12 March 1942), Supreme Commander of the army of the break-away Republika Srpska during the Bosnian War (1992-95), was arrested by a multi-agency special forces unit in Lazarevo, Serbia, in the early hours of 26 May 2011, only to be extradited to the same tribunal, located in The Hague, five days later. Ever since that day - over twelve years ago now - General Mladic has been subject to the fury of the Atlanticist-defined ‘international community’, hell-bent to punish the General’s temerity to defy the Atlanticist-imposed ‘New World Order’ at its triumphalist zenith (the Yugoslav conflict started just after that order’s formal announcement in March 1991) - he has not walked in the sun or breathed the air as a free man since then. Following its insane - because megalomaniac - self-appointed role as ‘global conscience’, the triumphant West chose to deny the General his proper rights as a simple Prisoner of War, instead subjecting him to the farcical ‘international law’ proceedings of its own purpose-designed ICTY: not satisfied with the mere defeat of its Yugoslav and Serbian enemy, Western leaders decided to subject their defeated enemies to the humiliation of being branded as maximally-monstrous ‘war criminals’. Of course, in terms of ‘narrative marketing’ and ‘perception management’, the persecution of the best-known enemy war leaders, including the General, was best served by imposing various ‘remit restrictions’ on the ICTY, making sure that the ultimate instigators of the Yugoslav bloodbath would enjoy effective ‘legal immunity’ from persecution. Even the most obviously bloody-handed of Western political puppets and military yes-men were carefully shielded from the ICTY: neither Bill Clinton and Tony Blair nor Wesley Clark (born Kanne) and Javier Solana were ever indicted. Similarly, the political and military leaders of the Western-backed break-away states from Yugoslavia, even if most obviously involved in and responsible for bloodshed, were by and large left alone the ICTY. The irredeemable anti-Yugoslav and anti-Serbian bias of the ICTY was further proven by its consistent refusal to investigate obvious cases of Croatian war crimes, such as the Medak Pocket massacre (1993) and the shelling of Knin during Operation Storm (1995). These events were simply ‘memory-holed’: no publicity, no recriminations, no official record… [it] simply never happened (Chossudovsky, 95). In the final analysis, the ICTY failed to uphold even the illusion of impartiality: it merely served to demoralize the defeated. Of course, the old-fashioned practice of the victors [is] putting the vanquished to the sword, behind a facade of retroactive law and elegant speeches. …A powerful aggressor, if undefeated in war, cannot and will not be punished (David Irving, Nuremberg. The Last Battle). In the final analysis, the ICTY that convicted General Mladic was nothing but a kangaroo court: it allowed the Western MSM to spin a short-span narrative about General Mladic as a war criminal, but this will not alter his place in his own country’s long-span history, which is that of a war hero.

The ICTY, now defunct after serving its purpose from 1993 to 2017,[v] was a typical product of its time: it derived its international legal authority based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 827, passed at the triumphalist height of the ‘unipolar moment’, the zenith of Atlanticist power just after the fall of the Soviet Union. At that time, with the end of the Cold War, the defeat of the ‘Second World’ East Bloc and the disarray of the East Bloc’s erstwhile ‘Third World’ allies, the ‘First World’ West Bloc’s writ ran virtually unchallenged around the globe. The victorious leaders of the self-styled ‘Free West’ decided they were now the masters of the world and would create a ‘New World Order’ of which they would be the sole-superpower arbiter: they would simultaneously write, persecute and execute its laws - they would be jury, judge and hangman all rolled in one. Post Cold War, the West’s attitude to defeated Yugoslavia was similar to the Allies’ attitude to defeated Germany post World War II: the West’s vae victis verdict - the calculated cruelty, ruthless exploitation and shameless self-exaltation it imposed on a defenceless nation - was written with the same words of self-righteousness. If anything, the ICTY’s cloak of pharisaic hypocrisy in pronouncing on the rights and wrongs of Yugoslav history at The Hague was even thicker than the Allies’ International Military Tribunal that had pronounced sentence on German history at Nuremberg. Whereas ‘Nuremberg’ was a clear-cut and unabashed example of the Allies’ victor’s justice, meted out amid the smouldering rubble to which Germany had been reduced by these same Allies’ terror bombing, ‘The Hague’ was a fully-fledged attempt to create ‘international law’ ex nihilo. Following up on tentative attempts at building a theoretically ‘universal’ but practically West Bloc-defined ‘rules-based order’ in the wake of World Wars I and II (respectively, the ‘Commission of Responsibilities’ set up by the 1919 Paris Peace Conference and the International Military Tribunal set up at Nuremberg in 1945), the 1993 ICTY and the copy-cat 1994 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, were major milestones in the West Bloc’s campaign to permanently enshrine its world-view as absolute ‘international law’. The final stage of this campaign began in 1998, with the formal establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), also in The Hague. According to its foundational Rome Statute, with came into effect in 2002, the ICC has full transnational authority, overriding national legislation and diplomatic protocol, to prosecute individuals from the statute’s signatory states who have been deemed to have infringed upon certain ill-defined crimes such as ‘crimes as humanity’ and ‘crimes of aggression’. Thus, it serves as a moral as well as legal reference point for the West Bloc-defined ‘rules-based order’: many of those who have dared to defy that order since the ICC was established, including several heads of state such as Muammar Ghadaffy of Libya, Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya and Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast, have been recipients of its indictments. As was the case with the early-globalist ICTY and the ICTR, the full-globalist ICC’s focus seems to be on ‘rogue leaders’ in ‘rogue states’ in the hic sunt dragones margins of the ‘civilized world’, outside the ‘golden billion bubble’ of the ‘rules-based order’ and especially on Black African or Orthodox Christian leaders. In this sense, the ICTY’s indictment of General Mladic, in July 1995, seems to have been a mere warm-up exercise for the much larger quarry in the ICC’s sights: more than a quarter century later, in March 2023, the ICC indicted President Putin of Russia. As was the case with the ICTY and ICTR, the legal status of the ICC as an instrument of ‘international law’ may be highly doubtful (major powers such as China and India do not recognize the ICC and both the US and Russia have withdrawn from the Rome Statute), but the overall trajectory is clear: the globalist elite of the West Bloc is creating a legal framework for its ‘New World Order’ project. Within that framework every non-compliant leader is not merely a threat to Western-imposed ‘global security’ but also a threat to the Western-defined ‘rules-based order’. In this sense, the ICTY-imposed punishment of the top figures of Yugoslavia’s recalcitrant political and military leadership, including Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, Krajina Republic President Milan Babic, Republika Srpska President Radovan Karadzic and Republika Srpska Army Commander General Mladic, above all served the purpose of creating a precedent in ‘international law’. Thus, a stark warning was sent to potentially recalcitrant leaders elsewhere: this is what will happen to you if you do not play by our ‘rules’. In this sense, the West Bloc’s  ‘rules-based order’ narrative is heavily invested in - even dependent on - upholding the punishments it inflicted upon its defeated enemies through ICTY: these punishments not only serve to remind defeated nations, such as Serbia, of their past defeat and humiliation - they also serve to remind as-yet undefeated enemies, such as Russia, of the future fate that they will suffer if they allow themselves to be defeated and humiliated.

Of all ICTY convicts still alive, only General Mladic is still detained in The Hague, the self-proclaimed ‘city of international justice’ - the other detainees have either served their sentences or have been transferred elsewhere. And a statistically remarkable number of them have died. Only one of these deaths may be credibly explained: Croatian General Slobodan Praljak took poison at The Hague ICTY during sentencing, in plain view of his persecutors, preferring Goering-like suicide over un-military dishonour. The ‘causes’ formally given for multiple other ‘deaths in custody’ are not quite as convincing, with the most high-profile controversy surrounding that of the tribunal’s main defendant, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Whatever the exact circumstances of these other, highly suspicious cases, it is clear that imprisonment in The Hague facilities of ‘international justice’, or what MSM whorenalists often called the ‘Hague Hilton’, is not particularly healthy or conducive to a long life expectancy. At the moment of writing, of all ICTY only General Mladic still survives there. With the former ICTY defunct, with his former fellow inmates either dead, released or transferred, with the new ICC in place and with multiple globalist wars of aggression - from Iraq to Ukraine - pushing the Yugoslav wars into the forgotten past, the General’s presence in The Hague is becoming more and more of an anachronism: a left-over fixture from the past - a trophy kept to adorn the globalist ‘city of international justice’. The General’s detention in The Hague, more specifically in the sea-side suburb of Scheveningen, is becoming something of a time-warp aberration - not unlike the continued detention of Rudolf Hess in what became the single-detainee prison of the river-side Berlin suburb of Spandau Prison. In the same way as Hess’ Spandau imprisonment then, the General’s Scheveningen imprisonment now combines long-term victor’s justice ‘functionalities’: a reminder of who is in charge by insistence on continued imprisonment, an embarrassment to the nation that is made to host the prison - and an ‘example made’ in the simple human suffering of the prisoner. Because it should not be forgotten that every true warrior - and, if anything, the General was that - prefers to die with honour, either on the field of battle or by a firing squad, than to be kept in a cage with his honour smeared. But, of course, that is exactly what is here intended: to deny the courtesy, respect and honour due a now vanquished but once formidable enemy.

In the summer of 2023, to learn from somebody who embodies history and to have a friendly talk about matters of mutual interest, the author, supported by his Eurasianist Yugoslav friends, applied for permission to visit the General in detention - this application was first delayed and then refused on some bureaucratic pretext. The author may re-apply and the ‘powers that be’ may reconsider but these powers may be subject to ‘higher considerations’ outside of any sane reasoning. After all, the General belongs to a special prisoner category to be kept under special restrictions. But even if the United Nations Detention Unit (UNDU) that keeps the General in custody, falls under special ‘international’ jurisdiction (visitors need a passport to enter it) it is still located within an old but partially renovated Dutch prison (Penitentiaire Inrichting Haaglanden) in the sea-side Scheveningen suburb of The Hague. The General’s detention is, therefore, something of a legal anomaly: the sentence of actual all-life imprisonment, as currently served by the General, would be illegal and impossible under Dutch law. To illustrate the point: the man responsible for and convicted of the 2002 murder of Pim Fortuyn, the Netherlands’ most high-profile and most impactful political murder since the country’s founding, went free after serving twelve years. Whereas the Netherlands’ eagerness to host prestigious ‘international justice’ institutions such as the ICTY and the ICC may be explained by the wish to cling to the Netherland’s old - and by now fictitious - reputation as a neutral arbiter as well as the wish to cash in on the spin-off business that comes with hosting deep-pocketed foreign diplomates and dignitaries, but the Netherlands’ willingness to tolerate the UNDU facility and the General’s interminable imprisonment within it, in stark contradiction to the Dutch tradition of temperance and humanity, is truly intolerable.

Speaking as a Dutch citizen, the writer here wishes to suggest to those of his nation who still possess some sense of proportion and realism about the great affairs of international relations and basic geopolitics. If any degree of sanity can be restored to Dutch politics - which would have to start with denouncing and rejecting any further dealing with all the myriad globalist ‘letter institutions’ that thwart Dutch sovereignty and suffocate Dutch values, from NATO and EU to ICC and UNDU - then a good start may be made by our country’s unilateral decision to release the General and return him to his family, to spend his remaining years on the soil of his fatherland. This would go a long way to restore the friendship between his nation and our nation and it would send an unequivocal signal to all that our country will no longer permit its good name to be lent to the utter travesty and ugly perversion of ‘international justice’ that our transnationalist overlords are projecting from their present The Hague headquarters.

Let us not forget that once before, not too long ago, the very prison where General Mladic is currently held was used by those who sought to make our country part of another transnational utopia. Between 1940 and 1945, this prison was the place where the German occupiers used to imprison Dutch freedom fighters, political dissidents and minority undesirables; it was then known as the Oranje Hotel, Oranje - English ‘Orange’ - being the dynastic name of the Dutch royal family and a symbol of national resistance in the face of foreign occupation. From there, and from the window of General Mladic’s cell, it is but a short walk through the dunes and trees to the Waalsdorpervlakte, the quiet dune valley where the German occupiers shot many Dutch patriots and where the Netherlands’ second most important war memorial service is held, every year on 4 May. The German occupation may be a long time ago, but, in a cruel twist of fate, the Waalsdorpervlakte memorial is now only a stone’s throw away from one of the key power centres of the Netherlands’ new foreign occupation: since 2015, the new, purpose-built ICC ‘justice palace’ and its high corridors of globalist power are located right next to it. The German occupation of the Netherlands lasted five long years - nobody knows how long the globalist occupation of the Netherlands will last. But we may hope that both prisoners, the Dutch nation as well as the General, will outlast it because

The strongest of all warriors are these two:

Time and patience

- Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

Notes

[i] Cf. Alexander Wolfheze, ‘Downfall of the West’, Geopolitica 29 October 2020 and Alexander Wolfheze, ‘The White Whale’, Geopolitica.ru 4 November 2022.

[ii] The Communist Party bureaucracy, most notably its military and intelligence sector, was… specifically… offered political and economic backing on the condition that wholesale scuttling of social protection for Yugoslavia’s workforce was imposed. (Ralph Schumann, ‘Divide and Rule Schemes in the Balkans’, The Organizer, 11 September 1995, apud Chossudovsky, The US-NATO War, 30)

[iii] For an up-to-date assessment of Atlanticist multi-dimensional warfare strategy, cf. Leonid Savin, Ordo Pluriversalis. The End of Pax America and the Rise of Multipolarity (Black House: London, 2020). For an in-depth review of Savin’s book, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, ‘Anima Mundi’, Geopolitica.ru 1 April 2022.

[iv] Note that, at the time of the General’s birth, his native town was formally located on the territory of the Axis-supported ‘Independent State of Croatia’, which had been carved out of the territory of the Axis-occupied first Yugoslav state. Thus, ironically, Bozhanovitj was located in Axis puppet-state territory at the time of his birth, as it is located in Atlanticist puppet-state territory now. From this perspective, the General’s 1992-95 Bosnian War campaign was something rather different than the simple black-and-white, good-Bosniak-against-evil-Serb ‘civil war’ portrayed by the Western MSM: it was an attempt, heroic in some ways, to prevent the foreign (Atlanticist, globalist) re-occupation of territory that had been liberated from foreign (Axis, Nazi) occupation at the cost of the blood, sweat and tears of countless Yugoslavs half a century earlier.

[v] Note that the ICTY’s (and the ICTR’s) residual legal tasks were subsequently relegated to the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT), set up in 2010 under the terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1966. Detainees convicted by the ICTY and now under IRMCT jurisdiction, such as General Mladitj, are physically held in the United Nations Detention Unit (UNDU) located in Scheveningen prison, The Hague - the UNDU now also holds ICC detainees.

Source: https://www.geopolitika.ru/en/article/eagle-east

The One Chart That Explains Everything

Look carefully at the chart below. What do you see?

You see the development of a high-speed rail system that is unrivaled anywhere on earth. You see the actualization of plan to connect all parts of the country with modern-day infrastructure that reduces shipping costs, improves mobility and increases profitability. You see a vision of the 21st century in which state-directed capital links rural populations with urban centers lifting standards of living across the board. You see an expression of a new economic model that has lifted 800 million people out of poverty while paving the way for global economic integration. You see an industrial juggernaut expanding in all directions while laying the groundwork for a new century of economic integration, accelerated development and shared prosperity.

Is there a high-speed rail system in the United States that is comparable to what we see in China today?

No, there isn’t. So far, less than 50 miles of high-speed rail has been built in the United States. (“Amtrak’s Acela, which reaches 150 mph over 49.9 miles of track, is the US’s only high-speed rail service.”) As everyone knows, America’s transportation grid is obsolete and in a shambles.

But, why? Why is the United States so far behind China in the development of critical infrastructure?

It’s because China’s state-led model is vastly superior to America’s “carpetbagger” model. In China, the government is directly involved in the operation of the economy, which means that it subsidizes those industries that enhance growth and spur development.

In contrast, American capitalism is a savage free-for-all in which private owners are able to divert great sums of money into unproductive stock buybacks and other scams that do nothing to create jobs or strengthen the economy. Since 2009 US corporations have spent more than $7 trillion on stock buybacks which is an activity that boosts payouts to rich shareholders but fails to produce anything of material value. Had that capital been invested in critical infrastructure, every city in America would be linked to a gigantic webbing of high-speed rail extending from “sea to shining sea”. But that hasn’t happened, because the western model incentivizes the extraction of capital for personal enrichment rather than the development of projects that serve the common good. In China, we see how fast transformative changes can take place when a nation’s wealth is used to eradicate poverty, raise standards of living, construct state-of-the-art infrastructure, and lay the groundwork for a new century.

Here’s more from a report by the Congressional Research Service on “China’s Economic Rise…”

Since opening up to foreign trade and investment and implementing free-market reforms in 1979, China has been among the world’s fastest-growing economies, with real annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth averaging 9.5% through 2018, a pace described by the World Bank as “the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history.” Such growth has enabled China, on average, to double its GDP every eight years and helped raise an estimated 800 million people out of poverty. China has become the world’s largest economy (on a purchasing power parity basis), manufacturer, merchandise trader, and holder of foreign exchange reserves…. China is the largest U.S. merchandise trading partner, biggest source of imports, and the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities, which help fund the federal debt and keep U.S. interest rates low.

China’s Economic Rise: History, Trends, Challenges, and Implications for the United States, Congressional Research Service

Here’s more from an article at the Center for Strategic and International Studies titled Confronting the Challenge of Chinese State Capitalism:

China now has more companies on the Fortune Global 500 list than does the United States… with nearly 75 percent of these being state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Three of the world’s five largest companies are Chinese (Sinopec Group, State Grid, and China National Petroleum). China’s largest SOEs hold dominant market positions in many of the most critical and strategic industries, from energy to shipping to rare earths. According to Freeman Chair calculations, the combined assets for China’s 96 largest SOEs total more than $63 trillion, an amount equivalent to nearly 80 percent of global GDP. Confronting the Challenge of Chinese State Capitalism, Center for Strategic and International Studies

And here’s one more from a report by the IMF titled “Asia Poised to Drive Global Economic Growth, Boosted by China’s Reopening”:

China and India together are forecast to generate about half of global growth this year. Asia and the Pacific is a relative bright spot amid the more somber context of the global economy’s rocky recovery.

As the Chart of the Week shows, the region will contribute about 70 percent of global growth this year—a much greater share than in recent years.” Asia Poised to Drive Global Economic Growth, Boosted by China’s Reopening, IMF

In short, the Chinese state-led model is rapidly overtaking the US in virtually every area of industry and commerce, and its success is largely attributable to the fact that the government is free to align its reinvestment strategy with its vision of the future. That allows the state to ignore the short-term profitability of its various projects provided they lay the groundwork for a stronger and more expansive economy in the years ahead. Chinese reformer Chen Yun called this phenom the “birdcage economy”, which means the economy can “fly freely” within the confines of the broader political system. In other words, the Chinese leadership sees the economy as an instrument for achieving their collective vision for the future.

China’s success is only partially due to its control over essential industries, like banking and petroleum. Keep in mind, “the share of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in the total number of companies in the country has dropped to just 5%, though their share of total output remains at 26%.” And even though the state sector has shrunk dramatically in the last two decades, Chinese President Xi Jinping has implemented a three-year action plan aimed at increasing competitiveness of the SOE’s by transforming them into “market entities” run by “mixed-ownership.” Simply put, China remains committed to the path of liberalization despite sharp criticism in the West.

It’s also worth noting that the so-called Chinese Miracle never would have taken place had China implemented the programs that were recommended by the so-called “western experts”. Had China imposed the radical reforms (like “shock therapy”) that Russia did following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, then they would have experienced the same disastrous outcome. Fortunately, Chinese policymakers ignored the advice of the western economists and developed their own gradual reform agenda that produced success beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. The story is summarized in a video on You Tube titled “How China (Actually) Got Rich”. I have transcribed part of the text below. Any mistakes are mine:

The single most stunning economic story of the last few decades has been the rise of China. From 1980 to 2020, China’s economy grew more than 75-fold…. It was the largest and most rapid improvement in material conditions in modern history…. China had been one of the poorest countries on earth but now it is an economic powerhouse… Economists predict it will overtake the US as the largest economy in the world by the end of the decade. People call it The Chinese Miracle. Some people describe this miracle as a straightforward story of the “free market”. They say “it’s a simple story. China was poor (but) then the economy was freed from the grip of the state. Now China is rich.” But this is misleading. China’s rise was NOT a triumph of the free market. ...

Since the 1980s, free market policies have swept the globe. Many countries have undergone far-ranging transformations. Liberalizing prices, privatizing entire industries, and opening up to free trade. But many of the economies that were subjected to the market overnight have since stagnated or decayed. None of them have had a growth record like the one seen in China. African countries experienced brutal economic shrinkage. Latin American countries experienced 25 years of stagnation. If we compare China to Russia, the other giant of Communism in the 20th Century, the contrast is even more staggering.

Under state socialism, Russia was an industrial superpower while China was still largely an agricultural economy. Yet during the same period that Chinese reforms led to incredible economic growth, Russia’s reform led to a brutal collapse. Both China and Russia had been economies that were largely ordered through state commands. ….Russia followed the recommendations of the most “scientific economics” at the time, a policy of so-called “shock therapy” As a basic principle, the idea was that the old planned economy had to be destroyed, to make space for the market to emerge…. Russia was expected to emerge as a full-fledged economy overnight. …When Boris Yeltsin took power he eliminated all price controls, privatized state-owned companies and assets, and immediately opened up Russia to global trade. The result was a catastrophe. The Russian economy was already in disarray, but shock therapy was a fatal blow. (Western economists) predicted some short-term pain, but what they didn’t see coming was how severe and destructive the effects would be. Consumer prices spiraled out of control, Hyperinflation took hold, GDP fell by 40%.

The shock therapy slump in Russia was deeper and longer than the Great Depression by a large margin. It was a disaster for ordinary Russians…. Alcoholism, childhood malnutrition and crime went through the roof. Life expectancy for Russian men fell by 7 years, more than any industrial country has ever experienced in peacetime. Russia did not get a free market overnight. Instead, it went from a stagnating economy to a hollowed-out wreck run by oligarchs. If just getting rid of price-controls and government employment didn’t create prosperity but did destroy the economy and kill huge numbers of people, then clearly, the rapid transition to “free markets” was not the solution. …

Throughout the 1980s, China considered implementing the same type of sudden reforms that Russia pursued. The idea of starting from a clean slate was attractive, and shock therapy was widely promoted by (respected) economists… But in the end, China decided to not implement shock therapy. …Instead of knocking over the entire (economy) at once, China reformed itself in a gradual and experimental way. Market activities were tolerated or actively-promoted in non-essential parts of the economy. China implemented a policy of dual track pricing…. China was learning from.. the world’s most developed nations, countries like the US, UK, Japan and South Korea. Each of these managed and planned the development of their own economies. and markets, protecting early-stage industries and controlling investment.

Western free market economists thought this system would be a disaster …. But China’s leaders did not listen, and while Russia collapsed after following the “shock therapy” program, China saw remarkable success. The state kept control over the backbone of the industrial economy, as well as the ownership over the land,. As China grew into the new dynamics of its economy, state institutions were not degraded to fossils from the past, but were often the drivers at the frontier of new industries, protecting and guaranteeing their own growth. China today is not a free market economy in any sense of the word. It is a state-led market economy. The government effectively owns all land, and China leverages state ownership through market competition to steer the economy. The shock therapy approach advocated around the world was a failure. While Russia collapsed after its sudden transition, China’s gradual reforms allowed it to survive. And that made all the difference.” How China (Actually) Got Rich”, You Tube.

The fact that China’s SOEs are shielded from foreign competition and receive government subsidies, has angered foreign corporations who think China has an unfair advantage and is not playing by the rules. That is certainly fair criticism, but it’s also true that Washington’s unilateral sanctions—which have now been imposed on roughly one-third of all the countries in the world—are also a clear violation of WTO rules. In any event, China’s approach to the market under Xi has been ambivalent at best. And while “the state sector’s share of industrial output dropped from 81% in 1980 to 15% in 2005”, (in the spirit of reform) Xi has also ensured that the CCP has greater influence in corporate management and corporate decision-making. Naturally, none of this has gone-over well with US and EU businesses titans who firmly believe that corporate stakeholders should rule the roost. (as they do in the West.)

The larger issue, however, is not that China subsidizes its SOEs or even that China is set to become the biggest economy in the world within the next decade. That’s not the problem. The real problem is that China has not assimilated into the Washington-led “rules-based order” as was originally anticipated. The fact is, Chinese leaders are strongly patriotic and have no intention of becoming a vassal-state in Uncle Sam’s global empire. This is an important point that political analyst Alfred McCoy sheds light on in an article at Counterpunch:

China’s increasing control over Eurasia clearly represents a fundamental change in that continent’s geopolitics. Convinced that Beijing would play the global game by U.S. rules, Washington’s foreign policy establishment made a major strategic miscalculation in 2001 by admitting it to the World Trade Organization (WTO). “Across the ideological spectrum, we in the U.S. foreign policy community,” confessed two former members of the Obama administration, “shared the underlying belief that U.S. power and hegemony could readily mold China to the United States’ liking… All sides of the policy debate erred.” In little more than a decade after it joined the WTO, Beijing’s annual exports to the U.S. grew nearly five-fold and its foreign currency reserves soared from just $200 billion to an unprecedented $4 trillion by 2013. The Rise of China and the Fall of the US, Counterpunch

Clearly, US foreign policy mandarins made a catastrophic error-in-judgement regarding China, but now there’s no way to undo the damage. China will not only emerge as the world’s largest economy, it will also control its own destiny unlike western nations that have been subsumed into the oligarch-led system (WEF) that decides everything from climate policy to mandatory vaccination, and from transgender bathrooms to war in Ukraine. These policies are all set by oligarchs who control the politicians, the media, and the sprawling deep state. Again, the issue with China is not size or money; it’s about control. China presently controls its own future independent of the “rules-based order” which makes it a threat to that same system.

If we look again at the first chart (above), we can understand why Washington rushed into its proxy-war with Russia. After all, if China was able to spread its high-speed rail network across all of China in just 12 years, what will the next 12 years bring? That’s what worries Washington.

China’s emergence as regional hegemon on the Asian continent is a near-certainty at this point. Who can stop it?

Not Washington. The US and NATO are presently bogged down in Ukraine even though Ukraine was supposed to be a launching pad for spreading US military bases across Central Asia and (eventually) encircling, isolating and containing China. That was the plan, but the plan looks less likely every day. And remember the importance that national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski placed on Eurasia in his classic The Grand Chessboard nearly 3 decades ago. He said:

“Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. ….About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.” (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, p.31)
China’s Turn. Americas Hyper-Financialized Economic System Is No Match for China’s Government-Directed Investment Model.

The consensus opinion among foreign policy mucky-mucks is that the United States must become the dominant player in Central Asia if it hopes to maintain its current lofty position in the global order. Former Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz went so far as to say that Washington’s “top priority” must be “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.” Wolfowitz’s sentiments are still reiterated in all of recent US national security documents including the National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy. The pundits all agree on one thing and one thing alone; that the US must prevail in its plan to control Central Asia.

But how likely is that now? How likely is it that Russia will be forced out of Ukraine and prevented from opposing the US in Eurasia? How likely is it that China’s Belt and Road Initiative will not expand across Asia and into Europe, the Middle East, Africa and even Latin America? Check out this brief excerpt on China’s Belt and Road plan:

China is building the world’s greatest economic development and construction project ever undertaken: The New Silk Road. The project aims at no less than a revolutionary change in the economic map of the world…The ambitious vision is to resurrect the ancient Silk Road as a modern transit, trade, and economic corridor that runs from Shanghai to Berlin. The ‘Road’ will traverse China, Mongolia, Russia, Belarus, Poland, and Germany, extending more than 8,000 miles, creating an economic zone that extends over one third the circumference of the earth.

The plan envisions building high-speed railroads, roads and highways, energy transmission and distributions networks, and fiber optic networks. Cities and ports along the route will be targeted for economic development.

An equally essential part of the plan is a sea-based “Maritime Silk Road” (MSR) component, as ambitious as its land-based project, linking China with the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea through Central Asia and the Indian Ocean. When completed, like the ancient Silk Road, it will connect three continents: Asia, Europe, and Africa. (and, now, Latin America) The chain of infrastructure projects will create the world’s largest economic corridor, covering a population of 4.4 billion and an economic output of $21 trillion…

For the world at large, its decisions about the Road are nothing less than momentous. The massive project holds the potential for a new renaissance in commerce, industry, discovery, thought, invention, and culture that could well rival the original Silk Road. It is also becoming clearer by the day that geopolitical conflicts over the project could lead to a new cold war between East and West for dominance in Eurasia. The outcome is far from certain. (“New Silk Road Could Change Global Economics Forever”, Robert Berke, Oil Price)
The Future Is China

Xi Jinping’s “signature infrastructure project” is reshaping trade relations across Central Asia and around the world. The BRI will eventually include more than 150 countries and a myriad of international organizations. It is, without question, the largest infrastructure and investment project in history which will include 65% of the world’s population and 40% of global GDP. The improvements to road, rail and sea routes will vastly increase connectivity, lower shipping costs, boost productivity, and enhance widespread prosperity. The Belt and Road is China’s attempt to replace the crumbling post-WW2 “rules-based” order with a system that respects the sovereignty of nations, rejects unilateralism, and relies on market-based principles to affect a more equitable distribution of wealth.

The BRI is China’s blueprint for a New World Order. It is the face of 21st century capitalism and it is bound to shift the locus of global power eastward to Beijing which is set to become the de facto center of world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/one-chart-that-explains-everything-2/5825764

Q.-  The situation in Kosovo Metohija is considered perhaps the most difficult since the NATO aggression of 1999. What is your opinion/assessment of what concrete and realistic steps could be taken to find a "right" way out?

R. It is a month now since the situation in Kosovo and Metohija escalated.  It was triggered by forcible seizure of municipal mayor offices in four Serbian-majority Municipalities by new mayors, of Albanian descent, recently elected at the local municipal elections.

Elections were held in the wake of the general walkout of Serbs from the institutions, including municipal ones, under the Albanian-run institutions in Pristina claiming to be of so-called Kosovo. This was a collective political gesture of the Serbian people, because Pristina denied them living normal lives. Secondly, those elections were participated by about less than 5 percent of the electorate, almost exclusively ethnic Albanians. Serbs boycotted these elections, protesting, among many other issues, the militarization of the area, confiscation of their private and municipal land for erection of special Albanian forces’ bases, legal and physical insecurity, daily attacks and arbitrary imprisonment of Serbs, noncompliance with 2013 and 2015 Brussels Agreements on establishment of the Community of Serbian Municipalities. Hence, newly elected Albanian mayors were effectively imposed on Serbs who exclusively or predominantly populate those municipalities.

To avoid the worse, the causes must be removed. Concretely, it is necessary to free all unjustly imprisoned Serbs, to withdraw special forces and close their bases in the northern Serb populated districts, to withdraw illegitimate Albanian mayors and to establish Community of Serbian Municipalities as agreed and signed in Brusseles in 201.

The key cause of the prolonged crisis, however, is that Albanian leaders in Pristina have no interest in anything else but recognition of so called “Kosovo Republic” by Serbia. While the Province is still under UN mandate, Albanian leadership supported by their Western promoters, simply ignores UN SC resolution 1244 (1999) and any previously signed agreements, keeps continuously provoking Serbs, violating their basic human rights such as personal security, freedom of movement, private property. About 130,000 Serbs in the Province are treated as hostages in ghettos, whereas additional 250,000 expelled from the Province more than 20 years ago, still are not permitted to return to their homes and properties.

Unfortunately, western countries, primarily the USA, the UK and Germany, keep  ignoring such disturbing reality. Apparently, they are not ready to undertake concrete steps to  make Albanian leadership comply with UN SC resolution 1244, Brussels Agreements and basic human rights vis-à-vis Serbs. Their double standards policy appears now as punishing Serbia and Serbs by proxy, for not recognizing unilateral illegal secession of Kosovo and Metohija, for remaining military neutral, and for not adopting sanctions against Russia.

Q. - In many parts both in KosMet and outside, there is talk of a possible war. What is his point of view.

R. All that I can say now is that Serbia and Serbs are definitely for committed to peace, a peaceful solution based on the universal principles of International Law and UN SC resolution 1244. Nobody should expect that Serbia will recognize robbery of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is extremely dangerous that those same parties who conducted aggression in 1999 and imposed recognition of criminal secession in 2008, are trying now to compel Serbia to legalize all that, thus retroactively converting their actions into being purportedly moral, peace oriented, and free of expansionism and hegemony.

Therefore, provocations of Pristina, whoever may be behind them, must stop, human rights of Serbs must be respected, the signed Brussels Agreements implemented in their original wording, and the dialogue on normalization resumed.

Q - Demonstrations by some political forces against the government continue in Serbia. Are they attempts at a "color revolution"?

R. Weekly demonstrations started some days after the tragic events of last May in one Belgrade school and in the town of Mladenovac, under moto “Stop violence”. After Belgrade, now about 10 other cities hold simultaneous peaceful demonstrations demanding resignations of the Minister of Interior and the Director of Security Agency (BIA), replacement of members of Board of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media, replacement of management of the public TV RTS and alike. No doubt that the opposition political forces behind the demonstrations aim at changing the entire government. They insist on installing interim government, first, and holding elections later. The Government seems to be ready to hold early elections but refuses idea about interim government. All this coincides with the growing pressures by leading western powers on Serbian leadership to recognize unilateral illegal secession of the Province of Kosovo and Metohija, to abandon the policy of military neutrality and to introduce sanctions to Russia. While antigovernment demonstrations going on, Ambassadors of certain western powers in Belgrade keep making public statements that Serbs know that Serbia completely belongs to the West.

It is baffling that nobody from the actual government came up to remind them that 85% of Serbia’s population is against NATO, that approximately the same percentage is even against EU membership if conditioned by the recognition of secession of Kosovo and Metohija. Or, to ask such ambassadors if they really believe that Serbs forgot who had enforced most severe sanctions ever on them in the 1990s, who had launched criminal aggression in 1999 that took some 4,000 lives, wounded about 10,000 people, threw 15 tons of depleted uranium, and so on?

Q - I receive from the Province of Kosovo and Metohija, on the daily basis, many criticisms, doubts, perplexities and even attacks concerning the work of the Serbian President A. Vucic. What do you think?

R. I agree that there are reasons to criticize policy of the present government. For example, I think there is the need for Serbia’s leadership to be explicit in demanding full implementation and respect of UN SC resolution 1244 binding every UN member, including EU and NATO members, to respect territorial integrity of Serbia. The government should be much more proactive in international fora with a view to guaranty real genuine security and freedom for Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija. In parallel, there is the need for persistent initiative to guaranty the right to free and safe return of about 250,000 Serbs and other non-Albanians to their homes and their lands in the Province. Who needs now military exercises of Serbia with NATO, in spite of official moratorium?
It should be noted, however, that only a year ago, Aleksandar Vucic was elected President of the Republic in the first round, for the second time in a row. His Party (SNS) also easily won all elections from 2012 to the present day.

We should be mindful and learn lessons from historic experiences. While traying to solve real socioeconomic problems, to improve living standards and democratize governance, we must not repeat mistakes by overlooking dubious positions of some opposition forces about the future status of Kosovo and Metohija, membership to NATO, or sanctions against Russia. I believe that Serbia should continue to balance her political, economic and cultural relations with all countries and integrations which accept her as an equal partner, persistently defending own legitimate interest based on universal principles and international law, and stay neutral.

Thak You.  Enrico Vigna,

Ein Kommentar von Hermann Ploppa.

Es wird überall eifrig gezündelt, um den zerbrechlichen Noch-Frieden in Europa zu zerstören. Georgien, Berg-Karabach und Transnistrien sind neben dem Balkan buchstäblich ganz heiße Kandidaten für neue Brandherde.

Da gehen wieder Bilder durch die Medien. Derbe serbische Burschen greifen da im Kosovo Ordnungskräfte der internationalen Organisation KFOR wütend an. Es gibt auf beiden Seiten Verletzte <1>. Zum Glück noch keine Toten. Da fragen wir unbedarfte Fernseh-Konsumenten uns doch ganz unwillkürlich: was gibt es denn da wieder für Kloppereien? Können die sich nicht mal endlich vertragen?

Nun ja: die Vorgeschichte dieser Raufereien ist kompliziert und verschachtelt. Das oder der Kosovo ist eine kleine Provinz im Herzen des Balkan. Sie gehörte mal zu der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien. Die  Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien war dereinst ein Leuchtturm des aufgeklärten Sozialismus. Jugoslawien geriet aber dann in die Verschuldungsfalle westlicher Banken. Um die Schulden abzutragen, mussten erhebliche Einschnitte in der Lebensqualität der Jugoslawen vorgenommen werden. Dann fachten westliche Politiker wie der ehemalige deutsche Außenminister Hans-Dietrich Genscher ethnische Konflikte in der vielgestaltigen Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien an. Es kam zu blutigen Kriegen zwischen Serben, Kroaten, Bosniern und Albanern. Slowenien, Kroatien und Bosnien-Herzegowina traten aus dem Bundesstaat Jugoslawien aus. Dass dieser Zerfall von der westlichen Wertegemeinschaft forciert wurde, leugnet niemand mehr. Mit dem völkerrechtswidrigen Überfall des westlichen Waffenbündnisses NATO auf die Reste der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien im Jahre 1999 wurde das Ende eben dieser Bundesrepublik besiegelt. Es blieb als Rest der Staat Serbien.

Soweit, so schlecht. Der Austritt aus einer Bundesrepublik kann im besten Falle ein ganz normaler Vorgang sein. Auch der Bundesstaat Texas könnte rein theoretisch aus den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika ganz einfach austreten. Ganz genau so wie der Freistaat Bayern aus der Bundesrepublik Deutschland austreten könnte. Vollkommen legal. Allerdings wurde der völkerrechtswidrige Überfall der NATO auf Jugoslawien dadurch gekrönt, dass sich die NATO zusätzlich die Provinz Kosovo ganz kackfrech aus dem Teilstaat Serbien herausgeschnitten hat. Auf dem neuen quasi-staatlichen Gebilde Kosovo wurde die zweitgrößte US-Militärbasis in Europa nach Ramstein, Bondsteel, errichtet. Als Rechtfertigung für diesen zu hundert Prozent illegalen Landraub diente wieder einmal ein ethnischer Hintergrund. Denn in Kosovo leben mehrheitlich muslimische Albaner.

Mitte der 1990er Jahre wurde eine Terrormiliz mit Namen UCK von Deutschland aus massiv aufgebaut und aufgebläht. Eine extrem gewalttätige und zudem kriminelle Vereinigung, die den Hass und Terror gegen Serben kultivierte. Die UCK-Kämpfer agierten offen als Kollaborateure der NATO und unterstützten die westlichen Bomber bei der Auswahl ihrer Ziele. Nachdem das Kriegsziel der NATO, nämlich die Zerschlagung der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien und die Installierung einer US-Militärbasis im Herzen des Balkans erreicht waren, wurde die UCK aufgelöst. Mission accomplished. Nun wurden die UCK-Extremisten in die Polizei und Armee des neuen Quasi-Staates Kosovo aufgenommen. Seitdem müssen die im Kosovo verbliebenen Serben verdammt gut aufpassen.

Im letzten Spätherbst wurden Bürgermeisterwahlen im Kosovo verordnet. Im Norden des Kosovo gibt es noch Gemeinden mit serbischer Bevölkerungsmehrheit. Die dort lebenden Serben boykottierten diese Kommunalwahlen. Die Wahlbeteiligung lag in diesen Regionen folglich bei unerheblich über drei Prozent. Die an der Wahl teilnehmenden albanischen Kandidaten wurden von ihren Landsleuten gewählt, sodass nun Bürgermeister mit der lächerlichen „Legitimation“, von drei Prozent der Wahlberechtigten ins Amt gehoben worden zu sein, die Rathäuser besetzen wollen. Dies war nun gerade der Fall. Die Serben in der Region sind nicht bereit, diese absurde Situation zu akzeptieren.

Das sehen auch die meisten Nachbarländer des Kosovo ganz genau so. Nicht nur Serbien lehnt eine völkerrechtliche Anerkennung des Kunstgebildes Kosovo ab. Auch Rumänien, Bosnien-Herzegowina, Slowakei, aber auch globale Schwergewichte wie die Volksrepublik China und Russland wollen mit dem Konstrukt Kosovo nichts zu tun haben. Das veranlasste vor einigen Monaten Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz und den französischen Staatspräsidenten Emmanuel Macron, Serbien zu erpressen. Der Macron-Scholz-Plan gewährt Serbien nur den Eintritt in die Europäische Union, wenn Serbien die gleichzeitige Anerkennung und Integration des Kosovo in die Netzwerke des Europa-Rats, von Interpol, UNESCO, Europäische Union, UNO und schließlich NATO akzeptiert. Mit anderen Worten: Serbien soll den Diebstahl seiner Provinz Kosovo durch die westliche Wertegemeinschaft nicht nur akzeptieren, sondern sogar aktiv unterstützen.

Unklar ist allerdings in diesem Zusammenhang umso mehr, wer eigentlich jetzt ein Interesse an Unruhen im Kosovo hat und wer die Unruhen anheizt. Immerhin haben die Unruhen als Ergebnis, dass die westliche Wertegemeinschaft weitere 700 Soldaten ihrer KFOR-Einheiten in den Kosovo entsendet. Damit wird immer noch mal deutlicher, wer im Kosovo eigentlich das Sagen hat. Das wird schon lange unterstrichen durch eine Aufpasser-Organisation der Europäischen Union. Die Rede ist von der Rechtsstaatlichkeitskommission der Europäischen Union, der so genannten EULEX. Über zweitausend Polizisten, Gefängnisaufseher und Zollbeamte aus anderen EU-Staaten führen hier ein Eigenleben. Die kosovarischen Behörden haben kein Einspruchsrecht in das Wirken und Weben der EULEX.

Wie lebt es sich so im Kunstprodukt Kosovo?

 Das habe ich bereits im Jahre 2019 in meinem Buch „Der Griff nach Eurasien“ beschrieben. Zum Abschluss noch ein paar Auszüge aus meinem Buch, zur weiteren Illustration des völkerrechtlichen Skandals, der den Namen „Kosovo“ trägt:

„Nun muss Serbien auch noch ein Stück des eigenen Territoriums an die NATO abtreten, nämlich das Kosovo-Gebiet, wo sich mittlerweile kriminelle Banden und Faschisten eingenistet hatten. Rechtlich blieb Kosovo bei Serbien, jedoch wurde es sozusagen für nicht absehbare Zeit an die Westmächte kostenlos überlassen. Das Kosovo war jetzt zu annähernd hundert Prozent mit Albanern bewohnt. Die letzten verbliebenen Serben sowie Sinti und Roma wurden unter den Augen der eingerückten mittlerweile 50.000 NATO-Soldaten der KFOR-Mission bestialisch gelyncht. Im neu eroberten Kosovo installierten die US-Streitkräfte dauerhaft ihre Militärbasis Camp Bondsteel. Nun hatten die USA neben ihrer Militärbasis Ramstein in Deutschland eine zweite starke Basis in einem exterritorialen Raum. Sozusagen ein Stück USA in Südosteuropa, ein „Brückenkopf“ (in den Worten Brzezinskis <2>) für die Inbesitznahme Eurasiens.

Wir sprachen ja davon, dass das Organisierte Verbrechen seit der Einführung der Clearing-Systeme zu einem gleichberechtigten Spieler am runden Tisch der Weltbeherrschung aufgestiegen ist. Auch diese ehrenwerte Branche bekommt das Kosovo als Basis für ihre rege und munter expandierenden Geschäftstätigkeiten zugesprochen. Im Schutz des Militärs und der Exterritorialität entwickelt sich das Kosovo zur Drehscheibe des Drogen-, Organ- und Menschenhandels für das restliche Europa:

„Anscheinend war das schnelle Anwachsen der UCK auf eine ‚30.000 Mann starke Streitkraft mit Granatwerfern, Panzerabwehrwaffen und AK47-Kalaschnikows‘ im Jahre 1999 eng mit der wachsenden Beteiligung von Kosovaren am Heroinhandel in der Schweiz, in Deutschland und Skandinavien verknüpft.“ <3>

40 Prozent des heute in Europa konsumierten Heroins ist aus Afghanistan über Kosovo an die Endverbraucher gelangt. Außerdem gilt das Kosovo als Umschlagplatz von Kokain aus Lateinamerika, von hier aus unbehelligt von irgendeiner staatlichen Kontrolle portioniert und verschickt an die Endkunden in Europa. Es ist überhaupt kein Geheimnis, dass vom kleinen Drogenkurier bis zum Präsidenten dieser seltsamen Enklave im Herzen Europas alle von kriminellen Geschäften unterschiedlichster Art profitieren. Und wollen tatsächlich einmal europäische Fahndungsbeamte dieser Connection auf den Grund gehen, sind garantiert Herrschaften aus den USA zur Stelle, die die Fahnder ausbremsen <4>.

Das ist schon erstaunlich. Denn das Kosovo untersteht seit 1999 der Verwaltungshoheit der Vereinten Nationen <5>. Zudem wird seit 2008 die politische Entwicklung in der Enklave durch einen bürokratischen Wasserkopf namens EULEX überwacht. Und die kosovarischen Finanztransaktionen unterstehen seit 1999 der strengen Kontrolle durch den Internationalen Währungsfond und – der deutschen Commerzbank! Seit nunmehr zwanzig Jahren sind sämtliche ehrenwerten Weltorganisationen im Kosovo mit starkem Personal präsent. Und trotzdem, oder vielleicht gerade deswegen, floriert gerade hier das Organisierte Verbrechen so stark wie nirgendwo anders in Europa. Was sind daraus für Schlüsse zu ziehen?

Und obwohl im Kosovo eine beachtliche Anzahl von extrem teuren Nobelkarossen zu bestaunen ist, leben die normalen Menschen, die gerne einer ehrlichen Arbeit nachgehen würden, in einer Armut, die mit Bangladesh konkurrieren kann. Die Arbeitslosigkeit oszilliert um die 50 Prozent-Marke.

Jugendarbeitslosigkeit erreicht in schlechten Zeiten eine Marke von 70 Prozent. Und 34 Prozent aller Menschen in diesem Drogenparadies vegetieren unterhalb der Armutsgrenze vor sich hin. Wer kann, wandert aus nach Deutschland oder in andere Regionen dieser Welt. Nicht nur das Kosovo – der gesamte Balkan blutet aus. Junge Frauen aus dem Südosten Europas werden mit interessanten Jobangeboten nach Deutschland gelockt, um sodann in die Zwangsprostitution verkauft zu werden. Sklaverei in unserer Mitte ist an der Tagesordnung. Die Männer müssen ihr Leben vergeuden als LKW-Fahrer in Mitteleuropa, einsam und trostlos gepfercht in die Fahrerkabinen ihrer Gigaliner, von A nach B fahrend, ohne Sozialkontakte. In deutschen Trucker-Bordellen treffen sie dann womöglich Frauen aus ihrer Heimat wieder. Während gleichzeitig zuhause auf dem Balkan junge Männer und Frauen dringend benötigt werden, um die Trümmerlandschaften wieder aufzubauen.“

Verstehen Sie nun, warum es jetzt auch im Kosovo so ungemütlich brodelt?

Source: apolut.net

by Jean Bricmont Posted on July 12, 2022    

Given the devastating effects of this war, first in Ukraine but also, through sanctions, on the world economy and the risks of famine that they entail, it seems obvious that the first task of any diplomat and political leader should be to end this war.

The problem is that there are at least two ways of considering how this will end and they are irreconcilable.

The first, which until recently was the view of the U.S. government, which is the view of the Ukrainian government, European Greens, and the majority of our media, is that the Russian invasion is illegitimate, unprovoked, and must simply be repelled: Ukraine must regain all of its territory, including Crimea (which has been attached to Russia since 2014).

The other, supported by individuals as different as Chomsky, the Pope, Lula in Brazil, and Kissinger, is that a negotiated solution is inevitable, which in practice means Ukraine giving up territories such as Crimea and Donbass and presumably other regions, as well as agreeing to the neutrality of that country.

The supporters of the first solution shower those of the second with insults: Putin-lovers, pro-Russians, supporters of appeasement in the face of Russian fascism etc. But we can ask at least two questions about this first solution: is it fair? And is it realistic?

The fundamental problem with the fairness of this solution is that it assumes that there is one Ukraine and one Ukrainian people under attack by Russia. But Ukraine, which became independent in 1991 with the dissolution of the USSR, was not a former nation annexed by Russia in the past. Certainly, there was a historical Ukraine that had been absorbed into the Russian empire, but what became independent in 1991 was the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, created in 1922 following the October revolution and which incorporated Russian-speaking populations in the east of the present Ukraine, and to whose opinion was never asked by anybody. It included also territories in the west added to Ukraine in 1939-1945 as well as the Crimea added in 1954.

The disintegration of multi-national states such as the USSR or Yugoslavia or even the former colonial empires opposes the idea of state sovereignty, including the “territorial integrity” of the state, against the idea of the right to self-determination of peoples. At the time of the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the territorial integrity of this state was considered illegitimate in the West in the face of the desire for independence of the Croatian and Slovenian peoples; but the borders of the Croatian republic then became sacrosanct in the name of the right to self-determination of peoples, while a good number of Serbs lived within these borders. They did not accept their new situation and were eventually expelled from Croatia by force. A similar situation occurred in 1999 with Kosovo, which was part of Serbia but whose majority of the population, Albanians, wanted to break away. There, NATO took it upon itself to bomb Serbia for 78 days in order to obtain the de facto independence of Kosovo, with the expulsion of many of the non-Albanian speaking minorities living there.

If the right to self-determination of peoples is sacrosanct in the face of the territorial integrity of states in which they are minorities, then why does the territorial integrity of republics, which were in part administrative entities in dissolving multinational states, suddenly become sacrosanct in the face of the aspirations of minorities living in those republics?

The precedent of the Kosovo war is often recalled by the Russians: if the NATO intervention there was legitimate to support the Kosovars, why is the Russian “military operation” to protect the inhabitants of Donbass not legitimate?

There have been many other conflicts of the same kind, and much bloodier: for example, the partition of the British Empire of India in 1948 between India and Pakistan, which initially included the present Bangladesh (called at the time East Pakistan) that became independent after a fierce war in 1971.

There is no simple solution to this kind of conflict. In principle, there could be one: ask by referendum on a local basis to which state each population wants to belong. But this solution is accepted by almost no one: if a referendum in Crimea is in favor of joining Russia, of which Crimea was a part between 1783 and 1954 (and, at that time, the joining of Crimea to Ukraine was decided in a purely authoritarian way), the West declares it illegitimate. If other referendums are held in the rest of Ukraine, they will also be declared illegitimate.

What we should hope for in order to resolve these local conflicts is that foreign powers do not use them to advance their economic and strategic interests. However, the United States and Britain have done exactly the opposite since 2014 (if not before) in Ukraine, first encouraging a coup that led to the overthrow of the legally elected president, Yanukovych, who had to flee for his life. This president was seen as pro-Russian, and the United States and Britain were not prepared to accept the situation. As the new power in Kiev was not only violently anti-Russian but also hostile to the Russian-speaking part of its population, a fraction of the latter demanded more autonomy within Ukraine, which was refused. Since then, there has been a more or less low-intensity war between part of the Donbass and the Ukrainian army.

Again, in principle, a peaceful solution could have been found through negotiations with the leaders of the rebel provinces, and this is what the Minsk agreements, accepted by the Ukrainian government but never implemented by it, provided.

It is true that there are other minorities in the world who are persecuted or badly treated by their governments, but it was particularly irresponsible for the Kiev government to behave in this way towards its minority in the east of the country, knowing that it could benefit from the protection of the Russian “big brother." And it is unlikely that this conduct would have been adopted without the encouragement and political and military support of the United States and Britain.

This is why it can be considered that it was the American-British policy that pushed Russia to intervene. One can obviously condemn this intervention as contrary to international law, but then one would have to answer the question: what should the Russians have done to protect the populations of eastern Ukraine, assuming that their demands for autonomy are accepted as legitimate (and if not, in the name of what to refuse them)? Wait? Negotiate? But that is what they have been doing for eight years, sending very clear signals at the end of 2021 that their patience had limits.

Moreover, it is difficult for the architects of the wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan to pose as great defenders of international law in the face of the Russians. Whatever one thinks of their military intervention in Ukraine, it is less illegitimate than the Western wars mentioned above.

One can obviously react by saying that “Putin has fallen into the trap” set for him by the United States. But, on the one hand, this is admitting that the United States has indeed pushed Russia into war and, to know whether he has really fallen into a trap, we will have to wait until the end of the hostilities. If Russia wins, at least in part, it will be the United States that will lose face and be caught in its own trap.

It is also necessary to point out the incredible hypocrisy of the discourse on the war in Ukraine, and on the accompanying sanctions, on the part of most of our journalists and intellectuals: when did we do anything similar during the US invasion of Iraq? Of course, no economic sanctions were taken at that time, but no symbolic sanctions either, while in the case of Russia everything is sanctioned: political figures, but also sportsmen, artists, scientists. Even the works of the past are “canceled." What does Dostoyevsky have to do with the war in Ukraine?

The only way to justify this double standard is to openly admit that we are on the side of the United States, either because we share their values or because it is in our interests.

As far as values are concerned, we should go beyond facile slogans about democracy, which nobody, and certainly not the Russians or the Chinese, is endangering here, and become aware of the monstrosity of American foreign policy. Even without going back to the war in Iraq (or Vietnam) one can think of Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is waging a war far more brutal than what Russia is doing in Ukraine and which is armed by the United States and its European allies. Or Afghanistan, where the United States has confiscated half of the public treasury while the country is suffering from famine. Or think of the human consequences of the embargoes and sanctions taken by the United States against a multitude of countries: Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Iraq (between 1991 and 2003).

In terms of interests, it is clear that the United States is using every weapon at its disposal, including espionage, to favor its businesses at the expense of ours. But more profoundly, their policy is increasingly opposed in the non-Western world: the most surprising aspect of the reactions to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is perhaps the fact that the majority of countries, while condemning the invasion in principle (which was the minimum to do given their adherence to the UN Charter – and large countries such as India and China did not even perform this minimum service), did not apply any sanctions to Russia.

The recent “Summit of the Americas," from which Biden excluded Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, was criticized and even boycotted for this reason by several Latin American countries, including Mexico. The ASEAN countries gathered in Washington refused to condemn Russia; they are probably going there to recover (some) money and investments but certainly not to align themselves with Washington. Relations between China, another country in Washington’s sights, and the rest of Asia are better than they have ever been.

African countries “remember” the support of the USSR during the independence struggles and recently had a very cordial summit with Lavrov in Moscow.

We can shrug our shoulders and say that these countries are driven by anti-American resentment or that they do not weigh much in the world economy, which would be a rather typical “Western” reaction, but totally contrary to our long-term interests. We Europeans have no influence whatsoever on American policy and our “alliance” with this country is purely a matter of following them. But the effect of this following is that we inevitably share the hostility that the United States draws to itself from the rest of the world. And while hostility is expressed toward the masters, it is combined with contempt when it comes to their servants.

As for realism, a distinction must be made between the economic and the military aspects. On the economic issue, i.e. the sanctions, for the moment it is a total failure: the ruble has strengthened instead of collapsing, the Russian economy is surviving and reorienting itself towards Asia. Moreover, the majority of the world’s countries refuse to implement the sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union, and everything indicates that these sanctions are going to hurt the Western economies, without even considering the effect of possible Russian counter-sanctions.

As for the military issue, it is difficult to make definite predictions, but for the moment the Russians are moving forward, even if much more slowly than at the beginning. No Ukrainian counter-offensive has had a lasting effect. Some hope for a reversal of the situation following the delivery of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine by the United States and its allies, but this remains to be seen, and various voices in Washington itself are considering the need for negotiation as the only solution to the crisis. In any case, it seems unlikely that Ukraine’s war aims of recovering the entire eastern part of the country and Crimea can be achieved. The Russians consider these territories, and especially Crimea, to be part of the “motherland” and they are far from having committed all their forces to this battle. For the Ukrainian war objective to be realized, there would have to be a complete collapse not only of the Russian military but of Russian society as a whole, with a regime change and the installation of a pro-Western leader in Putin’s place. The least we can say is that this perspective is not, for the moment, in the cards: the main criticisms addressed to Putin in the Russian public opinion are that he is too soft in the conduct of the war and too lenient with what he continues to call his Western “partners."

Of course, as always in wars, a reversal of the situation is possible. So, wait and see.

If we were to embark on the path of negotiations, we would first have to see what the Russians are asking for: recognition of the attachment of Crimea to Russia, independence of the Donbass and probably of other regions such as Kherson or Zaporizhzhia, demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine. If the first of these demands are legitimate, or at least if their legitimacy could be verified by means of referenda, the last two are much more questionable: to ask that one’s neighbor be disarmed when one is overarmed oneself is a typical behavior of a great power, and the “denazification” of Ukraine is too vague a demand to be really implemented (at what point does one stop being extreme right-wing to become a Nazi?)

In an ideal world such a demand as the demilitarization of one’s neighbor should not exist. But the context again matters: the original intention of post-2014 Ukraine was to be part of NATO, not just to have an army. This was again an irresponsible policy, since it was obvious that Russia would never accept this membership and that it had the means to prevent it, as history has shown. As for the reproach that Russia is pursuing a gre0at power policy, it should be remembered that the United States did not accept the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962 and even considered the Sandinista revolution of 1979 in tiny Nicaragua to be a threat to its national security. Great power policies can only be ended if their rejection applies to all.

In the end, it is likely that the only ones who will have defended the true interests of the Ukrainian people (as well as those of Europe) will be those who have advocated from the beginning (i.e., at least since 2014) for a negotiated solution to the conflict.

Jean Bricmont is a retired Belgian theoretical physicist. He is the co-author with Alan Sokal of Fashionable Nonsense Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science (Picador, NY, 1998), of Humanitarian Imperialism; Using human rights to sell war (Monthly Review, NY, 2007), and of Quantum Sense and Nonsense (Springer, 2017).

Source: https://original.antiwar.com/

Sergei V. Lavrov

Russian Foreign Minister since 2004.

As is traditional, the month of May in Russia is marked by the broad celebrations commemorating the anniversary of the Great Victory. The defeat of Nazi Germany – an achievement to which our country made a decisive contribution, with the support from our Allies – paved the way for the post-war international order, with the UN Charter as its legal framework. The United Nations Organisation, an embodiment of true multilateralism, took on a central coordinating role in global politics.

For almost 80 years since its inception, the UN has carried out the most important mission entrusted to it by its founders. The shared understanding among the five permanent members of the Security Council regarding the supremacy of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter has guaranteed global security for decades, thus creating the necessary conditions for truly multilateral cooperation, which are regulated by universally recognised norms of international law.

Now the UN-centric system is undergoing a deep crisis, the root cause of which was brought on by the decision of certain UN members to replace international law and the UN Charter with some “rules-based international order”. These mysterious “rules” have never been the subject of transparent international consultations, nor have they been laid out for everybody’s attention. It is obvious that they are being made up on the move and used to counteract the natural processes of the formation and strengthening of new independent centres of development, which are an actual manifestation of multilateralism.

Moreover, we are seeing attempts to contain the new world centres by means of illegitimate unilateral measures, such as blocking access to modern technologies and financial services, forcing out of supply chains, confiscating property, destroying competitors’ critical infrastructure, and manipulating universally agreed norms and procedures. These actions have led to the fragmentation of global trade and the collapse of market mechanisms. They have paralysed the WTO and finally transformed the IMF, without a hint of disguise, into a tool for achieving the goals of the United States and its allies, including military goals.

In a desperate attempt to assert its dominance by punishing anyone who disobeys, the United States tried to derail globalisation – a process that had been extolled as the highest virtue for humanity, serving the multilateral global economic system for years.

Washington and other Western capitals subordinate to the US are applying their “rules” whenever they need to justify their illegitimate steps against countries that draft their policies in accordance with international law and refuse to service the selfish interests of the “golden billion.” They blacklist any dissenters, deeming whoever is not with them as acting against them.

Our Western colleagues have long since become uncomfortable with holding talks in universal formats, such as the UN. To provide an ideological basis for their policy of undermining multilateralism, the theme of united “democracies” countering “autocracies” has been put into circulation. In addition to “summits for democracy”, the members of which are designated by the self-proclaimed hegemon, other “clubs of the chosen ones” are being created that operate in circumvention of the UN.

Summits for Democracy, the Alliance for Multilateralism, the Global Partnership for Artificial Intelligence, the Global Media Freedom Coalition and the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace – these and other non-inclusive projects have been designed to undermine talks held under the auspices of the UN on relevant issues, and to impose non-consensual concepts and decisions that benefit the collective West.  First, they agree on something secretly as a small group and then present their agreements as “the position of the international community.”

Let’s face it: no one entrusted the Western minority to speak on behalf of all humankind. They must behave decently and respect all international community members without exception.

By imposing a “rules-based order,” its masterminds haughtily reject the key principle underlying the UN Charter, which is the sovereign equality of states. The “proud” statement by the head of the EU diplomacy, Josep Borrell, that Europe is a “garden” and the rest of the world is a “jungle” personifies their worldview of being exceptional. I will also quote the NATO-EU Joint Statement of January 10, 2023 which states: “The united West will use all the economic, financial, political, and military tools available to NATO and the EU to ensure the interests of our one billion.”

The collective West has set out to reshape the processes of multilateralism at the regional level to suit its needs. Recently, the United States called for reviving the Monroe Doctrine and wanted Latin American countries to scale back their ties with the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. However, this faced pushback from the countries of this region, which instead resolved to strengthen their own multilateral structures, primarily the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), while upholding their legitimate right to establish themselves as a pillar of the multipolar world. Russia fully supports just aspirations of this kind.

The United States and its allies have deployed significant forces to undermine multilateralism in the Asia-Pacific Region where an ASEAN-centred, successful, and open economic and security cooperation system has been taking shape for decades. This system helped them develop consensus approaches that suited the 10 ASEAN members and their dialogue partners, including Russia, China, the United States, India, Japan, Australia, and the Republic of Korea, thus ensuring genuine inclusive multilateralism. Washington then advanced its Indo-Pacific Strategy in an effort to break up this established architecture.

At last year’s summit in Madrid, NATO, which never tires of convincing everyone of its “love of peace” and the exclusively defensive nature of its defence programmes, put out a statement about its global responsibility and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic region, as well as in the so-called Indo-Pacific region. This means NATO’s boundaries as a defensive organisation are being moved towards the western coastal regions of the Pacific. This bloc-oriented policy, which is eroding ASEAN-centred multilateralism, manifests itself in the creation of the AUKUS military alliance, with Tokyo, Seoul, and several ASEAN countries being drawn into it. The United States is leading the effort to develop mechanisms to interfere in maritime security in a move to ensure the unilateral interests of the West in the South China Sea region. Josep Borrell, whom I referred to earlier, promised to send EU naval forces to that region. No one is hiding the fact that this Indo-Pacific strategy seeks to contain China and to isolate Russia. This is how our Western colleagues interpret the concept of “effective multilateralism” in the Asia-Pacific Region.

As soon as the Warsaw Treaty Organisation was dissolved and the Soviet Union vanished from the political arena, many entertained the hope that the principle of genuine multilateralism, void of dividing lines across the Euro-Atlantic area, could be brought to life. However, instead of tapping the OSCE’s potential on an equal, collective basis, Western countries not only preserved NATO but, despite their firm pledges to the contrary, also pursued a brazen policy of bringing neighbouring areas under their control, including those that have always been and will be of vital interest to Russia. As then US Secretary of State James Baker said while talking to President George H.W. Bush: the OSCE is the main threat to NATO.

One is left with the impression that today both the UN and the provisions of the UN Charter pose a threat to Washington’s global ambitions.

Russia patiently tried to reach mutually-beneficial multilateral agreements based on the principle of indivisible security, which was solemnly declared at the highest level, that is, in the documents of OSCE summits in 1999 and 2010. They are formulated in the clearest possible terms – openly and unambiguously – that no nation shall strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others and that no country, or group of countries, or organisation shall be vested with the pre-eminent responsibility of maintaining peace in an OSCE region, or treat any part of an OSCE region as its sphere of influence.

NATO cared little about the commitments that were assumed by the presidents and prime ministers of its member countries and started to act precisely in contradiction with its promises by announcing its “right” to behave in any matter it saw fit. The most glaring example of this was the illegitimate bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, including with depleted uranium shells, which later led to a surge of patients with oncological conditions, both among Serbs and NATO service members. Joe Biden was a senator at the time and went on record as saying, with some pride, that he had personally insisted on bombing Belgrade and destroying all bridges across the Drina River. Today, US Ambassador to Serbia Christopher Hill has used mass media to call on the Serbs to turn the page and suppress their pain.

As for “suppressing their pain”, the United States has vast experience under its belt. Japan has long since been ashamedly reticent about who in fact bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  School textbooks make no mention of it. Speaking at a recent G7 meeting, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken demonstratively grieved over the suffering of the victims of those bombings, however, he kept silent about who was behind them.

Such are the “rules”. And nobody is allowed to argue with them.

Since World War II, Washington has pulled off dozens of reckless criminal military operations without even trying to secure multilateral legitimacy. Why bother when your “rules” are unbeknownst to everyone.

The disgraceful invasion of Iraq by the US-led coalition in 2003 was carried out in violation of the UN Charter, just like the aggression against Libya in 2011. Both led to the destruction of each country’s statehood, hundreds of thousands of lost lives, and rampant terrorism.

The US’s intervention in the domestic affairs of post-Soviet countries is nothing short of a flagrant violation of the UN Charter. “Colour revolutions” were concocted in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, and a bloody coup was staged in Kiev in February 2014. Attempts to seize power by force in Belarus in 2020 were part and parcel of this approach.

The Anglo-Saxons at the helm of the West not only justify these lawless adventures, but also parade them as a policy for “promoting democracy,” while also doing so according to their own set of rules, such as how they recognised Kosovo’s independence without a referendum, but still refused to recognise Crimea’s independence, even though a referendum there was in fact held.  According to British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, the Falklands/Malvinas are not an issue because a referendum was held there. That’s amusing.

In order to avoid double standards, we call on everyone to follow the consensus agreements that were reached as part of the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law, which remains in force today.

It clearly declares the need to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states that conduct “themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory.” Any unbiased observer can clearly see that the Nazi Kiev regime can in no way be considered a government representing the residents of the territories who refused to accept the results of the bloody February 2014 coup, against whom the putschists unleashed their war. It is just as clear that Pristina cannot claim to represent the interests of the Kosovo Serbs, to whom the EU promised autonomy, in the same manner as Berlin and Paris promised a special status for Donbass. We are well aware of how these promises played out in the end.

In his message to the second Summit for Democracy on March 29, 2023, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the following: “Democracy flows from the United Nations Charter. Its opening invocation of ‘We, the Peoples’ reflects the fundamental source of legitimate authority: the consent of the governed.” I will emphasise the word “consent” once again.

Multilateral efforts were made to stop the outbreak of war in the east of Ukraine as a result of the government coup. These efforts towards peaceful settlement were embodied in UN Security Council Resolution 2202 that unanimously approved the Minsk agreements. Kiev and its Western handlers trampled all over these agreements. They even cynically admitted with a tinge of pride that they had never planned to fulfill them, but rather merely wanted to gain time to flood Ukraine with weapons to use against Russia. In doing so, they publicly announced the violation of a multilateral commitment by UN members as per the UN Charter, which requires all member countries to comply with Security Council resolutions.

Our consistent efforts to prevent this confrontation, including proposals made by President Vladimir Putin in December 2021 to reach agreement on multilateral mutual security guarantees, were haughtily rejected. We were told that nobody can prevent NATO from “embracing” Ukraine.

In the years following the coup, and despite our strong demands, nobody from among Kiev’s Western overseers reined in Petr Poroshenko, Vladimir Zelensky, or Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada when the Russian language, education, media and, in general, Russian cultural and religious traditions were being consistently destroyed by legislation. This was done in direct violation of the Constitution of Ukraine and universal conventions on the rights of ethnic minorities. In parallel, the Kiev regime was introducing the theory and practice of Nazism in everyday life and adopting related laws. The Kiev regime shamelessly staged flashy torchlight processions under the banners of SS divisions in the centre of the capital and other cities. The West kept silent and rubbed its hands with satisfaction. These developments fully fit into the US plans to put to use Kiev’s openly racist regime, which Washington had created in the hope of weakening Russia across the board. It was part of the US’s strategic course towards removing its rivals and undermining any scenario that implied the assertion of fair multilateralism in global affairs.

Everyone is aware of it, even though not everyone is talking about it openly: the real issue is not about Ukraine, but rather about the future of international relations. Will they be forged on a sustainable consensus, one based on the balance of interests? Or will they be reduced to an aggressive and explosive advancement of hegemony?

The Ukraine issue cannot be considered outside its geopolitical context. To reiterate, multilateralism implies respect for the UN Charter and all of its interconnected principles. Russia has clearly elaborated the goals of its special military operation, which are to remove threats to its security that have been instigated by NATO for a number of years and right on Russia’s borders, and to protect the people who were stripped of their rights set forth in multilateral conventions. Russia wants to protect them from Kiev’s public and outright threats to annihilate and banish them from the land where their ancestors had lived for centuries. We have been forthright about what and for whom we are fighting.

Amid the US- and EU-fuelled hysteria, I am tempted to ask them in retort: What did Washington and NATO do in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya? Were there any threats to their security, culture, religion, or languages? What multilateral regulations were they guided by when they declared Kosovo’s independence in violation of OCSE principles or when they were destroying stable and economically wealthy Iraq and Libya, countries located 10,000 miles away from US coasts?

Western countries’ brazen attempts to bring the Secretariats of the UN and other international organisations under their control are a threat to the multilateral system. The West has always enjoyed a quantitative advantage in terms of personnel, but until recently the Secretariat tried to remain neutral. Today, this imbalance has become chronic while Secretariat employees increasingly allow themselves politically-driven behaviour that is unbecoming of international office holders. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres must ensure that his staff meets impartiality standards in keeping with Article 100 of the UN Charter. We also call on the Secretariat’s senior officials to be guided by the need to help member countries find ways to reach consensus and a balance of interests, rather than playing into the hands of neoliberal concepts. Otherwise, instead of a multilateral agenda, we will see a widening gap between the “golden billion” countries and the Global Majority.

Speaking of multilateralism, we cannot limit ourselves to the international context. By the same token, we cannot ignore the international context when we speak about democracy. There should be no double standards. Multilateralism and democracy should enjoy respect both within the member countries and in their relations with one another. Everyone is aware that while imposing its understanding of democracy on other nations, the West opposes the democratisation of international relations based on respect for the sovereign equality of states. Today, along with its efforts to promote its “rules” in the international arena, the West is also putting a choke hold on multilateralism and democracy at home as it uses increasingly repressive tools to crack down on dissent, much the same way as the criminal Kiev regime is doing with the support of its teachers – the United States and its allies.

Just like in the Cold War years, humanity has approached a once-dangerous, and perhaps an even more dangerous line in the sand. The situation is further aggravated by loss of faith in multilateralism, all the while the financial and economic aggression of the West is destroying the benefits of globalisation and Washington and its allies drop diplomacy and demand that things be sorted out “on the battlefield”. All of this is taking place within the walls of the UN, a body that was created to prevent the horrors of war. The voices of responsible and sensible forces, and calls to show political wisdom and revive the culture of dialogue, are drowned out by those who set out to undermine the fundamental principles of communication between countries. We must all return to our roots and comply with the UN Charter’s purposes and principles in all their diversity and interconnectedness.

At this juncture, genuine multilateralism requires that the UN adapt to objective developments in the process of forming a multipolar architecture of international relations. It is imperative to expedite Security Council reform by expanding the representation of countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The inordinate over-representation of the West in the UN’s main body undermines the principle of multilateralism.

Venezuela spearheaded the creation of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations. We call on all countries that respect the Charter to join. It is also important to use the constructive potential provided by BRICS and the SCO. The EAEU, the CIS, and the CSTO are all willing to contribute. We stand for using the potential of the regional associations of the Global South. The G20 can also be instrumental in maintaining multilateralism if its Western participants stop distracting their colleagues from priority items on its agenda in the hope of downplaying their responsibility for the pile-up of crises in the global economy.

It is our common duty to preserve the United Nations as the hard-won epitome of multilateralism and coordination of international politics. The key to success lies in working together, renouncing claims on exceptionalism and – I reiterate – showing respect for the sovereign equality of states. This is what we all signed up for when we ratified the UN Charter.

In 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested convening a summit of the UN Security Council permanent members. The leaders of China and France supported this initiative, but, unfortunately, it has not been brought to fruition. This issue is directly related to multilateralism – not because the five powers have certain privileges over the rest, but precisely because of their special responsibility under the UN Charter to preserve international peace and security. This is exactly what the imperatives of the UN-centric system, which is crumbling before our eyes as a result of the actions of the West, call for.

Concern about this situation can be increasingly heard in multiple initiatives and ideas from the Global South countries, ranging from East and Southeast Asia, the Arab and the Muslim world in its entirety, all the way to Africa and Latin America. We appreciate their sincere desire to ensure the settlement of current problems through honest collective work aimed at agreeing on a balance of interests based on the sovereign equality of states and indivisible security. We will continue to forge productive cooperation with them in the name of improving the international situation, while advancing communication between countries based on the principles of true multilateralism, international law, truth, and justice.

Source: eng.globalaffairs.ru

From March 24 to June 9, 1999, NATO bombed Serbia for 77 days. It was the first major war on European soil since the Second World War—even this fact is suppressed and denied today in view of the war in Ukraine.

War propaganda was in full swing at the time: NATO was laying waste to Serbian cities in order to defend “human rights” and to stop the “ethnic cleansing” Serbia was accused of carrying out in Kosovo. Greens, liberals and pseudo-left groups, who only a few weeks before had been invoking pacifism, eagerly took up this propaganda and switched to the war camp with flying colours. In Germany, the Greens and Social Democrats organised the first military combat mission involving German armed forces since Hitler’s defeat in 1945.

Now, the man whom Joe Biden embraced in 2009 and called the “George Washington of Kosovo” is facing a special court as a war criminal. On Monday, the trial of Hashim Thaçi, the co-founder and spokesman of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and later Kosovo’s foreign minister, head of government and president, began in The Hague.

The 70-page indictment accuses Thaçi and three other high-ranking KLA members—Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi—of being responsible for more than a hundred murders and numerous other war crimes in 1998 and 1999. All four are accused of having personally participated in threatening or abusing prisoners. The prosecution has handed over 56,000 documents to Thaçi’s defence lawyers that prove these accusations.

The indictment describes in detail the brutality with which the KLA acted against Serbs, Roma and other non-Albanians. Kosovo Albanians who opposed their policies and supported Thaçi’s rival Ibrahim Rugova, who advocated a peaceful solution to the conflict with Serbia, were mercilessly persecuted. The KLA ran numerous detention centres where several hundred inmates were held and, according to witnesses, abused with torture, mock executions and death threats.

Victims were beaten with guns, baseball bats, metal tools and wooden sticks and tortured using electric shocks or feigned drowning. Other prisoners and family members had to watch the torture or were forced to abuse one another. Others were shot by the dozens.

The killings continued even after NATO forced Kosovo to secede from Serbia and stationed its 50,000-strong Kosovo Force (KFOR) there. The KLA took revenge on Serbs, Roma and Rugova supporters, dozens of whom were murdered. Thaçi, whose wartime name was “The Snake,” was considered their strong man.

The Thaçi trial is an object lesson in imperialist war propaganda, which stops at no lie to camouflage its predatory and criminal aims. This applies not only to the war in Yugoslavia at the time but also to today’s war in Ukraine.

Here, too, criminals are celebrated as freedom fighters—who, like the members of the Azov Battalion, wear Nazi insignia and for eight years persecuted all those in eastern Ukraine who spoke Russian or had sympathies for Russia. Here, too, politicians—who hang on the apron strings of oligarchs and Western puppet masters, or like Ukraine’s President Zelensky unscrupulously send tens of thousands of young soldiers to their deaths for NATO’s goals—are glorified as democrats and freedom fighters.

The positive and negative signs are simply reversed. For example, for nine years, not a day has gone by without the media proclaiming that Russia’s annexation of Crimea was a violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, which was unacceptable under international law and historically unprecedented. But the immediate objective of the 1999 NATO war was to force Kosovo’s secession, which was indisputably part of Serbian territory under international law. After the war it was placed under international administration, and in 2008, against Serbia’s declared will, it proclaimed its state independence, which was immediately recognised by the US and most European states.

With the secession of Kosovo, a destitute province with 1.8 million inhabitants, the imperialist powers completed the division of Yugoslavia into seven powerless petty states completely dependent upon them. Above all, Serbia, traditionally politically and culturally linked to Russia, was thus to be isolated and weakened.

Hashim Thaçi played a key role in this criminal enterprise. In 1999, Madeleine Albright and Joschka Fischer, the foreign ministers of the US and Germany, invited the KLA spokesman to the Rambouillet Conference, where he provided NATO with the alibi for bombing Yugoslavia.

It was already known at the time that Thaçi’s KLA was carrying out terrorist attacks against Serbian targets and political opponents and financed itself through criminal enterprises, such as trafficking in drugs, women and human organs. The CIA had even classified the KLA as a terrorist organisation before NATO enlisted its services and reclassified it as a “liberation movement.”

After NATO forced the secession of Kosovo, it relied on Thaçi and the KLA to maintain “peace and order” there. After independence, Thaçi became foreign minister, prime minister and finally president of the new country, establishing a corrupt and criminal oligarchic regime.

While many Serb politicians were arrested and hauled before The Hague War Crimes Tribunal, Thaçi and the KLA leaders were under American and European protection. In Kosovo itself, they spread a climate of fear.

“Almost no one dared to testify against KLA veterans,” the Frankfurter Allgemeine described the situation in Kosovo after the Yugoslav war. “And those who did take the risk fared badly: Inexplicable car accidents with fatal outcomes, ‘suicides’ and sniper attacks could be the result.”

The Chief Prosecutor of The Hague Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte, also reported intimidation and terror in her memoirs published in 2009: “Witnesses were so fearful and intimidated that they were afraid to even talk about the presence of the KLA in some areas, let alone actual crimes.”

Those who spoke anyway put their lives in danger and had to be taken to other countries with their families, Del Ponte reports. Even members of the KFOR force and some Hague Tribunal judges were afraid of attacks.

The situation only changed when Swiss lawyer Dick Marty presented a comprehensive report on KLA crimes in 2011. Marty did this on behalf of the Council of Europe, to which 47 states belong and which is independent of the European Union.

The EU then appointed its own special investigator. It chose US lawyer John Clint Williamson, who was considered “credible” because he had co-authored the indictment against Serb leader Slobodan Milošević. After more than two years, Williamson concluded that Marty’s accusations were solidly substantiated.

Now the EU felt compelled to set up a special court in The Hague, formally part of Kosovo’s judicial system but staffed by foreign judges and prosecutors and financed by European funds.

The special court investigated for over five years without any charges being brought. Presumably the whole thing would have fizzled out had it not been for conflicts between the US and the EU.

Richard Grenell, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019 as special envoy for negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo, worked closely with President Thaçi, while the EU leaned on his rival, head of government Albin Kurti. When Thaçi was about to leave for a summit meeting with Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić at the White House in Washington in June 2020, the Special Court published the indictment. Thaçi had to cancel the trip and resign.

The fact that the trial finally opened two and a half years after the indictment was published does not at all mean that Thaçi will eventually be convicted. According to the presiding judge, the trial is expected to last several years. The accused are being defended by top US law firms. And several prominent individuals, including the NATO Supreme Commander in the Yugoslav war Wesley Clark and the former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, are expected to testify in support of Thaçi.

But even Thaçi’s lawyers do not deny that the crimes described in the indictment took place. They are pursuing a familiar defence strategy from the Nuremberg trials of the Nazi war criminals: The KLA units had indeed committed crimes, but Thaçi, founding member, commander and official spokesman of the KLA, had known nothing about them!

In any case, the trial of Thaçi has already shattered the lies with which the Yugoslav war was justified. The WSWS had already categorically rejected this “clumsy and cynical propaganda campaign,” pointed out the real reasons for the war and campaigned for the building of an antiwar movement of the international working class based on a socialist programme.

An article posted in the WSWS on May 24, 1999 titled “Why is NATO at war with Yugoslavia? World Power, Oil and Gold” [1], stated: “Once the fraudulent claims of the NATO spokesmen and the falsifications of the media are stripped away from this war, what remains? A naked aggression by imperialist countries against a small federation, in which the official reasons given for the onslaught serve as a smokescreen.”

The article linked the Yugoslav war to US plans to dominate the Eurasian landmass and warned: “The potential for a conflict with Russia, it should now be clear, has actually increased over the past ten years.” This warning has since been dramatically borne out.

——-

[1] David North, A Quarter Century of War: The US Drive for Global Hegemony 1990-2016, Oak Park, MI: Mehring Books, 2016, p. 123

Source: defenddemocracy.press

Živadin Jovanović,
Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Speech at the Round Table “NATO Aggression – 24 years on”,
held on March 23, 2023, held in the House of the Serbian Armed Forces

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There has been almost a quarter of a century since NATO aggression on Serbia and Montenegro (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). During the aggression, some 4,000 of our fellow citizens were killed and twice as many injured. Three quarters of casualties were civilians, among them sadly a large number of children, from Milica Rakić, a toddler from Batajnica, to Sanja Milenković Serbia’s high school champion in mathematics from Varvarin. It will hardly ever be precisely determined how many more victims succumbed to delayed effects of weapons filled with depleted uranium, toxic chemical agents, or unexploded cluster bombs. It is for all of them why we have gathered as we are getting together, today it is here, as is each and every year throughout the country, across Europe and other continents, wherever there is one of us. We pay tribute and dedicate our thoughts and prayers to them, all the fallen heroes of our defense, all the innocent victims.

Serbia has not recovered yet from the pain and injustice, either spiritually or materially. In the very heart of Belgrade, we are still passing by the destroyed buildings whose gaping ruins make a lasting reminder of the deeds of our partners. As we praise donations they make, we still refrain from filing the announced but forgotten claims for war damages. It is hard to estimate to which extent this reflects our desire to be constructive, realistic, and respected. It might be a good idea to have the ruined structures of the Military General Staff and the Police declared and protected as monuments of culture, not merely because this would require less funds, but rather because it would make more sense that either their reconstruction or erection of brand-new edifices.

It was a crime against peace and humanity, against a country which posed no threat to anyone, the least of all to NATO or its members. Today, we are warning, not just repeating the truth, when we say that NATO aggression was carried out in violation of the fundamental principles of international affairs, the UN Charter, the OSCE Helsinki Final Act, and the Paris Charter; when we say that, five and a half decades since the end of World War Two, NATO reintroduced the war on European soil; that bombs and cruise missiles killed citizens of Serbia but were nonetheless intended for others as well; that, while raining down, they also dismantled the European and global architecture of security and cooperation; that, in its essence, it was a war against Europe waged by Europe itself; that it served as a case precedent for the ensuing wars of conquest and coups within the proclaimed strategy of Eastward expansion and a deceptive democratization; that NATO, by virtue of its aggression against Serbia and Montenegro (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) marked its 50th anniversary by transitioning from a defensive and a regional into an invading alliance with global hegemonistic goals.
What prompts us to reiterate the above now, 24 years on, has in the least to do with habits, rituals or being stuck in the past, since we do it exclusively for the sake of the present and the future. For the sake of peace, security and progress as equal and unalienable values shared by all peoples and countries.

We also do this because the recent messages and views from Brussels, Ohrid, Washington and some other destinations warn us that the aggression against Serbia continues, albeit with other means but nonetheless with the same goal: to disenfranchise and humiliate the entire Serbian people in the Balkans and make them permanently shift away from their traditional friends and their support, and to renounce their statehood rights to the Province of Kosovo and Metohija. The past 24 years and the contemporary developments reconfirm, time and again, that the true goal of the aggression was to carve Kosovo and Metohija out from Serbia, together with overthrowing President Slobodan Milošević and, ultimately, transforming the Balkans into a springboard for warpath against the East.

Having in mind all past experiences and trends that brought about profound changes in global relations, I am convinced that the best path forward for Serbia is to reaffirm an independent, neutral and well-balanced foreign policy, to preserve and strengthen relations with traditional friends and allies, and to remain open for equal-footed relations and cooperation with all countries and integrations that endorse Serbia as an equal partner. Any just and durable solution for the province of Kosovo and Metohija is only possible with the consistent observance of the Constitution of Serbia, the fundamental principles of international law, and UN Security Council Resolution 1244 in its capacity of a permanent and irrevocable legal duty. This is the only solution capable of serving the interests of lasting peace, security, and cooperation. Any other status imposed by force, threats and/or extortion, regardless of the form it assumes, cannot transform into a right or compromise, nor can it evolve into contribution to peace. Quite the contrary.

If I may suggest that we send three pleas from this gathering:
First, to resume the work of the Parliamentary Committee for Establishing Consequences of the Use of Weapons Filled with Depleted Uranium during NATO Aggression, and then related Governmental Interdepartmental Body;
Second, that the work on compiling the list of all civilian victims of the aggression is completed before next March’s 25th anniversary of NATO aggression;
And third, to analyze how has NATO aggression been portrayed and processed in relevant teaching units in textbooks at all levels of education, so to ensure the preservation of truth.
I assume there is no need to further elaborate these suggestion.

Thank you!

Open whole document here: eirdailyalertv10n8720230329wed.pdf

Zhivadin Yovanovitch noted that the agreement between Moscow and Minsk followed the announcement of the UK about plans to supply depleted uranium shells to Kyiv

BELGRADE, March 26. /TASS/. The deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus can be seen as a response to the actions of countries of the collective West, ex-Foreign Minister of former Yugoslavia Zivadin Jovanovic told TASS on Sunday.

"I think that the agreement on the deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus is a very serious response and a warning to the so-called collective West (the United States, NATO, the European Union). It is a response to the escalation and the direct influence by NATO countries into the conflict in Ukraine, to the reckless actions to add fuel to the fire by means of advanced weapons, intermediate-range missiles, tanks, warplanes and other offensive weapons for targeting Russia’s territory. The agreement between Russia and Belarus followed the statement that the United Kingdom and some other NATO countries plan to supply Kiev with shells with depleted uranium, which can be interpreted as the beginning of the use of nuclear weapons against Russian troops and Russia. NATO’s propaganda is seeking to underplay the danger of such weapons, which, as a matter of fact, are weapons of mass destruction," he said.

He stressed that the use of such shells in 1995 and 1999 had caused the growth of cancer incidence in former Yugoslavia. "Or better, let them ask the families of hundreds of Italian, Spanish and other soldiers who died after returning from the KFOR (NATO-led international security force in Kosovo) mission how "healthy" it is to spend time in places where shells with depleted uranium were used. Finally, if these shells are harmless, as they claim, then why their use has been banned in NATO (EU) member countries?!" Jovanovic noted.

According to the former top Yugoslav diplomat, the collective West has deployed large bases with nuclear weapons in many European countries, namely Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Turkey, Greece, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Poland and Romania have construed so called missile defense shields capable of launching nuclear warheads. Moreover, some countries, which don’t have nuclear weapons so far, allocate huge sums to buy advanced US bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Why spending huge amounts of money if not because of plans to possess nuclear warheads!"For instance, in addition to its regular [military] budget, Germany has allocated an extra sum of 100 billion euro to purchase American F-16A bombers. Last but not least, the doctrine of the preemptive use of nuclear weapons is related to the collective West," he stressed.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday that at Belarus’ request Russia will deploy its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, like the United States has long been doing on the territories of its allied countries. Moscow has already transferred to Minsk an Iskander system that can use nuclear weapons. According to the Russian leader, the construction of a depot for tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus is expected to be completed on July 1.

26 March, 2023.

Source: tass.com

More than a decade and a half after the US-led NATO’s war of aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SRJ) in violation of international law using highly toxic and radioactive uranium shells, the enormity of this war crime is becoming clear.

In Serbia, aggressive cancer among young and old has reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The suffering of the people cries out to heaven. The south of Serbia and Kosovo are particularly affected. According to the Serbian Ministry of Health, a child falls ill with cancer every day. The entire country is contaminated. Due to the damage to the genetic material (DNA), generations upon generations of deformed children will be born. Knowingly and willingly, genocide has been committed.

Until recently, the politicians, with the help of the media, withheld the truth from the unsettled citizens of Serbia under pressure from the perpetrators of the genocide. Courageous and responsible doctors, ex-military, ex-politicians and scientists have now succeeded in breaking through this wall of silence – for the benefit of the Serbian people and the many other peoples of this world who share their fate.
Uranium weapons are weapons of mass destruction

When the USA used the defoliant “Agent Orange” and napalm in Vietnam, the world was horrified. That was no longer war, that was butchery of the civilian population and lasting destruction of nature. Fifty years later, generation after generation is born severely disabled – born to die. But the weapons industry, including the nuclear weapons industry, has rapidly developed its business since Vietnam. All wars are illegal wars of aggression according to the legal standards of the Nuremberg Tribunal, and they are becoming ever more murderous, insidious, widespread, genocidal. This was also the case with the first war of the US-led NATO on European soil against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999.

Here, with the tacit acquiescence of NATO allies – including Germany – the US army used weapons of mass destruction that it had already tested in the 2nd Gulf War in 1991 and in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1994/95: highly toxic and radioactive uranium weapons. NATO itself has admitted that it has fired 30,000 shells with depleted uranium (DU), the Serbian military speaks of 50,000 shells. This is equivalent to 10 to 15 tonnes of uranium.

Since extensive scientific literature and film material (“Deadly Dust”) on this war crime are already available in German, English and Serbian, here are just a few comments:

Because of the long degradation process of radioactivity and its toxicity, waste from the uranium and nuclear industry – mainly DU of the isotope 238 – is stored in secured dumps for a very long period of time. To reduce the high costs associated with this, DU is therefore readily given away free of charge to interested parties such as the military. DU has characteristics that are particularly attractive to the defence industry.

According to Professor Siegwart-Horst Günther, DU projectiles developed according to a German technology have a high penetrating power due to the high density of metallic uranium (1.7 times greater than that of lead) and are especially suitable for breaking steel armour and underground concrete bunkers. DU is also a combustible material that self-ignites when it penetrates armour plate, burning at 3,000 degrees Celsius to form uranium oxide dust and releasing highly toxic and radioactive material (uranium oxide).
Twenty-three Years Ago: Aftermath of the US-NATO War on Yugoslavia. The Unspoken Impacts of Radioactive Depleted Uranium Ammunition

This uranium oxide aerosol with particle sizes in the nanoscale enters the human body via the air we breathe, the water and, in the long term, also via the food chain.

In the lungs, the DU dust particles are also attached to the red and white blood cells and thus enter all organs of the body, including the brain, kidneys and testicles, causing cancer in many organs and irreversible damage to the genetic material (DNA). The strong carcinogenicity of DU is due to the fact that chemotoxicity and radiotoxicity act synergistically.

DU can also reach an unborn child via the placenta and cause severe damage. Possible long-term damage includes genetic defects in infants, childhood leukaemia, cancer and kidney damage. Since the uranium oxide particles have taken on the property of ceramics due to the heat of combustion, they are insoluble in water, are fixed in this form in the body and can develop their radioactive effect (alpha radiation) for years.
War with uranium weapons is genocide brought about knowingly and willingly

For biochemist Albrecht Schott, DU is an example of interventions in creation that endanger it existentially, and thus not a weapon against states, but a weapon against the planet. The well-known German journalist and filmmaker Frieder Wagner calls uranium weapons “weapons of extermination” and the victims of these murderous weapons the “dead of silent death”. Uranium weapons are the “perfect weapon” to kill masses of people, that is, to commit genocide.

Since the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, genocide has been a criminal offence under international criminal law that is not subject to a statute of limitations. It is characterised by the specific intention to destroy, directly or indirectly, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, in whole or in part. This is why genocide is also called a “unique crime”, a “crime of crimes” or the “worst crime in international criminal law”.

The Australian doctor, nuclear weapons specialist and peace activist Helen Caldicott writes in her book “Nuclear Danger USA”:

“It is clear that the Pentagon knew about the health risks posed by uranium-containing munitions long before Operation Desert Storm [2nd Gulf War 1991; the author]. Numerous military reports acknowledge that uranium-238 can cause kidney damage, lung and bone cancer, (non-malignant) lung disease, skin disease, neurocognitive disorders, chromosomal damage and birth defects.”

For this reason, wars involving the use of highly toxic and radioactive uranium weapons are both war crimes and knowingly and willingly committed genocide – including the war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. Under the UN Convention against Genocide, the Parties to the Convention undertake to punish genocide or persons committing genocide, whether they are governments, public officials or private individuals.
Aggressive cancers in Serbia reach epidemic proportions

The bombing of Serbia lasted 78 days. In the process, 1,031 soldiers were killed, 5,173 soldiers and police officers were wounded, 2,500 civilians died – including 78 children – and over 6,000 civilians were wounded. In addition to the projectiles with DU, which also contained traces of highly toxic plutonium, other explosive combinations and rocket fuels with certain chemical compounds were used, which have a very toxic effect when exploded and cause cancer. The number of these cancers grew year by year. Also, the number of newborns with deformities and those with aggressive childhood leukaemia increased.

More than a year ago, estimates by the Serbian Association for Cancer Control became known: Studies had shown that the use of uranium weapons had led to 15,000 cases of cancer and 10,000 deaths between 2001 and 2010, according to the head of the association and oncologist Prof. Slobodan Cikaric, MD. In total, there were 330,000 cancer cases in Serbia during this period. The death rate has increased by 2.5 per cent annually since 1999.

Back in 2013, Professor Cikaric said in the Serbian newspaper Blic that 14 years after the DU bombing, Serbia was expecting an explosion of cancers of all kinds. He was to be proved right. What is reported are breakdowns of the immune system with increasing cases of infectious diseases, severe functional disorders of the kidneys and liver, aggressive leukaemias and other cancers (including multiple cancers), disorders of the bone marrow, genetic defects and malformations, as well as miscarriages and premature births in pregnant women as after the Chernobyl disaster.

If you read a Serbian newspaper today or walk through a Serbian cemetery, you will notice the short lifespan of many of the deceased in the page-long obituaries or epitaphs. In each case it should read: “Died as a result of DU poisoning and radiation”.

Many citizens of Serbia are psychologically burdened because of their years of pity for sick relatives and because of the anxious waiting if and when they too might be caught up by one of the terrible and mostly fatal diseases. Even if most of them suspect the cause of the serious illnesses, there is still a great deal of uncertainty that triggers persistent feelings of stress.

Politicians in Serbia as well as in the other DU-contaminated countries in the Near and Middle East and in the NATO countries themselves have deliberately not informed the population. Among other things, they wanted to avoid recourse claims and continue their murderous trade undisturbed. Stress, anxiety and depression additionally weaken the already burdened immune system and lead to a higher susceptibility to infections. This is shown by research results from the interdisciplinary field of psycho-neuro-immunology (PNI).
The people have the right to the truth

In order to be able to organise one’s own life and that of one’s family satisfactorily, to make provisions for the future or, as a married couple, to decide whether or not to have children, every citizen must be able to realistically assess the economic, social and political conditions in his or her country. But they cannot do this if they are deprived of the truth about incidents that can severely affect their lives. Therefore, it is a moral obligation of all those who have dealt with the problem of contamination in the country – doctors, scientists, journalists, military personnel and civilians affected by contamination – to educate and assist their fellow citizens.

In addition, the identity of a nation is based on the citizens’ right to truth and knowledge of their history. Historians and representatives of other sciences have an important contribution to make. However, the debate must not be left to them alone. The search for truth and the enlightenment of the people is also a political task that must be solved by political leaders and must not be prevented by them under any circumstances. Government and parliament have to take a stand. How can citizens trust a government or people’s representation that withholds the truth from them about a problem that affects them existentially?

Note to readers:

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is a school rector, educational scientist and graduate psychologist. After his university studies, he became an academic teacher in adult education. As a retiree he worked as a psychotherapist in his own practice. In his books and professional articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral education in values as well as an education for public spirit and peace. In 2021, he was awarded the Republic Prize “Captain Misa Anastasijevic” by the Universities of Belgrade and Novi Sad for services to Serbia.

Source: globalresearch.ca

This March 24rth, the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, Generals and Admirals Association of Serbia, Veterans Association SUBNOR of Serbia and some other independent associations and think tanks, will mark 24rth anniversary of the NATO aggression on Serbia and Montenegro (FR of Yugoslavia) honoring fallen heroes of the defense of the country as well as all the victims of this illegal and criminal act.

As it is widely recognized, this aggression was undertaken in violation of the basic principles of International Law, including violation of the UN Charter and without authorization of the UN Security Council. Having regard that Yugoslavia was not a threat to any NATO member country, the NATO leadership thus violated even its own founding act while NATO member countries violated their own constitutions insofar that they acted without authorization of their respective parliaments.

At the NATO high level conference held 28-30 of April 2000. in Bratislava USA representatives have confirmed explicitly to the allies and then candidate allies, three important the motives for the "war against Yugoslavia": first, to take away Kosovo (and Metohija) from Serbia and make it separate, independent state; second, to turn it into the Balkans carrier of US troupes; and, third, to make precedent for military interventions all around the world without seeking UN SC mandate.

While it was falsely presented by natiozied mass media as "humanitarian intervention", in fact it was the war of NATO/US geo-political expansion towards East, towards Russian borders, also setting the precedent for other aggressions which followed - Avganistan, Irak, Libya, Syria... Immediate establishment of the major US military base "Bondstil", near Urosevac, Kosovo and Metohija, was only the first in a long chain of the new US military bases in the central and Eastern Europe - Bulgaria (3), Rumania (3), Poland...

Thus NATO did not only bring the first war on European soil but at the same time gave extraordinary impetus to the process of intensive militarization of the Old Continent. All member countries were obliged to meet 2% of their GDP military spending, to adapt civilian infrastructure to the new military requirements, to limit sale of major companies to only EU and NATO prospective investors ("for security reasons"), not to import new technologies from "unreliable suppliers" (5G), not to buy gas and oil from from those who use them "to undermine security of Europe".

Messiles, including those with depleted uranium bombs, including cluster bombs, had definitely been falling on Serbia and Montenegro, killing their citizens and destroying their economy. Sebia still is recovering from immense economic and social losses. Belgrade and other major cities, even in the very central parts, still continue to live with ruins and debris  of government and other buildings bombed by NATO. But at the same time NATO 1999 aggression on Serbia and Montenegro (FRY) had destroyed the whole security and cooperation architecture of Europe and the world, annulling Teheran, Jalta, Potsdam, Helsinki and other agreements and pillars of the post Second World War Order, thus ushering disorder, insecurity, even, chaos.

NATO aggression ended by the UN SC resolution 1244 (1999) guaranteeing sovereignty and territorial integrity of FRY (Serbia) and large autonomy for the Province of Kosovo and Metohija within Serbia. The aggression, however, has continued ever since by other means. The objective to take out the Autonomous Province from Serbia, got a new framework.While the Province has been under UN mandate and KFOR mostly composed of NATO troops empowered to guarantee equal security for all, about 250.000 Serbs and other non-Albanians have been  purged, their homes burnt, lands usurped. In 2008, former KLA terrorist leadership, proclaimed unilateral secession. NATO&EU countries, with exception of Spain, Romania, Slovakia, Greece and Cyprus, were among first to recognize secession fully aware that it was contrary to the international law, UN SC 1244 resolution, and Serbia`s Constitution.

Lately, Serbia is under unprecedented pressure from the USA/NATO/EU not to oppose Kosovo`s membership in the international organizations, including UN, to establish good neighboring relations based on equality, mutual respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity, to mutually recognize state and national symbols, establish quasi diplomatic relations. Under the guise of "normalization of relations" the West, led by the USA, seeks  in fact to oblige Serbia to de facto recognize a new state of Kosovo resulting from the NATO 1999 aggression. Promises of membership to the EU, investments and donations are being exploited to lure Serbia to recognize secession of the part of own state territory, thus renouncing of all the rights based on the international law, UN Charter, UN SC guaranties as well as on own Constitution. All these demands are contained in the so called "Agreement on the path of normalization of relations between Kosovo and Serbia" presented to Serbia on February 27th, 2023 and confirmed on March 18, 2023, in Ohrid, Northern Macedonia, in the form of an, more or less, open ultimatum. Interestingly, this ultimatum, accompanied with the threats of economic, financial and other measures and restrictions in the case of non compliance, will be confirmed by European Council on March 24rth, 2023, the date when exactly 24 years ago NATO started bombing Belgrade, Pristine and other cities all over Serbia.

What are real reasons for all these? To make Kosovo eligible to join NATO and even unite with Albania; to establish complete NATO-ionization of the Balkans, encompassing Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina; to push away Russian and Chinese presence from the Balkans; to remove objection of five EU member states (four NATO) to the recognition of unilateral secession of Kosovo, thus reestablishing unity within alliances.

The NATO aggression on Serbia and Montenegro (FRY) in 1999, was the turning point of the Alliance from defensive to aggressive, of Europe partially autonomous to complete submission to the USA in pursuit of globalization of the interventionism and global confrontation with Russia and China. Although, it did appear the peak of unipollar arrogance and USA/NATO hegemony, it was wake up call to everybody who believe in new democratic world order

Zivadin Jovanovic,
Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals,
March 19th, 2023

Delegation of the Chinese Association for International Understanding (CAFIU) paid visit to the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals. The hosts and the guests exchanged opinions on mutual cooperation, also including the positions on the ongoing happenings in Euro-Asia. It was assessed that the countries of growing economic and political power are making decisive contributions to the development of a new and just world order, one that is based on sovereign equality, non-interference in internal affairs, and democratization. it was further concluded that the vast majority of countries in the world embrace the multipolar world.

A joint evaluation was made that associations, scientific and cultural organizations have a vital role in promoting the understanding and the equal and mutually beneficial cooperation between Serbia and China as comprehensively strategic partners.

Representative of the Belgrade Forum underlined that the Global Security Initiative of Xi Jinping, the President of the People's Republic of China and the 12-point plan for peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, are examples of the positive, constructive, and responsible role of China at the times of escalating tensions, divisions, and overall danger of uncontrolled developments.

It was affirmed that peace and security are indivisible, and that success in identifying a peaceful solution to any conflict or problem primarily depends on the accurate determination of the root causes and their removal.

Participants expressed mutual interest in expanding and further improving the existing good cooperation.

THE BELGRADE FORUM INFORMATION SERVICE

Dear Mr. Lajcak,

May we advise you not to overload EU boat with seventeen new models for the community of Serbian districts in Kosovo and Metohija . Let as stay with the single model defined  duly sight by the so-called parties and EU in 2013, and elaborated in details in 2015.

And also, let us not be mistaken any community of Serbian districts in Kosovo and Methija, has to be in the framework of UN Resolution 1244, guaranteeing  sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia.

Please stay consistent and predictable, truly yours,

Živadin Jovanović
President of Belgrade forum for a world of equals

The West isn't looking to stop the Ukraine crisis but to protract it to the benefit of its own interest and hegemony, a former Serbian senior diplomat has said.

Source: english.news.cn

In its response to the EU/US pressuring Serbia to accelerate, step-by-step, her recognition of unilateral and illegal secession of Kosovo and Metohija, the Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals hereby recalls the following:
Priština’s unilateral secession is the outcome of NATO aggression carried out 24 years ago. The purpose of this armed aggression was to assert dominance in the Balkans, as a part of NATO’s strategy of expanding eastwards and setting the grounds for confrontation with Russia. The goal of the extended aggression, articulated as the ultimatum for Serbia to recognize Kosovo, remains the same – to formalize the wresting the Province out of Serbia by force, to pit Serbia against both Russia and China, and to get ready for the global face-off.

The armed part of the aggression ended with negotiations, and negotiations ended with the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 that, inter alia, guarantees the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) whereas for the Province of Kosovo and Metohija is foreseen substantial autonomy within Serbia (the FRY).

UN SC Resolution 1244 is a document of the highest legal authority and force within the existing global legal order, one that binds each of 193 members of the United Nations, without exceptions and without any time constraints. This legal act is still in force and no other than the UN Security Council is entitled to cancel or alter it, nor violate it by imposing any kind of a different solution. Serbia’s vital interest is that this Resolution be duly observed and fully implemented.

From its opening recital to its closing Article 11, the “EU Proposal-Agreement on the path to normalisation between Kosovo and Serbia” published on the European Union website on February 27, 2023, is but a gross violation of UN SC Resolution 1244, the principles of international law, and the Constitution of Serbia. EU’s endeavors vis-à-vis Serbia, as an old European country and a member of the United Nations and other international organizations, employing threats and extortion to compel Serbia to concede to becoming an equal in terms of rights and obligations with her own Autonomous Province, now entrusted to an interim UN mandate, makes a one-of-a-kind episode in recent history that embodies arrogant and arbitrary behaving, violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity, abuse of a UN General Assembly mandate, and setting of a precedent with a hard-to-predict consequences for peace and security in the Balkans and in Europe.
Serbia is requested to reduce own constitutionally established and internationally recognized state territory with which she became member to the United Nations, OSCE, and all other international organizations, by ceding it to a criminally superimposed creation (Articles 2 and 4).

The ‘Proposal-Agreement’ is teeming with contradictory provisions and formal symmetries, each detrimental to Serbia’s vital interests. The authors made sure to leave room for ‘Parties’ to sell victory to their respective public, each in its own way. If the ‘Proposal-Agreement’ were accepted, it is beyond any doubt that disputes would be decided by the EU/US, just as is clear that their ruling, as always before, would be to Serbia’s detriment.

The official narrative is that ‘Proposal-Agreement’ was not signed, without stating whether it was verbally endorsed or not; differing information and interpretations swirling around only cause confusion among the public. In given backdrop, the consent of all participants to negotiate the implementation of this ‘Proposal-Agreement’— one that has not been signed or confirmed as endorsed, that has not been published in any institution or official medium in Serbia — is nothing short of amazing. Such an attitude is incompatible with the fateful significance of the matter at hand.

Serbia and the Serbian people are faced with EU/US attempt of a historic hoax. The solution is not in acceptance of this hoax while citing the preserving of peace and prospects for progress and a better life as an excuse. Any solution that is inherently unjust and imposed under threats and fraud and that serves the global confrontation, can be anything except a contributing factor to peace, development, and a better life. We must diverge from any plans or forecasts still based on theses invoking ‘end of history’ and any inducements to permanently renounce our enduring life interests for the sake of small shiny offers and benefits.

The EU has shown its true colors also back in 2013, by compelling Serbia to withdraw state institutions in the north of the Province, the police and judiciary including, for the promise of an established Community of Serbian Municipalities (the CSM). We all know what followed there, and in particular the outcome of NATO’s broken promise not to allow deployment of anyone’s long-barreled arms to the north: not only did we get long-barreled guns but also erected military camps, land grab, and full militarization in the north! Ten years on, the EU/US once again offer promises of the CSM, only this time as a package – “both implementation of the ‘EU Proposal-Agreement’ and a CSM compliant with the Constitution of the so-called Kosovo”. Suffice to say of respecting the document signed. And we may as well have a déjà vu – implementation of the ‘EU Proposal-Agreement’ only! But – we are soothed – there will be guarantees! Whose?! Of those same ones who have previously been granting but never honoring them?!

The promises of investments and donations should Serbia renounced her state rights to a part of her state territory, at the expense of her dignity and identity, is an example of aggressiveness exerted by the revived neo-colonial and neo-racist mentality and utter hypocrisy, which we have mistakenly believed had been long ago consigned to history.
The time we live in is of historical significance. It requires Serbia to be inspired and invigorated by her greatest feats in the most grueling historical turning points, to get back to self-respecting, and to generally endorsed principles, the Constitution and UN SC Resolution 1244 as the only reliable supports. To not put up with the deviously planted mentality of subservience, dependance and powerlessness. To respect to a greater degree her own human, scientific, cultural, spiritual, economic, geopolitical, and natural potentials. And to not negotiate the issues that restrict her sovereignty and territorial integrity in the same package with the foreign-granted benefits, and especially not for fear of losing someone’s mercy. Whatever the volume of such benefits, it will never come close to the amount of damage sustained by the criminal ‘Merciful Angel’.

In our relationship with the EU, as well, we should be guided by the principle that Serbia needs others as much as they need Serbia, instead of being guided by ‘realism’ into accepting of our own free will to succumb the inferiority complex. It is high time we took more into account and in a more responsible way, all that Serbia and the Serbian people have experienced and survived throughout history and who from, while keeping in mind that neocolonial appetites are insatiable.
In our relations with the EU and the West in general we must embed, once and forever, the feeling of what Serbia gave to Europe while sacrificing millions of human lives, whom no one has yet acknowledged and for whom no one has yet apologized. If they belittle us, if they blackmail us, this is because we belittle ourselves.

We must not rely on promises and guarantees offered by those who most often betrayed us.

BELGRADE FORUM FOR THE WORLD OF EQUALS
Belgrade, March 7, 2023

L'UE afferma di essere neutrale circa il Kosovo, per quanto riguarda il suo status.
O perlomeno  l'UE non ha dichiarato di separarsi dalla situazione di neutralità del suo status. Nel settembre 2019, l'Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite ha accolto con favore "la disponibilità dell'Unione europea a facilitare un processo di dialogo tra le parti", sulla base della dichiarata neutralità dello status dell'UE.

L'ultima"proposta" di Scholz-Macron non è che un ultimatum, che richiede alla Serbia di riconoscere l'indipendenza unilaterale illegale del cosiddetto Kosovo, accompagnata da un elenco di minacce di ciò che accadrà alla Serbia se non si conformerà. Inoltre, in questo ultimatum è dichiarato che è la posizione dell'intera UE. La sua vera natura non è mutata dall'essere presentato al popolo serbo come "un nuovo quadro negoziale dell'UE sostenuto dagli Stati Uniti". Un ultimatum resta un ultimatum, qualunque sia l'involucro.

Dobbiamo dire la verità: in primo luogo, che l'UE ha drasticamente abbandonato la sua neutralità di status e, in secondo luogo, che l'ultimo documento ( da chiunque sia stato scritto, seguito o sostenuto) è la prova che l'Unione europea esce tacitamente oltre il mandato assegnatogli dall'Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite. Non ho alcun dubbio sul fatto che questa questione sia della massima importanza per la Serbia e che sia un'impresa da pazzi cercare di comportarsi come se si trattasse di incombenze usuali. Perché, se di fronte allo scenario in cui la decisione, giuridicamente vincolante, del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite non viene rispettata e gli orientamenti politici dell'Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite sul mandato dell'UE di "facilitare il dialogo tra le parti" vengono ignorati, abbiamo la responsabilità e il dovere di dire ad alta voce che questo non è normale, non è vantaggioso per la fiducia reciproca e non è accettabile per la Serbia.

Anzi, non dovrebbe essere normale o accettabile per qualsiasi stato membro in buona fede delle Nazioni Unite. Se siamo d'accordo che gli eventi in corso riguardano gli interessi vitali e strategici della Serbia, se siamo fiduciosi che le nostre posizioni e punti di vista sono giusti, basati sui principi e ben fondati, cosa di cui siamo certi, e se una delle parti si irrita per questo, ci rammarichiamo, ma ciò nonostante dobbiamo mantenere la nostra posizione e non ritirarci. Non dobbiamo lasciarci trasportare dall'attuale stato di avanzamento del confronto o lasciarci influenzare da interessi a breve termine. Dobbiamo discernere le tendenze strategiche e articolare le nostre posizioni sulla base delle nostre esperienze, lezioni insegnateci dalla storia e le tendenze generali valutate con tutti gli aspetti fondamentali, invece che da ogni singola angolazione. Temo che, come paese e nazione, siamo stati continuamente esposti a un'influenza eccessiva della propaganda, delle opinioni e degli interessi unilaterali dell'Occidente. Questo non può essere un bene per noi, nemmeno se nasce da buone intenzioni; quando diviene un precursore della strategia dell'egemonia e del dominio, può diventare chiaramente disastroso. L'unica vera chiave per la pace, la sicurezza e una vita migliore per tutte le nazioni dei Balcani, compresi i popoli serbo e albanese, risiede nell'osservanza dei principi fondamentali del Diritto internazionale, della Carta delle Nazioni Unite e dell'attuazione coerente della risoluzione del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite 1244. Niente di tutto ciò si trova nel cosiddetto piano Scholz-Macron, presentato al pubblico come una sorta di "nuovo quadro negoziale dell'UE, sostenuto dagli USA" o come "accordo di base" tra la Serbia e il cosiddetto Kosovo . Il piano Scholz-Macron non è un quadro per i negoziati o per qualsiasi soluzione giusta o sostenibile. Questo è un piano per schiacciare la Serbia. Se possibile, con il consenso della Serbia. Se il piano Scholz-Macron è la chiave di tutto, nel contempo non è la chiave per la pace, la stabilità e il progresso di qualsiasi regione, nazione o Europa nel suo insieme. È il piano per il dominio totale della NATO guidata dagli USA sul popolo serbo e sui Balcani, e per impostare i Balcani come palcoscenico strategico nella guerra globale contro Russia e Cina. È la base del titano che continua a schiacciare la Serbia e l'intera nazione serba nei Balcani. Se il loro piano avesse avuto qualche buona intenzione, si sarebbero sforzati di fare almeno riferimento alle garanzie del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'ONU nei confronti della Serbia, date dai loro predecessori il 10 giugno 1999. Se fossero stati di principio, se davvero volevano rispettare principi e diritto internazionale, se hanno perseguito una politica possibile come si aspettano che facciano gli altri, perché dovrebbero tenersi alla larga dalle Nazioni Unite e dalle decisioni prese dal Consiglio di Sicurezza? Dal momento che non lo erano, e non l'hanno fatto, la Serbia dovrebbe rimanere fedele a se stessa, al suo popolo, ai suoi antenati, al suo patrimonio storico e alle conquiste durature appartenenti alla civiltà mondiale. Perché avevano bisogno della Meloni? Per aiutare Macron ad annacquare il suo ruolo poco onorevole nel "duetto" con Scholz? O per rafforzare congiuntamente la dimensione europea del "Piano"? O forse aiutare Roma, come vicina, a rivendicare un pezzo di merito per la concretizzazione connivente della Grande Albania? A parte gli Stati Uniti come mente, al trio manca ancora Rishi Sunak ( il neo premier inglese, ndt)per riprendere il ruolo di Neville Chamberlain, così da fare una replica di "salvare la pace" nel 1938 a Berchtesgaden almeno come convincimento che la prima copia fu 85 anni fa. In base all'"Accordo di Bruxelles" del 2013, la Serbia ha ritirato il proprio ordinamento giuridico e costituzionale e le proprie istituzioni nel nord della provincia del Kosovo. A sua volta, seppur solo sulla carta, la Serbia ha assicurato alla Comunità dei comuni serbi (CCS) poteri esecutivi. Ora, dopo dieci anni passati a 'tendere la corda' fino a spezzarla, sembra che gli avversari della Serbia, la leadership serba giura che questa corda è 'l'unica alternativa', siano decisi a costringere la Serbia a pagare ancora una volta un prezzo per l'istituzione della CCS,  e cioè una CCS vuota, assoggettata alla cosiddetta Costituzione del Kosovo. Per questo magro guadagno, la Serbia dovrebbe accettare che il piano/accordo Scholz-Macron sia una buona base per la ripresa dei negoziati che porteranno alla conclusione di un "accordo completo e giuridicamente vincolante sulla normalizzazione". Quindi, USA, UE, NATO e Priština proclameranno e spiegheranno che "normalizzazione" significa riconoscimento reciproco, creazione di "relazioni di buon vicinato", rispetto della reciprocità, della sovranità e dell'integrità territoriale delle "parti" e della cosiddetta piena adesione del Kosovo nelle organizzazioni internazionali, comprese le Nazioni Unite e simili. Se la Serbia accetta ciò che è stato escogitato da coloro che le preparano sempre la stessa trappola, potrebbe anche articolare il suo consenso in modo diverso, ma questo di per sé non modificherebbe molto lo svolgersi degli eventi a scapito della Serbia.

È molto rischioso affidarsi alle garanzie date da chi ha già dimostrato di non aver mai mantenuto la parola data, invece di insistere sulle garanzie esistenti date dal Consiglio di sicurezza dell'ONU e da chi ha visioni del mondo diverse e sostiene la sovranità e l'integrità territoriale di Serbia. Questi ultimi comprendono quasi i 2/3 del mondo, la cui rilevanza nelle relazioni globali sta aumentando, anziché diminuire. Le pressioni e la gravità della situazione in cui si trova la Serbia non sono e non possono servire da giustificazione per allontanarsi dai diritti, dai principi e dalle garanzie esistenti. Al contrario.

*Ministro degli Esteri della Yugoslavia dal 1998 al 2000 e attuale presidente del Forum Belgrado per un Mondo di Eguali

Traduzione a cura di Enrico Vigna Forum Belgrado Italia

В "Белградском форуме за мир равноправных" подчеркнули, что опубликованное Евросоюзом 27 февраля "Соглашение о пути к нормализации отношений Косова и Сербии" представляет собой грубое нарушение резолюции Совбеза ООН

БЕЛГРАД, 7 марта. /ТАСС/. Одностороннее решение непризнанного Косова об отделении обусловлено желанием Североатлантического альянса господствовать в регионе и подготовиться к конфронтации с Россией. Об этом во вторник сообщили ТАСС в организации влиятельных сербских дипломатов, политологов, военных и медиков "Белградский форум за мир равноправных".

"Одностороннее отделение Приштины стало результатом агрессии НАТО, совершенной 24 года назад. Целью вооруженной агрессии было господство на Балканах в рамках стратегии расширения НАТО на Восток и подготовки к конфронтации с Россией. Целью продолжающейся агрессии, выражающейся в ультиматуме для Сербии признать Косово, является то же самое - формализация захвата края силой, противопоставление Сербии России и Китаю, а также подготовка глобальной расправы", - говорится в заявлении организации.

В документе также подчеркивается, что опубликованное Евросоюзом 27 февраля "Соглашение о пути к нормализации отношений Косова и Сербии" представляет собой "грубое нарушение резолюции Совбеза ООН 1244 (о том, что автономный край Косово и Метохия является частью Сербии - прим. ТАСС), принципов международного права и конституции Сербии" и каждый его пункт "наносит ущерб жизненным интересам Сербии". "От Сербии требуется уменьшить свою конституционно установленную, международно признанную государственную территорию, с которой она стала членом ООН, ОБСЕ и всех других международных организаций, и передать ее в состав преступно навязанного образования", - отметили представители форума.

"Обещание инвестиций и дотаций [со стороны ЕС], если Сербия откажется от своих государственных прав на части своей государственной территории, своего достоинства и идентичности, является примером агрессивности возрожденного неоколониального, неорасистского менталитета и лицемерия, которые, как мы считали, давно остались в истории. <...> Мы не должны полагаться на обещания и гарантии тех, кто чаще всего нас подводит", - заключили эксперты.

Белградский форум за мир равноправных - клуб экспертов, основанный в 2000 году, занимающийся анализом событий в Сербии, на Балканах и во всем мире. Одним из основателей форума и его нынешним председателем является экс-глава МИД Союзной Республики Югославия Живадин Йованович (1998-2000 годы).

Source: tass.ru

This is an excellent article of former minister of foreign affairs of Yugoslavia. It seems that Scholtz- Macron tandem is again going to deceive democracy and justice just as they did with the Minsk accords planned to make peace in Ukraine.
These leaders continue the lies around Serbia and Kosovo. Unfortunately the Finish government is a collaborator here.

There are still two politicians active in Finnish politics who collaborated with the US and German governments to bomb Yugoslavia to surrender to US demands of NATO-occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia. They are president Sauli Niinistö, and minister of foreign affairs Pekka Haavisto . The government of Finland in 1999 hid the results of the forensic Finnish team about the battle between Albanian terrorists and Serbian police in the village of Racak. The Finnish government lied. The OSCE chief William Walker from US collected the bodies into a pitch and showed it to a group of journalists claiming the then were executed. The forensic team led by professor Antti Penttilä diagnosed that all of the victims had died in combat and not a single one had been shot at close distance.

The Finnish government and German government decided to hide the forensic results. This gave president Clinton the way to start the bombing "because of this massacre".
Martti Ahtisaari was the president of Finland. He was a member in the team to negotiate the peace deal after the bombing. Peace deal included a NATO occupation of the Kosovo part of Serbia. The UN decided with resolution 1244 that Kosovo is part of Serbia. However the US started illegally to build a huge military base Bondsteel to Kosovo. It gave power to Albanians living in Kosovo to start terrorizing Serbs in unbelievable ways., which made it almost impossible for a Serb family to continue living there. President Ahtisaari was given a task of leading a committee to plan outplacement of Serb propertty without the consent of the owners. Serbs were not even allowed to enter Kosovo and see what was being done. After eight years work Ahtisaari suggested the declaration of independence of Kosovo - not with elections or negotiations or the permission of the UN who had decided that Kosovo is part of Serbia.

Actually the UN Security Council did not accept, when Ahtisaari asked, any changes in 1244.
However the occupiers US and NATO-EU countries approved the illegal Declaration of Independence, Finland of course among the first ones after US. 5 members of EU have of now not approved the independence.
Now as you can see from the text of Zivadin Jovanovic, the blackmail to the surrender of Serbia is going on. It Serbia does not surrender, the economical punishment will be severe.

As for Finland you can realize that the application of Finland to NATO against all odds at this moment is a surrender to the US. It is against all interests of Finns, who have not been able to say their opinion in a popular vote.
The world is led by "rules based democracy" which includes black mail, economic sanctions, horrors of terror and injustice.

Zivadin Jovanovic

The EU claims to be neutral [Kosovo] status-wise. Or at least, the EU has not declared parting ways with its status neutrality. Back in September 2019, the UN General Assembly welcomed “the readiness of the European Union to facilitate a process of dialogue between the parties”, on the basis of the EU’s declared status-neutrality. Тhis Scholz-Macron “proposal” is but an ultimatum requiring Serbia to recognize the illegal unilateral independence of the so-called Kosovo, accompanied by a list of threats of what will beset Serbia should she fail to abide. In addition, this ultimatum is declared to be the position of the entire EU. Its true nature is not altered by being presented to the Serbian public as “a US-backed, EU’s new negotiating framework”. An ultimatum will be an ultimatum, whatever the packaging.

We need to vocalize the truth: firstly, that the EU has drastically abandoned its status-neutrality and secondly, that the latest paper (whoever by written, joined, or backed) is proof of the European Union silently stepping out and beyond of the mandate given to it by the United Nations General Assembly.

I have no doubts whatsoever that this matter is of utmost importance for Serbia, and that it is a fool’s errand trying to act as if this is business as usual. Because if faced with the scenario where the legally binding decision of the UN Security Council are not observed, and the UN General Assembly political guidance on mandating the EU to “facilitate the dialogue between the parties” are disregarded, we have responsibility and duty to say out loud that this is not normal, not beneficial for mutual trust, and not acceptable for Serbia. Rather, it should not be normal or acceptable for any bona fide state member to the United Nations.

If we agree that the ongoing events concern the vital and long-term interests of Serbia, if we are confident that our positions and views are righteous, principled, and well-based – which we are – and if any party gets angered by this, we regret but nonetheless we have to stand our ground, and not retreat. We must not get carried away by a current state of play, or get swayed by any short-term interests. We must discern strategic trends and articulate our positions based on our own experiences, lessons taught by history, and overall trends as evaluated from all important aspects instead of any single angle.

I am afraid that, as a country and a nation, we have been continuously exposed to an excessive influence of the West’s one-sided propaganda, views, and interests. This cannot be good for us, not even if stemming from good intentions; when creeping in as a precursor to the strategy of hegemony and domination, it can be plainly disastrous.

The one true key to peace, security, and a better life for all nations in the Balkans, including the Serbian and Albanian people, lies in the observance of the fundamental principles of international law, the UN Charter, and the consistent implementation of UNSC Resolution 1244.

None of the above is to be found in the so-called Scholz-Macron plan, presented to the public as a sort of “EU’s new negotiating framework, US-backed” or a “Basic Agreement” between Serbia and the so-called Kosovo.

The Scholz-Macron plan is not a framework for negotiations, or for any just or sustainable solution. This is a plan to crush Serbia. If possible, with the consent of Serbia.

If the Scholz-Macron plan is the key to anything, the least of all is it a key to peace, stability and progress of any region, nation, or Europe as a whole. It is the plan for the total domination of the USA-led NATO over the Serbian people and the Balkans, and for setting the Balkans as the strategic stage in the global war against Russia and China. It is the juggernaut plant to keep crushing Serbia and the entire Serbian nation in the Balkans. If their plan had had any good intentions, they would have made an effort to at least refer to the UN Security Council guarantees vis-à-vis Serbia, given by their predecessors on June 10, 1999. If they were principled, if they really respected principles and international law, if they pursued a predictable politics as they expect others to do, why would they stay clear from the United Nations and the decisions taken by the Security Council! Since they were not, and did not, Serbia should remain true to herself, to her people, ancestors, historical heritage and enduring achievements belonging to the world civilization.

Why did they need Meloni? To help Macron water down his not-so-honorable role in ‘duet’ with Scholz? Or to jointly bolster the EU dimension of the ‘Plan’? Or maybe help Rome, as a neighbor, claim a piece of merit for the connived incarnation of Greater Albania? Apart from the USA as mastermind, the trio still misses Rishi Sunak to reprise the role of Neville Chamberlain, so to make rerun of the 1938 “saving the peace” in Berchtesgaden at least as convincing as its premiere was 85 years ago.

Under the “Brussels Agreement” of 2013, Serbia withdrew her legal and constitutional order and institutions in the north of the Province. In turn, albeit in paper only, Serbia ensured the Community of Serbian Municipalities (the CSM) with executive powers. Now, after ten years of ‘stretching the rope’ to the point of snapping, it looks like Serbia’s adversaries, the same one that Serbian leadership swears are the ‘only alternative’, are set on forcing Serbia to pay once more for the establishment of the CSM, that is, an incapacitated CSM fashioned pursuant to the so-called Kosovo Constitution. For this meagre gain, Serbia is expected to agree that the Scholz-Macron plan/agreement is a good basis for the resumption of negotiations that will lead to, and result in, the conclusion of a “comprehensive and legally binding agreement on normalization”.

Then, the USA, the EU, NATO and Priština will proclaim and explain that ‘normalization’ means mutual recognition, establishment of ‘good neighborly relations’, respecting reciprocity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of ‘parties’ and the so-called Kosovo’s full membership in international organizations including the UN, and the like. If Serbia does accept what was devised by those always brewing a same plot for her, she might as well articulate her consent in a different way, but this in itself would not alter the unfolding of events much to the detriment of Serbia.

It is very dicey to rely on the guarantees given by those already proven to have never kept their word, instead of insisting on the existing guarantees given by the UN Security Council and by those who have differing worldviews and who support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia. The latter comprise almost 2/3 of the world, whose relevance in global relations is increasing, rather than decreasing. The pressures and gravity of the situation in which Serbia finds herself are not and cannot serve as justification for shifting away from the rights, principles and existing guarantees. Quite the contrary.

Translated by Branislava Mitrovic

Zivadin Jovanovic noted that the Franco-German plan "is not the key to peace, stability and progress of any region, people or Europe as a whole"

BELGRADE, February 27. /TASS/. The French-German plan for talks between Belgrade and Pristina is the ultimatum against Serbia, demanding the recognition of Kosovo’s independence, ex-Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Zivadin Jovanovic told TASS.

"The proposal of [German Chancellor Olaf] Scholz and [President of France Emmanuel] Macron is the ultimatum against Serbia to recognize the unlawful unilateral independence of unrecognized Kosovo, which is accompanied by a list of threats to follow if Serbia does not accept it. It was said that the ultimatum is the position of the entire EU. It does not change the essence that this ultimatum is named for the Serbian public as ‘new negotiation framework of the EU backed by the US.’ An ultimatum is an ultimatum, irrespective of the wrapping," Jovanovic said.

"We must tell the truth that the EU abruptly abandoned its status neutrality and that the last paper (irrespective of the one writing it, joining or supporting it) is evidence that the EU withdraws from the mandate of the UN General Assembly," the ex-minister noted.

The French-German plan "is not the key to peace, stability and progress of any region, nation or Europe on the whole. This is the plan of total domination of NATO headed by the US over the Serbian people and the Balkans, the plan of preparing the Balkans as the strategic position in the global war against Russia and China," Jovanovic said. The French-German plan of solving the issue of unrecognized Kosovo will only continue "splitting up Serbia and the Serbian nation in the Balkans," he added.

Source: tass.com

Эксклюзивное интервью бывшего министра иностранных дел Югославии (1998-2000 годов) Живадина Йовановича корреспонденту 36ON на Балканах, доктору филологических наук, профессору Владимиру Сапунову.

В. С.: Господин Йованович, что вы думаете, если говорить о нынешней внешней политике Сербии, как вы можете её оценить? Как можете охарактеризовать принцип равноудаленности, который декларируют сербские дипломаты?
 
Ж. Й.: Думаю, что этот принцип объясняется как географическими, так и историческими особенностями Сербии. Наша страна находится в центре Европы и не может обходиться без нормальных отношений с Западом, в частности, с Евросоюзом. Но при этом Россия — это наш исторический друг и партнёр, мы обязаны сохранять и развивать дружеские отношения с ней. А ведь ещё есть Китай, который вкладывает в Сербию существенные инвестиции. В какой-то степени нынешняя внешняя политика Сербии — это продолжение политики неприсоединения Социалистической Федеративной Республики Югославия. Как известно, она была одним из организаторов и лидеров Движения неприсоединения, это было одним из краеугольных камней внешней политики Тито, который балансировал между странами Социалистического блока и Запада. Не входя при этом ни в СЭВ, ни в ОВД, ни в ЕС, ни в НАТО. Просто взаимовыгодное партнёрство.

В. С.: Такой принцип оправдан, когда и партнёры заинтересованы в равноправных отношениях. Однако нынешний Запад совершенно не хочет видеть в Сербии равноправного партнёра. Политика Вашингтона и Брюсселя по отношению к Сербии — это выкручивание рук, шантаж и ультиматумы. Последние примеры с давлением на Белград с требованиями признания Косово и введения санкций против России — хорошие тому иллюстрации. Стоит ли тогда так упорно твердить о «безальтернативности европейского пути для Сербии»? Ведь политика «буриданова осла» уже не проходит, коллективный Запад требует сделать выбор.
 
Ж. Й.: Да, когда предъявляют ультиматумы — это совсем другой разговор. Согласен, когда подавляющее большинство сербов выступает против признания Косово и антироссийских санкций, принимать подобные решения было бы странно. Всё это просто против нашей национальной идентичности и независимости — санкции против нашего стратегического партнёра, который постоянно защищает нас в Совете Безопасности ООН. Да и вообще Сербия должна быть против любых санкций, вспоминая, какой ущерб нам нанесли те, что были введены 30 мая 1992 года. В Европе нет страны, которая бы так пострадала от санкций, как Сербия. Любые санкции наносят ущерб прежде всего народу, а не власти, как о том заявляется. К тому же санкции Запада против России не имеют никакой легитимности, поскольку единственный международный орган, который может вводить законные санкции — это СБ ООН. А нынешние санкции против России — это фактически санкции НАТО, зачем же нам к ним присоединяться.

В. С.: И тем не менее Запад предъявил ультиматум и однозначно не собирается от него отступать.
 
Ж. Й.: Ну, давайте подумаем, что это за ультиматум. И сравним его с ультиматумом июня 1999 года, который содержался в «плане Ахтисаари — Черномырдина». Когда речь шла о принятии этого плана, подписании Кумановского соглашения и резолюции 1244 СБ ООН, мы действительно были в безвыходном положении. НАТО методично разрушало инфраструктуру нашей страны, вбивало нас в каменный век, как они сами говорили об этом. А ельцинская Россия нам ничем не помогла, современного оружия, чтобы защищаться, мы не получили. Тогда действительно ультиматум выглядел очень убедительно, мы бы просто потеряли страну. И так нам те бомбардировки нанесли ущерб в 100 миллиардов долларов. А до этого ведь были ещё вышеупомянутые санкции ООН 1992-95 годов против Югославии, официально, кстати, отменённые только в 2001 году. Они стоили нам ещё 150 миллиардов долларов. Их ведь ельцинская Россия поддержала в ООН.
 
Тогда действительно мы не имели вариантов. И то нам удалось настоять на принятии резолюции 1244, в которой говорится о территориальной целостности Сербии. Удалось договориться о миротворческом контингенте в Косово под эгидой ООН. О том, что сербские военнослужащие смогут участвовать в охране сербских святынь и контролировать ключевые погранзаставы. А потом сербские власти об этом «забыли». По сравнению с тем, в какой мы были тогда ситуации, нынешняя разве безвыходная? Разве какие-то западные инвестиции и санкции — это причина признавать независимость Косово? Тем более никакие западные инвестиции не покрыли и малой доли ущерба, который нам нанёс Запад санкциями и бомбардировками. И не покроют. Такие ультиматумы принимать нельзя.

В. С.: Вы как один из тех, кто работал над резолюцией 1244 СБ ООН от 10.06.1999 по Косово, разумеется, не признаёте принятие «плана Ахтисаари-Черномырдина» и Кумановского соглашения капитуляцией. Тем не менее Югославии пришлось вывести свои войска из Косово, а тот миротворческий контингент, который вошёл под эгидой ООН, фактически представлял собой силы под командованием НАТО. Можно только представить, насколько тяжело далось тогда Слободану Милошевичу то решение — подписать соответствующие документы и вывести войска.
 
Ж. Й.: Тогда всем нам это решение далось тяжело. И да, особенно Милошевичу. Но ни о какой капитуляции речи не шло, мы смогли остановить бомбардировки и на высшем международном уровне прописать территориальную целостность Сербии. И предусмотреть пункт о возможности входа сербских военнослужащих для защиты сербского населения на севере Косово. Причём в тексте резолюции говорится о «сотнях, не тысячах военнослужащих». То есть резолюция даёт возможность направить в Косово до 1999 военных, а не 999, как обычно считается. На тот момент считаю, что нам удалось добиться многого, чтобы прекратить агрессию, перед которой мы были беззащитны.
 
Плюс к тому, нам удалось превратить «план Ахтисаари», который был ультиматумом, в Кумановское соглашение, а это уже международный договор, а потом и в резолюцию ООН. В последних двух документах уже учитывались наши интересы, уже в Кумановском договоре говорилось о суверенитете Сербии над Косовом, и это было результатом серьёзных переговоров делегаций.  И там же было сказано о том, что войска KFOR могут зайти на территорию Косово по приглашению Югославии. А никакое приглашение не может длиться вечно. Потом этом было зафиксировано и в резолюции 1244. И всё это значительно отличалось от того плана, к подписанию которого нас принуждали в Рамбуйе. Вот это действительно была бы капитуляция, поскольку это бы предусматривало бесконтрольное присутствие войск НАТО на территории Югославии.

А вот почему потом, уже после государственного переворота 5 октября 2000 года сербские власти ничего не делали, чтобы противостоять погромам со стороны косовских албанцев, массовому изгнанию сербов из автономного края, разрушению святынь, — это уже вопрос к пришедшим к власти в Белграде прозападным «демократам». Зачем было подписывать Брюссельский договор, который фактически лишил Белград возможности влиять на ситуацию в Косово без контроля ЕС? Из этого же ряда договоры IPAP с НАТО, они дали право НАТО свободно передвигаться по всей территории Сербии, против чего мы выступали в Рамбуйе.
В 1999 году Косово и Метохия не были потеряны, шаги к их потере были сделаны позже. И продолжают делаться.
 
В. С.: Для русского народа агрессия НАТО против Югославии 1999 года — это особая боль. Поскольку вопреки мнению большинства правительство Ельцина не оказало Югославии необходимой помощи — ни политической, ни военной. Был ли в этих условиях шанс избежать агрессии и бомбардировок?
 
Ж. Й.: Ни малейшего. Мы, как могли, оттягивали этот момент. Но давление всё усиливалось и усиливалось. Развал СФРЮ — это была осознанная и очень целенаправленная политика Запада для установления их мирового порядка, транснационального и либерального капитализма. Прежде всего в интересах США. Но в этом, скажем, была заинтересована и Германия, которая таким образом устраняла мощного конкурента в центре Европы. Немецкая внешняя политика при Гельмуте Коле ведь была совсем не как нынешняя, определённая самостоятельность от США была. И в вопросе необходимости развала СФРЮ она не только дополняла, но подчас и опережала американскую.
 
Сейчас об этом мало известно, но ещё в декабре 1991 года тогдашний посол США в Белграде Уоррен Циммерман сказал Милошевичу, что, если Югославия не прекратит военные действия в Хорватии, то будут американские бомбардировки. И в январе 1992 года между ЮНА и загребскими властями было подписано Сараевское перемирие, которое привело к международному признанию Хорватии. Белград был вынужден пойти на уступки — Советский Союз распадался, мы понимали, что помощи уже ждать неоткуда.

В. С.: Разумеется, Запад, не хотел таким образом в принципе закончить военные действия на Балканах, просто добился перемирия там, где ему это было выгодно. Готовилась новая война — в Боснии. Тот же Циммерман в марте 1992 года убедил лидера боснийских мусульман Алию Изетбеговича отозвать свою подпись под планом Каррингтона-Кутиельро, который предполагал более или менее справедливое этническое разделение в рамках Боснии.  В награду США признали независимость Боснии. А дальше была война.
 
Ж. Й.: Совершенно верно. И ту войну нам удалось закончить максимально возможным для нас способом — Дейтонскими соглашениями. Сейчас кто-то говорит: пришлось отдать 20% территории. А что было делать, когда в сентябре 1995 года начались натовские бомбардировки позиций боснийских сербов – с целью, например, отрезать Республику Сербскую от Югославии.
 
В. С.: Вероятно, стоит сказать о том, что Дейтонский договор при подписании и позже тоже сильно отличался, как и текст резолюции 1244 СБ ООН, от нынешних реалий. Ведь Республика Сербская вышла из войны с собственной армией и валютой, которые Дейтон не отменял. Всё это отменили последующие договоры.
 
Ж. Й.: Да. Тем не менее, Дейтон сейчас — это основа стабильности и мира не только в Боснии, но и на Балканах в целом. Поэтому и выполнять его положения необходимо, а те, кто предлагают отказаться от них, действуют безответственно.
 
В. С.: Главными разжигателями таких разговоров являются США и подконтрольные им сараевские власти. Баня-Лука вынуждена реагировать и говорить, что может отказаться от Дейтона и в свою пользу — в сторону независимости Республики Сербской. И нынешний-то статус Республики Сербской, в которой Запад не является хозяином, ему как кость в горле.
 
Ж. Й.: Если она им как кость в горле, то пусть сходят к хирургу. Любые попытки изменить дейтонский статус Республики Сербской как самостоятельного энтитета приведут к новой войне.

В. С.: Возвращаясь к американскому давлению 1990-х на Белград. И хорватская операция «Буря» в августе 1995 с ликвидацией Сербской Краины из этого же ряда.
 
Ж. Й.: Из этого же. Понимаете, сейчас легко рассуждать о том, почему югославские войска тогда остались в казармах. И почему Милошевич принял такое решение. Но мог ли он поступить тогда по-другому. Прямо перед началом «Бури» у него была встреча с глазу на глаз с Ричардом Холбруком (тогдашний заместитель Госсекретаря США — прим. 36ON). Не знаю, раскрывал ли Милошевич кому-то детали этого разговора, но, видимо, ему был тогда предъявлен ультиматум. Такой же, как ультиматум НАТО перед бомбардировками Югославии в 1999 году, о котором известно гораздо больше. То есть, если бы Милошевич тогда решил помочь хорватским сербам, бомбардировки бы начались на 4 года раньше. Сербов в Краине это всё равно бы не спасло, но, возможно, тогда бы не было и Республики Сербской.
 
Но это всё предположения, история сослагательного наклонения не терпит. А если вернуться к реальному разговору, то позиция России в 1990-е на Балканах была не очень позитивной. Ельцинско-козыревская политика заключалась в том, чтобы подсовывать нам невыгодные американские и европейские предложения, играя роль «доброго полицейского». То есть западные «инициативы» под видом российских.
 
В. С.: «План Ахтисаари», который превратился в «план Ахтисаари-Черномырдина», как раз об этом?
 
Ж. Й.: Именно об этом.  Черномырдин прилетел в начале июня в Белград как «независимый переговорщик», даже вроде бы как представитель России должен был быть за нас. Провёл там встречу с Ахтисаари и после этого финский президент уже называл его «мой брат». А мне говорил: «Ты же не будешь спорить со мной и моим братом». То есть они уже вдвоём убеждали нас принять ультиматум НАТО. Это был именно ультиматум НАТО, хотя Ахтисаари и был официально переговорщиком от ЕС.
 
В. С.: Ну, каким был переговорщиком Черномырдин, понятно. А что скажете о Холбруке?
 
Ж. Й.: Холбрук был чрезвычайно жёстким переговорщиком. Он всегда был настроен на достижение своих целей. Не случайно США отправляли его на самые сложные переговоры с Милошевичем, который сам был весьма жёсток и неуступчив. В самые критические моменты. Но, конечно, хорошо быть жёстким переговорщиком, когда за тобой сильнейшая армия мира. Но и Холбрук в разговоре с Милошевичем как-то назвал меня «детерминистом». Когда он как-то, перед началом официальных переговоров, поинтересовался нашим мнением о своей, тогда еще только что напечатанной книге о Дейтоне. Милошевич ответил, что не читал книгу, а Милан Милутинович, бывший президент Сербии, что читал. И что, по его мнению, Холбрук написал хорошую книгу.
 
Когда Холбрук посмотрел на меня и спросил мое мнение, я ответил, что прочитал только первые несколько страниц и бросил, когда наткнулся на ту часть, в которой организация «Млада Босна» и Гаврило Принцип, убивший в 1914 году наследника на престол Австрии — принца Фердинанда Венгерского, были названы террористами, виновными в развязывании Первой мировой войны. Объясняя свой отказ продолжать читать книгу, я сказал Холбруку, что не оспариваю его дипломатических и качеств, и таланта переговорщика, но не уверен, что он такой же хороший историк. Поскольку оценки историков деятельности Гаврилы Принципа, «Молодой Боснии» и реальные Причины Первой мировой войны, по большей части, хорошо известны. Тогда Холбрук рассердился на меня и сказал, что я «обычный детерминист». Тем не менее договариваться он тоже умел, наша сторона говорила, что те или иные условия просто неприемлемы. Удавалось же достигать компромиссов в ходе переговоров в Дейтоне.
 
Как-то Холбрук накричал на меня в присутствии Милошевича. Дело было в 1998 году, когда я нашёл фотографию в журнале Newsweek, где Холбрук был запечатлён вместе с двумя боевиками так называемой Армии освобождения Косово (ОАК), которая признавалась террористической организацией не только в Югославии, но в самих США (до мая 1998 года).  Я показал тот журнал Милошевичу и тогдашнему президенту Сербии Милану Милутиновичу в библиотеке в ночь перед переговорами югославской и американской делегаций. Тогда они оставили фотографию без комментариев, а на следующий день, уже в присутствии Холбрука Милошевич затребовал от меня журнал и спросил американского дипломата: «Ричард, зачем же ты фотографируешься с террористами?». На что Холбрук отреагировал: «Не знаю этих людей, случайно подошли, немедленно сфотографировались и убежали». А потом добавил: «Слободан, ты же знаешь, сколько я делаю для мира на Балканах. А ты обращаешь внимание на какие-то случайные фотографии, которые подсовывают тебе твои сотрудники». На что Милошевич ответил, усмехаясь: «Ну, я тебе, конечно, поверю, а как быть с 3 миллионами читателей Newsweek»?

Ситуация была очень некомфортной, если не сказать напряженной. Тогда Милошевич сказал: «Ну, ты же сам однажды сказал, что Жика — детерминист. У тебя нет причин злиться». Затем Милошевич быстро спросил Холбрука, как дела у его жены Кэти (Нортон, активистка по защите прав человека), которая занималась освобождением журналистов из турецких тюрем. Таким образом Милошевич преодолел неприятную атмосферу, и началась встреча. После Милутинович раскритиковал меня за то, что я «чуть не сорвал переговоры».
 
В. С.: Как же так получилось, что после бомбардировок НАТО в 1999 году 05.10.2000 в Белграде случилась первая в истории «цветная революция»?
 
Ж. Й.: Цветная революция 2000 года была логическим завершением бомбардировок предыдущего года. Тогда у НАТО не получилось свергнуть Милошевича, а теперь получилось. Разрушенная и разорённая страна, людям хотелось чего-то нового. Вот и получили — власть Запада.

Через таможню тогда шли материалы с Запада — агитационные, деньги оружие. Тогда задержали на сербской таможне британский дипломатический груз с деньгами — а мне звонит британский посол и спрашивает: «Как вы смеете задерживать на таможне дипломатический груз Её Величества». Я отвечаю: «Мы не претендуем на груз Её Величества, только пусть он отправится обратно на родину Её Величества».
 
Милошевич был настоящим патриотом Сербии и государственником, его выдача в Гаагу была невиданным предательством и незаконным актом.
 
В. С.: Сегодня главная проблема для Сербии — это Косово. Каковы ваши прогнозы на развитие ситуации?
 
Ж. Й.: Она будет зависеть от хода российской СВО на Украине. Если Россия будет побеждать, то и с Косово всё будет в порядке.
 
Зимний цикл проекта «Балканский вояж» реализуется порталом 36ON при поддержке компании «ПМК-710» (город Иваново).

Source:36on.ru

ACURA VIEWPOINTFebruary 22, 2023

In October 2022, about eight months after the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the University of Cambridge in the UK harmonized surveys that asked the inhabitants of 137 countries about their views of the West, Russia, and China. The findings in the combined study are robust enough to demand our serious attention.

Of the 6.3 billion people who live outside of the West, 66% feel positively towards Russia, and 70% feel positively towards China.

75% of respondents in South Asia, 68% of respondents  in Francophone Africa, and 62% of respondents in Southeast Asia report feeling positively toward Russia.

Public opinion of Russia remains positive in Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, and Vietnam.

These findings have caused some surprise and even anger in the West. It’s difficult for Western thought leaders to comprehend that two-thirds of the world’s population is just not lining up with the West in this conflict. However, I believe there are five reasons why the Global South is not taking the West’s side. I discuss these reasons in the short essay below.

1. The Global South does not believe that the West understands or empathizes
with its problems.

India’s foreign minister, S. Jaishankar, summed it up succinctly in a recent interview: “Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems.” Developing countries face many challenges, from the aftermath of the pandemic, the high cost of debt service, and the climate crisis that is ravaging their environments, to the pain of poverty, food shortages, droughts, and high energy prices. Yet the West has barely given lip service to the seriousness of many of these issues, even while insisting that the Global South join it in sanctioning Russia.

The Covid pandemic is a perfect example. Despite the Global South’s repeated pleas to share intellectual property on the vaccines with the goal of saving lives, no Western nation has been willing to do so. Africa remains to this day the most unvaccinated continent in the world. African nations have the manufacturing capability to make the vaccines, but without the necessary intellectual property, they remain dependent on imports.

But help did come from Russia, China, and India. Algeria launched a vaccination program in January 2021 after it received its first batch of Russia’s Sputnik V vaccines. Egypt started vaccinations after receiving China’s Sinopharm vaccine at about the same time, while South Africa procured a million doses of AstraZeneca from the Serum Institute of India. In Argentina, Sputnik became the backbone of the national vaccine program. This all happened while the West was using its financial resources to buy millions of doses in advance, then often destroying them when they expired. The message to the Global South was clear — the pandemic in your countries is your problem, not ours.

2. History matters: who stood where during colonialism and after independence?

Many countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia view the war in Ukraine through a different lens than the West. They see their former colonial powers regrouped as members of the Western alliance. This alliance — for the most part, members of the European Union and NATO or the closest allies of the US in the Asia-Pacific region — makes up the countries that have sanctioned Russia. By contrast, many countries in Asia, and almost all countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, have tried to remain on good terms with both Russia and the West, shunning sanctions against Russia. Could this be because they remember their history at the receiving end of the West’s colonial policies, a trauma that they still live with but which the West has mostly forgotten?

Nelson Mandela often said that it was the Soviet Union’s support, both moral and material, that helped inspire South Africans to overthrow the Apartheid regime. Because of this, Russia is still viewed in a favorable light by many African countries. And once independence came for these countries, it was the Soviet Union that supported them, despite its own limited resources. Egypt’s Aswan Dam, completed in 1971, was designed by the Moscow-based Hydro Project Institute and financed in large part by the Soviet Union. The Bhilai Steel Plant, one of the first large infrastructure projects in newly independent India, was set up by the USSR in 1959.

Other countries also benefited from the political and economic support provided by the former Soviet Union, including Ghana, Mali, Sudan, Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Mozambique. On February 18, 2023, at the African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the foreign minister of Uganda, Jeje Odongo, had this to say: “We were colonized and forgave those who colonized us. Now the colonizers are asking us to be enemies of Russia, who never colonized us. Is that fair? Not for us. Their enemies are their enemies. Our friends are our friends.”

Rightly or wrongly, present-day Russia is seen by many countries in the Global South as an ideological successor to the former Soviet Union. Fondly remembering the USSR’s help, they now view Russia in a unique and often favorable light. Given the painful history of colonization, can we blame them?

3. The war in Ukraine is seen by the Global South as mainly about the future of Europe rather than the future of the entire world.

The history of the Cold War has taught developing countries that getting embroiled in great power conflicts carries enormous risks but returns scant, if any, rewards. As a consequence, they view the Ukraine proxy war as one that is more about the future of European security than the future of the entire world. From the Global South’s perspective, the Ukraine war seems to be an expensive distraction from its own most pressing issues. These include higher fuel prices, rising food prices, higher debt service costs, and more inflation, all of which Western sanctions against Russia have greatly aggravated.

A recent survey published by Nature Energy states that up to 140 million people could be pushed into extreme poverty by the soaring energy prices seen over the past year. High energy prices not only directly impact energy bills — they also lead to upward price pressures along supply chains and ultimately on consumer items, including food and other necessities. This across-the-board inflation inevitably hurts developing countries much more than the West.  

The West can sustain the war “as long as it takes.” They have the financial resources and the capital markets to do so, and of course they remain deeply invested in the future of European security. But the Global South does not have the same luxury, and a war for the future of security in Europe has the potential to devastate the security of the entire world. The Global South is alarmed that the West is not pursuing negotiations that could bring this war to an early end, beginning with the missed opportunity in December 2021, when Russia proposed revised security treaties for Europe that could have prevented the war but which were rejected by the West. The peace negotiations of April 2022 in Istanbul were also rejected by the West in part to “weaken” Russia. Now, the entire world — but especially the developing world — is paying the price for an invasion that the Western media like to call “unprovoked” but which likely could have been avoided, and which the Global South has always seen as a local rather than an international conflict.

4. The world economy is no longer dominated by America or led by the West. The Global South now has other options.

Several countries in the Global South increasingly see their futures as tied to countries that are no longer in the Western sphere of influence. Whether this view reflects an accurate perception of the shifting balance of power or wishful thinking is partially an empirical question, so let’s look at some metrics.

The US share of global output declined from 21 percent in 1991 to 15 percent in 2021, while China’s share rose from 4% to 19% during the same period. China is the largest trading partner for most of the world, and its GDP in purchasing power parity already exceeds that of the US. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, China, India, and South Africa) had a combined GDP in 2021 of $42 trillion, compared with $41 trillion in the US-led G7. Their population of 3.2 billion is more than 4.5 times the combined population of the G7 countries, which stands at 700 million.

The BRICS are not imposing sanctions on Russia nor supplying arms to the opposing side. Russia is one of the biggest suppliers of energy and foodgrains for the Global South, while China’s Belt and Road Initiative remains a major supplier of financing and infrastructure projects. When it comes to financing, food, energy, and infrastructure, the Global South must rely more on China and Russia more than on the West. The Global South also sees the Shanghai Cooperation Organization expanding, more countries wanting to join the BRICS, and some countries now trading in currencies that move them away from the dollar, the Euro, or the West. Meanwhile, some countries in Europe are risking deindustrialization thanks to higher energy costs. This reveals an economic vulnerability in the West that was not so evident before the war. With developing countries having an obligation to put the interests of their own citizens first, is it any wonder that they see their future more and more tied to countries outside the West?

5. The “rules-based international order” is losing credibility and in decline.

The vaunted “rules-based international order” is the bulwark of post–World War II liberalism, but many countries in the Global South see it as having been conceived by the West and imposed unilaterally on other countries. Few if any non-Western countries ever signed on to this order. The South is not opposed to a rules-based order, but rather to the present content of these rules as conceived by the West.

But one must also ask, does the rules-based international order apply even to the West?

For decades now, many in the Global South have seen the West as having its way with the world without much concern for playing by the rules. Several countries were invaded at will, mostly without United Nations Security Council authorization. These include the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. Under what “rules” were those countries attacked or devastated, and were those wars provoked or unprovoked? Julian Assange is languishing in prison and Ed Snowden remains in exile, both for having the courage (or perhaps the audacity) to expose the truths behind these and similar actions.  

Even today, sanctions imposed on over 40 countries by the West impose considerable hardship and suffering. Under what international law or “rules-based order” did the West use its economic strength to impose these sanctions? Why are the assets of Afghanistan still frozen in Western banks while the country is facing starvation and famine? Why is Venezuelan gold still held hostage in the UK while the people of Venezuela are living at subsistence levels? And if Sy Hersh’s expose is true, under what ‘rules-based order’ did the West destroy the Nord Stream pipelines?

A paradigm shift appears to be taking place. We’re moving from a Western-dominated to a more multipolar world. The war in Ukraine has made more evident the international divergences that are driving this shift. Partly because of its own history, and partly because of emerging economic realities, the Global South sees a multipolar world as a preferable outcome, one in which its voice is more likely to be heard.

President Kennedy ended his American University speech in 1963 with the following words: “We must do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless for its success. Confident and unafraid, we must labor on towards a strategy of peace.” That strategy of peace was the challenge before us in 1963, and it remains a challenge for us today. The voices for peace, including those of the Global South, need to be heard.

Krishen Mehta is a member of the Board of the American Committee for US Russia Accord, and a Senior Global Justice Fellow at Yale University.

Živadin Jovanović, Belgrado 21 gennaio 2023

Anche se il testo dell''Accordo di base' presentato dai “Grandi Cinque” occidentali (Ue, Usa, Germania, Francia, Italia) su Kosovo e Metohija, che circola da tempo sui media albanesi e dal 20 gennaio anche sui social network serbi, è molto vicino a quello autentico, non può essere visto come una sorta di accordo, ma piuttosto come un ultimatum che costringe la Serbia a riconoscere de facto la secessione forzata della sua provincia.

Il documento, originariamente attribuito al presidente francese Macron e al cancelliere tedesco Scholz, leader delle due più grandi democrazie europee, si distingue come un'altra grave violazione della risoluzione 1244 del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite, del principio fondamentale delle relazioni internazionali democratiche, della Carta delle Nazioni Unite, della Carta di Parigi, e l'Atto finale di Helsinki dell'OSCE.

Questo testo sta umiliando la Serbia e la nazione serba, dicendo alla Serbia di osservare l'uguaglianza, la sovranità, l'integrità territoriale e le insegne di stato del cosiddetto Kosovo e, del resto, di tutti gli altri Stati, tranne che mantenere la sua sovranità, l’integrità territoriale e i suoi confini, riconosciuti a livello internazionale e confermati come tali dall'ONU, dall'OSCE, e da altre organizzazioni internazionali e dal Comitato Arbitrale di Badinter.
Il documento Scholz-Macron chiede alla Serbia di non opporsi alla cosiddetta adesione del Kosovo a tutte le organizzazioni internazionali, comprese le Nazioni Unite.
In tal senso, la Serbia dovrebbe cooperare alla distruzione della propria integrità, del proprio ordine costituzionale e della propria posizione internazionale, in modo che il "caso Kosovo" non possa successivamente essere utilizzato da nessuna delle parti come precedente per future secessioni unilaterali.

Gli autori intendono utilizzare la resa della Serbia all'ultimatum come un modo per i non-riconoscitori (Spagna, Romania, Slovacchia, Grecia e Cipro), che coinvolgono cinque membri dell'UE e quattro membri della NATO, per riconoscere il cosiddetto Kosovo e sanare così la diatriba interna, sia all'interno dell'UE che della NATO.
Il loro altro obiettivo è trasferire alla Serbia tutta la responsabilità per le vittime, la devastazione e le conseguenze dell'uso di armi con uranio impoverito durante l'aggressione della NATO nel 1999, anche se la Serbia stessa ne è stata la vittima.
Il loro obiettivo finale è incorporare la Serbia in una cosiddetta "alleanza delle democrazie" istituita per affrontare le presunte "autocrazie" di Russia e Cina.

Questo vergognoso documento resterà in futuro a illustrare come gli obiettivi espansionistici dell'aggressione militare della NATO contro la Serbia (FRY) nel 1999 siano stati per decenni proseguiti con altri mezzi come ultimatum, minacce di coercizione economica e politica.
La cosiddetta proposta di Scholz e Macron, ora trasformata in un'iniziativa dell'UE e sostenuta dagli Stati Uniti, unita alle ultime attività dei "Big Five" a Belgrado, è a dir poco un'usurpazione e pregiudica le prerogative e la decisionalità del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite come unico organo deputato a deliberare su questioni attinenti la pace e la sicurezza; ignora la risoluzione 1244 del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite come atto legale universalmente e fortemente vincolante e cerca di trascinare la Serbia, un paese pacifico e militarmente neutrale, in uno scontro globale.

Questa linea d'azione sconsiderata, unilaterale e arbitraria, oltre ad essere anti-serba, è piena di conseguenze imprevedibili.
Kosovo e Metohija non è un conflitto congelato, come sostenuto dall'Occidente e riecheggiato a Belgrado, né può essere risolto presentando un ultimatum alla Serbia.
Un'ipotetica accettazione dell'ultimatum non salverebbe né la pace né la sicurezza dei serbi nella provincia, aiuterebbe solo l'accumulo del potenziale di conflitto; altri separatismi incoraggiano e umiliano la Serbia e la nazione serba.

La causa principale e l'essenza del problema che riguarda Kosovo e Metohija risiede nella geopolitica determinata dal predominio delle principali potenze occidentali e dalla loro espansione ad est. La NATO fa del suo meglio per trasformare il Kosovo e Metohija, così come l'intera Serbia, in un trampolino di lancio per la sua incursione verso est, per mettere la Serbia contro Russia e Cina.
La questione dello status della Provincia del Kosovo e Metohija, tuttavia, non può essere risolta accettando alcun ultimatum ma insistendo invece sul rispetto della Costituzione, nonché dei confini internazionalmente riconosciuti e della Risoluzione 1244 del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite.

Anche se la Serbia si arrendesse all'ultimatum, i serbi in Kosovo e Metohija rimarrebbero insicuri, le loro proprietà occupate illegalmente non verrebbero recuperate, circa 250.000 serbi espulsi e altri non albanesi rimarrebbero nell'impossibilità di tornare alle loro case liberamente e in sicurezza, le proprietà sociali e statali rimarrebbero usurpate.
Semmai, la Serbia dovrebbe essere consapevole che cedere all'ultimatum potrebbe solo portare all'accelerazione di pericolose tendenze di confronto e di escalation, sia a livello regionale che europeo.

Un eventuale consenso dato dalla Serbia all'adesione del cosiddetto Kosovo alle Nazioni Unite e ad altre organizzazioni internazionali equivarrebbe al riconoscimento della personalità giuridica internazionale di queste ultime, con conseguenze di ogni genere, a partire da un'escalation fino alla creazione della Grande Albania a spese dei territori statali, non solo della Serbia ma anche di altri stati balcanici.

C'è un'anima in Serbia che crede nelle nuove garanzie e promesse date dall'Occidente? Non è stata Angela Merkel che di recente ci ha ammonito a non fidarci delle loro rassicurazioni? Oppure la nostra creduloneria è già entrata nella fase senza limiti?
Le promesse di autogoverno per i serbi, la Comunità dei comuni serbi (seppure istituita 'ai sensi della Costituzione del Kosovo', secondo Chollet), e 'la formalizzazione dello status della Chiesa ortodossa serba', non alterano minimamente il vero carattere dell'ultimatum Scholz-Macron (UE).
Come mai? Perché la sua essenza sta nella richiesta che la Serbia prima tacitamente e poi formalmente e legalmente, riconosca l'indipendenza del cosiddetto Kosovo e accetti la sua adesione alle Nazioni Unite e ad altre organizzazioni internazionali.
Il resto è solo una parte di una cosmetica diplomatica più o meno convincente e delle tattiche per "salvare la faccia" della vittima.

La storia avverte che la pace, la stabilità e una vita migliore non possono essere preservate cedendo all'ultimatum a scapito della sovranità e dell'integrità territoriale.
Ricordiamo che l'accordo di Monaco del 1938 sulla separazione dei Sudeti dalla Cecoslovacchia, un ultimatum formulato alle spalle della Russia, fu anche pubblicizzato pubblicamente dagli allora leader di Germania, Francia, Italia e Regno Unito come l'unica salvezza per la pace in Europa .
È molto pericoloso che i leader contemporanei di quei paesi non siano consapevoli delle lezioni del passato.

La posizione assunta nei confronti della Costituzione, della risoluzione 1244 del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite, dei confini internazionalmente riconosciuti della Serbia e del diritto internazionale, non è una questione che possa essere risolta da ultimatum o con un accordo una tantum, ma piuttosto occorre mettere in risalto l’importanza della sopravvivenza della Serbia come vecchio Stato europeo e della nazione serba come fattore che contribuisce alla pace, alla stabilità e al progresso nei Balcani, in Europa e nel mondo.

Tale status e reputazione della Serbia sono riaffermati dalla maggior parte dei paesi del mondo, da circa due terzi della popolazione del pianeta, che non hanno voluto e non vogliono riconoscere questo costrutto illegale come stato; tra questi c'è un numero non così piccolo di paesi che, su richiesta della Serbia, hanno ritirato i loro precedenti riconoscimenti senza temere pressioni come ultimatum da parte dell'Occidente a non farlo.

*Ministro degli Esteri della Yugoslavia dal 1998 al 2000 e attuale presidente del Forum Belgrado per un Mondo di Eguali

Traduzione a cura di Enrico Vigna Forum Belgrado Italia

By Živadin Jovanović, formerly Yugoslav Minister of Foreign Affairs
January 21, 2023, Belgrade

If the wording of the ‘Basic Agreement’ on Kosovo and Metohija that has been circulating for a while in the Albanian media and as of January 20 in the Serb-used social networks as well, is anywhere close to the authentic one, it cannot be viewed as any sort of an agreement -- short of being styled as one and including the substance grouped in articles -- but rather as an ultimatum compelling Serbia to practically (de facto) recognize the enforced secession of her Province. The document, attributable to French President Macron and German Chancellor Scholz, leaders of two largest European democracies, stands out as another gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, the basic principles of democratic international relations, the UN Charter, the Paris Charter, and the OSCE’s Helsinki Final Act. Inspired by their own power and greatness, this text is humiliating Serbia and the Serbian nation by telling Serbia to observe equality, sovereignty, territorial integrity and state insignia of so-called Kosovo and, for that matter, of all other states but her own sovereignty, territorial integrity and her internationally recognized borders confirmed as such by the UN, the OSCE, other international organizations, and the Badinter Arbitration Committee.

The Scholz-Macron paper requests Serbia to not oppose the so-called Kosovo’s membership in all international organizations, including the United Nations. Therein, Serbia is expected to cooperate in deconstruction of her own integrity, own Constitutional order and international standing, so that the ‘Kosovo case’ subsequently could not be utilized by any party as a precedent for future unilateral secessions. The authors intend to use Serbia’s yielding to ultimatum as a way for non-recognizers (Spain, Romania, Slovakia, Greece, and Cyprus), which involve five EU and four NATO members, to recognize the so-called Kosovo and thus heal internal disunity within both the EU and NATO. Their another objective is to transfer all responsibility for casualties, devastation and consequences of using weapons with depleted uranium during NATO’s 1999 aggression onto Serbia, even though Serbia herself was its victim. Their final objective is to incorporate Serbia into a so-called ‘alliance of democracies’ set up as the front against Russia and China.

The alleged proposal of Scholz and Macron now turned into a US-backed EU initiative, coupled with the latest activities of the ‘Big Five’ in Belgrade, are nothing short of usurpation and prejudging the prerogatives of, and decisions made by, the UN Security Council as the only body in charge of issues pertaining to the peace and security; they ignore UN Security Council Resolution 1244 as a universally binding legal act of the highest force and seek to drag Serbia, a peaceful and militarily neutral country, into a global confrontation. This reckless, one-sided and arbitrary course of action, in addition to being anti-Serb, is fraught with unforeseeable consequences.

Kosovo and Metohija is not a frozen conflict, as purported by the West and echoed in Belgrade, nor can it be resolved by presenting an ultimatum to Serbia. A hypothetical acceptance of ultimatum would not save either peace or safety of Serbs in the Province, only help the conflict potential accumulate, other separatisms encourage, and humiliate Serbia and the Serbian nation. The root cause and the essence of the problem concerning Kosovo and Metohija lies in the geopolitics determined by the dominance of the leading Western powers and their expansion to the East. NATO does it utmost to turn Kosovo and the entire Serbia into a springboard for its incursion eastwards, to pit Serbia against Russia. This matter cannot be solved by accepting ultimatum but instead by insisting on the observance of the Constitution, as well as of the internationally recognized borders and UNSC Resolution 1244. Even if Serbia surrendered to ultimatum, the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija would remain unsafe, their illegally occupied property would not be repossessed, some 250,000 expelled Serbs and other non-Albanians would remain unable to return to their homes freely and safely, Serbian state-owned and socially-owned property would remain usurped. If anything, Serbia should be aware that yielding to ultimatum could only result in speeding up dangerous trends of confrontation and escalation, at the regional and the European level just the same.

A potential consent given by Serbia to the so-called Kosovo joining the United Nations and other international organizations would be tantamount to the recognition of the latter’s international legal personality, entailing all sorts of consequences, beginning with an escalation and going all the way to the creation of Greater Albania at the expense of state territories not only of Serbia but also of few other Balkan states. Is there a soul in Serbia believing in new guarantees and promises given by the West? Was it not Angela Merkel who recently cautioned us to not trust their assurances! Or has our gullibility already entered the stage of no limits!
T
he promises involving self-governance for Serbs, the Community of Serbian Municipalities (albeit one established ‘pursuant to the Kosovo Constitution’, according to Chollet), and ‘formalizing the status of the Serbian Orthodox Church’, do not in the least alter the true character of the Scholz-Macron (EU’s) ultimatum. Why? Because its essence lies in the request that Serbia firstly tacitly and later on formally legally, recognize independence of the so-called Kosovo and accept its membership in the United Nations and other international organizations. The rest is merely a part of a more or less convincing diplomatic cosmetics and the tactics to ‘save the face’ of the victim.
History warns that peace, stability, and better life cannot be preserved by means of conceding to ultimatum at the expense of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Let us recall that the Munich Agreement of 1938 on carving out the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, an ultimatum made behind Russia’s back, was also publicly touted by the then-leaders of Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom as the one saving peace in Europe. It is very perilous that those countries’ contemporary leaders are unaware of past lessons.

The position taken vis-à-vis the Constitution, UN SC Resolution 1244, internationally recognized borders of Serbia, and international law, is not a matter of an ultimatum or of a one-off deal, but rather the matter of the position taken vis-à-vis the survival of Serbia as an old European state, and of Serbian nation as a factor contributing to peace, stability and progress in the Balkans, Europe, and the world. Such status and reputation of Serbia are reaffirmed by the majority of countries in the world, by some two-thirds of the planet’s population, who did not and wish not to recognize this illegal construct as a state; among those is a not so small number of countries which, at Serbia’s request, withdrew their previous recognitions without fearing ultimatum-fashioned pressures from the West not to do so.

Živadin Jovanović

What we read and listen is that Serbia in the matter of important issues, will position herself in line with her interests. Thus, heeding the criterion of own interests, Serbia will set her stance vis-à-vis the West’s campaigning to make Kosovo a member of various international organizations, vis-à-vis the Western pressures to introduce sanctions against Russia, as well as in terms of the Scholz-Macron plan. No matter how logical this approach seems to be, such a criterion leaves ample room for different interpretations in respect of what, under various circumstances, might be construed as the interest of Serbia. This view draws on the fact that any discussion about the existential state and national matters -- also including the future of Kosovo and Metohija -- is regularly and extensively shadowed by talks of a high degree of Serbia’s economic and financial dependence on the West (i.e., investments, trade, donations, ‘benefits’, shared values, etc.). It is in principle unacceptable that the matter of sovereignty and territorial integrity as the crucial issues in terms of the durable survival of the state and the nation, get to be treated on par with economic, financial or EU membership issues, since all the latter are incomparably less important and also subject to swift changes. No matter how thirsty we may be for investments, a more rapid development and a better life, it is far from recommended to turn greedy and to hastily rely on any or rather anyone’s promises, and in the least on cajoling and sugar coated promises of those who have already and so many times in the past played dirty tricks on us. We must simply bear in mind that those values are not comparable, and let this thought guide us in any given situation.

We must also take into account that, throughout history of Europe, some other imposed solution used to be heralded as ‘peace saving’ while in the real life paving the way for a global disaster. It must not be taken for granted that the present-day seizure of Kosovo and Metohija is any less relevant for peace and security in Europe than it was the case of the German seizure of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia back in 1938, endorsed by France, the UK and Italy. It is worth recalling this was done ‘behind Russia’s back’, just like the current attempt to wrest off Kosovo and Metohija. Is this part of an historical insight of Scholz and Macron or, for that matter, of the USA which supports in earnest the pair’s plan for carving Kosovo and Metohija out from Serbia? Or are those new gamblers, in their arrogance, convinced they are the Messiahs who save those less fortunate ones?

There seems to be missing a consistent invoking of principles, the law, and the Constitution of Serbia, all of which make the foundation for permanent defending of vital national and state interests. For an independent, sovereign and peace loving Serbia, the principles are at the same time her steadfast support, her right and her duty. They are her historical legacy, identity hallmark and the pledge of her reputation in Europe and the world. In a paradoxical twist, while US high representative Derek Chollet during an official visit, in the very heart of Belgrade, claims it necessary to observe the ‘Constitution’ of a criminal and secessionist creation, there is no one in the audience feeling the urge to remind him, at least in protocolary terms, of the principle of observing the Constitution of Serbia! We have anyhow just marked 140 years of diplomatic relations between Serbia and the USA!

From a principled point of view, the ‘red line’ should not consist only of so-called Kosovo’s membership in the UN, but rather its membership in any international organization bringing together sovereign states. We are witnessing the so-called ‘footnote with asterisk’ evolving, under a step-by-step tactic, into a sort of a ‘guiding star’ that opens the door of certain international associations, forums and missions for the separatist leadership in Priština, leaving us numbly indifferent, even complacent in the public domain, finding a small solace in the fact that the ‘star’ is being observed. So short-sighted! Autistic. Since we are fully aware that the Western tactic is to attain a partial international legal subjectivity in a couple of steps, then, whatever being told or promised, we simply must not assume the role of a passive by-stander or spectator. Wherever and whenever occur any behavior or gesture of any actor in the international domain that affect our interests, we must assume an active attitude and a clear and adequate diplomatic response.

As for the West’s lobbying for Kosovo’s membership in the Council of Europe, in addition to our opposing it in no uncertain terms, it would only be logical to submit to each Member State, in a timely manner, our position that Serbia would perceive such a gesture as a grave violation of the basic principles and criteria endorsed by the CoE, as a counterproductive precedent and a provocation! There are plenty of principled arguments to support such position.

When it comes to pressures to introduce sanctions against Russia, the point is made that those sanctions were introduced by the West and not by the UN Security Council, as the sole authorized body in the world for such measures, which make those sanctions one-sided and legally unfounded. Furthermore, as Serbia is painfully aware of from her experience, such sanctions are inhumane. Serbia does not endorse them on the grounds of principle, not for any scheming reasoning. A vast majority of the global community, including Serbia’s strategic partners, rejects Western sanctions against Russia, too. Serbia is not pitted against the world, but against violation of the rule of law and of principles in international affairs. Serbia is sided with the countries holding ¾ of countries in the world and the global population.

Inferring from statements of officials and the majority of domestic analysts, we seem to be satisfied with Chollet’s position that the Community of Serbian Municipalities (the CSM) must be established. Overshadowed by such acceptance is Chollet’s position that such CSM be in line with the ‘Constitution’ of so-called Kosovo. Even though the CSM was endorsed as a compromise 10 years ago, without anyone’s reference to anyone’s constitution, we seem to be now offered a reduced version of the CSM – one without executive powers, and one that is a part of a fresh new compromise embodied in the Scholz-Macron ‘Plan’ and upgraded into a ‘US-backed EU’s Plan’. Does anyone dare to officially question whether this amounts to a blatant usurpation of the UN Security Council mandate, or an unauthorized exercise of someone else’s prerogatives? The ‘facilitating the dialogue between the parties’, this being the EU’s role as set under the UN General Assembly resolution, cannot be used as a cover for any pressures, blackmails, deadlines, ‘deals’ or ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ plans, no matter of their creators. The war in Ukraine, the recognition of Pristina’s illegal secession by the leading Western powers and their satellites in the aftermath of the criminal aggression of NATO in 1999, are not the reasons to relativize the need to incessantly stress Serbia’s principled positions based on the international and Constitutional law.

With regard to the so-called Plan Scholz-Macron+, it is necessary to reaffirm, time and again, the principled position that Serbia is ready for dialogue and negotiations leading to a peaceful, just, and sustainable solution which is in line with the UN Charter, UN Security Council resolution 1244 and the Constitution of Serbia. Everything still pending and non-implemented under UN SCR 1244 and the subsequently reached agreements ought to be implemented prior to any further course of action. It should be stated in no unclear terms that Serbia will not concede to any trade-off or accept any solution imposed on her that are contrary to international law and the Serbian Constitution. At the beginning of any dialogue, all stakeholders should be advised that, for Serbia, UN SCR 1244 is a codified compromise reached by and among the most important global actors in the area of foreign affairs, and a legal document of permanent applicability for so long as it gets fully implemented. Serbia’s expectations from the part of the EU and each of its member states individually, as well as from the countries supporting EU’s role, are no less than full compliance with UN SCR 1244 and the UN General Assembly mandate, given in the form of ‘facilitating the dialogue of parties’. Nothing more and nothing less.

Serbia was right to see the West’s true attempt to isolate the Security Council, and in particular Russia and China as its permanent members and strategic partners of Serbia, from the process of dialogue and resolving the matter of Kosovo and Metohija, for their own geopolitical interests. The neglect of lessons taught by history, especially on the part of France and Germany, is deeply concerning.

Lastly, as we are all aware of Serbia’s substantial economic and financial reliance on the EU and the West in general, I firmly believe it will be useful to reduce this narrative, so that neither Brussels, Berlin, London nor Washington should begin to think that Serbia is an upstart ready to trade Kosovo and Metohija and national identity for their investments and donations. Finally, why not remind them that the material damage alone, inflicted by the 1990s sanctions and illegal aggression of 1999, amounts to some $ 250 billion. What are their subsequent investments and donations when put against the backdrop of this figure!? What about the human casualties!? Or the consequences of the use of weapons with depleted uranium!?

It is certainly high time to recall what is the policy of a balanced distribution of economic interests as an indispensable presumption of a balanced foreign policy and an established international position.

Belgrade, January 16, 2023

Dear Mr. Zivadin Jovanovic ,

Greetings from China Center for Contemporary World Studies, Beijing, China.

We hereby extend to you sincere gratitude again for sending us letter of congratulation back in October on the occasion of convention of 20th CPC National Congress. We appreciate your letter as symbol of our friendship. Please find attached message of appreciation, carrying personal stamp of Mme Yue Yanghua, Director General of China Center for Contemporary World Studies and Secretary General of Secretariat, Silk Road Think Tank Association, International Department of CPC Central Committee.

We look forward to having more frequent and in-depth exchanges with you and cementing our friendship.
With sincere regards and best wishes.

Nie Shengquan writing on behalf of Mme Yue Yanghua, Director General of China Center for Contemporary World Studies and Secretary General of Secretariat, Silk Road Think Tank Association (SRTA)

Secretariat, Silk Road Think Tank Association (SRTA)

China Center for Contemporary World Studies, International Department of Communist Party of China

No.4 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing,

Zivadin Jovanovic
President
Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Beijing, 1 December 2022
Re: Message of Appreciation

Dear Mr. Zivadin Jovanovic,

On the occasion of the successful concluding of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the election of the new central leadership at the first plenary session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, I wish to place on record my appreciation for the message of congratulations you sent on the opening of the congress and the re-election of Comrade Xi Jinping as General Secretary of the 20th CPC Central Committee.

Your insightful comments on the major achievements and significance of the congress have demonstrated the good will of you and the Belgrade forum for a World of Equals to the Communist Party of China.
The successful 20th CPC National Congress demonstrates that China has now embarked on the new journey toward the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts through a Chinese path to modernization. It will inject powerful impetus into the leapfrog development of China-Serbia relations. I attach great importance to the friendly relationship with your organization and wish to step up support to civil society organizations such as China NGO Network for International Exchange to strengthen exchanges and practical cooperation with your organization, so as to promote the understanding and affinity between our peoples and bring benefits to our countries and peoples.
With sincere regards and best wishes.

Liu Jianchao (Signed)
Minister
International Department
Central Committee
Communist Party of China

Ситуация в Косово развивается от плохой к худшей. Об этом бывший глава МИД Югославии Живадин Йованович заявил специальному корреспонденту международной редакции ФАН на Балканах.

В Белграде прошли массовые выступления в поддержку соотечественников на севере Косово. Ранее власти непризнанного Косово мобилизовали свои силовые структуры и заблокировали въезд в регион со стороны Сербии. За этим последовали вооруженные столкновения с сербскими жителями края и отдельные аресты.

Президент Сербии Александр Вучич в ответ на косовские провокации заявил, что готов применить армию страны для защиты сербского населения на территории непризнанной республики и призвал ввести на север Косово сербских миротворцев.

Корреспондент ФАН на Балканах выяснила у Живадина Йовановича, каким он видит развитие ситуации в крае.

«Ситуация в Косово и Метохии развивается от плохой ситуации к худшей. Из-за кулис за ниточки дергают правительства ведущих стран НАТО, которые используют незаконного ставленника Курти и свое боевое крыло ROSU [полиция непризнанного Косово. — Прим. ФАН]. Для них это «контролируемая эскалация» как часть механизма для ускорения «диалога», который, по их ожиданиям, должен привести к ускоренному «соглашению о нормализации» [эвфемизм, используемый Приштиной и Западом для «взаимного признания», точнее — признание Белградом независимости Косово — Прим. ФАН]», — заявил бывший глава дипломатического ведомства Югославии.

Живадин Йованович также отметил, что «на Белград оказывается давление и шантаж, с другой — обещания ускорения на «европейском пути», инвестиций, финансовые предложения. Целью является непрямое признание незаконного насильственного творения («Республики Косово»), прощение преступления агрессии 1999-го, излечение отсутствия единства внутри ЕС и НАТО, вовлечение Сербии и Боснии и Герцеговины в НАТО, ликвидации Республики Сербской, унитаризация Боснии и Герцеговины как «исламского государства✱ в центре Европы», завершение военного контроля над Балканами».

Экс-глава МИД с уверенностью утверждает, что «Сербия имеет право на главное слово. Резолюция СБ ООН 1244 предусматривает возвращение контингента армии и полиции в южный сербский край — до 999 силовиков. Очевидно, что правительства ведущих стран НАТО сейчас не готовы на это пойти. Но несмотря на это Сербия, исходя из все более очевидных угроз физической безопасности сербов в Косово и Метохии, должна без промедления направить такое требование в СБ ООН и параллельно проводить интенсивную дипломатическую деятельность для мобилизации международной поддержки своими легитимными требованиями. Белград должен ясно показать, что Сербия не является ничьей разменной монетой в глобальных отношениях».

Йованович также считает, что в случае вооруженных нападений на сербов в Косово:

«У Сербии не будет иного выбора, кроме как встать на их защиту всеми средствами, которыми она располагает. Это граждане Сербии на ее государственной территории. Если силы с мандатом от СБ ООН не в состоянии или не имеют желания предложить защиту жизней мирных граждан — у Сербии не будет иного выбора, кроме как отреагировать», — подытожил экс-министр.

✱ - запрещенная в РФ террористическая организация

Thursday, December 8, 2022

Statements

"We strengthen the Anti-Imperialist Struggle and Solidarity
for a World of Peace and Social Justice"

The XXII Assembly of the World Peace Council (WPC) was held successfully in the capital of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Hanoi, from November 21 to 26, 2022 with the participation of more than 100 representatives from 57 national and international anti-imperialist movements from around the world.
The Assembly took place in an iconic country whose people fought and defeated like only few other peoples, all-powerful adversaries such as the Japanese empire as an invader, the French colonialists who occupied Indochina and the American imperialists who slaughtered the country with over 3 million victims and with consequences to this day .

After the meeting of the outgoing Executive Committee on November 21, which reviewed the work done by the EC in the last years and the preparations for the Assembly to start, all international delegates paid homage to the historical revolutionary leader Ho Chi Minh at the Mausoleum and visited the premises where he lived and worked. On the same day, 22nd November, a briefing session about Vietnam was held in which the President of the Vietnam Union of Friendship Organisations (VUFO) Ambassador Nguyen Phuong Nga, made a presentation of the achievements, progress and challenges Vietnam is facing today, on national and international level. Many questions were answered along with short interventions by guests were made.

The session of the Assembly began on 22nd November with the welcome speech of the Vietnam Peace Committee by its President Uong Chu Luu, former vice-Speaker of the National Assembly of Vietnam, who saluted all participants on behalf of the host organisation, stating the historical importance of the XXII Assembly of the WPC for the first time on Vietnamese soil, wishing success and fruitful outcome to its deliberations. Thus, the VPC President declared the opening of the WPC assembly.

The Assembly continued with the speech of the outgoing President of the WPC, Socorro Gomes who underlined: “It is a great honor to return to this country, where its heroic people uphold a fruitful work in search of economic prosperity and social development, the consolidation of their independence, opening new pages of progress, performing a sovereign role in the world. We reiterate our full solidarity with their constructive efforts and, once more, condemn those who caused the colonialist war that left tragic and indelible consequences. Here, criminally, weapons of mass destruction were used, like Agent Orange, which caused prolonged and damaging consequences for the country. But the Vietnamese people were able to achieve their liberation and rebuild their nation, which demonstrates their revolutionary character. Socorro Gomes stated in her speech furthermore: Humanity lives a troubled time, marked by chronic economic and social crises for which it finds no solutions, surrounded in contradictions and political and military conflicts, militarist escalation, wars that are spreading and intensifying the threat of a nuclear hecatomb. This conjuncture brings complex challenges to the organizations that struggle for world peace, social justice, the peoples’ rights, and equality between the nations”. Socorro Gomes concluded her speech by stating: “Facing this complex and challenging scenario, the World Peace Council is called upon to play a uniting, organizing and mobilizing role to confront the militarist forces causing wars, interventions and coups, and to move forward, in the struggle for peace and the peoples’ emancipation This struggle will require from us ever greater clarity of purpose, spirit of unity, initiative, and militancy, to open a clear path in this historical crossroads where humanity finds itself.”

During the presentation of the Report of the outgoing General Secretary, Thanassis Pafilis, who, thanked the Vietnam Peace Committee on behalf of the WPC and expressed the undivided solidarity of the WPC to the heroic people of Vietnam, he noted: "In the years that have passed since the 21st Assembly of the WPC in Sao Luis, the WPC developed multifaceted action in conditions of tension of imperialist aggression, heightened rivalries between monopolies and states that give rise to wars, in conditions of the intensity of capital's attack against the working class, the peoples, the youth, in conditions of a capitalist crisis that worsens the lives of the people for the profits of the few, of those who steal wealth from the many who produce it". He highlighted the rich actions of the WPC against the imperialist plans of the USA - NATO - EU, the solidarity actions for the people of Palestine, Western Sahara, Cuba, Venezuela, but also for the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya that were the victims of the long-standing imperialist wars of interventions by the US, NATO, the EU and their allies.

Referring to recent developments, after condemning the imperialist war in Ukraine, he noted: "The recent NATO Summit in Madrid in June 2022 reviewed, renewed and accelerated a series of decisions from previous years. This war machine is increasing its aggression even more through the NATO 2030 strategy and the New Strategic Concept that it is preparing for the next year. Old and new pretexts, such as hybrid threats, cyber security and the so-called climate crisis, the energy crisis, etc. are mobilized to pave the way for new interventions. The WPC participated in the mass demonstration of June 26 in Madrid, with its own distinct presence. (....) The NATO 2030 Strategy foresees the strengthening of the military means of the alliance, but also its technological modernization, its planned expansion around the world, its enlargement with new members, but also the development of partnerships with dozens of states, the formation of ready combat units, the integration of Sweden and Finland, the sending of troops to Eastern Europe, around Ukraine. This is what the creation of 30 infantry units, 30 naval units and 30 aviation units aims at, which, being fully equipped, have the ability to intervene within 30 days on any front chosen by NATO. NATO forces are spread across the globe, from Afghanistan and the NATO protectorate of Kosovo to the Baltic, the Caucasus, the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and Africa."

With reference to the role of the European Union, Thanassis Pafilis highlighted its further militarization in order to more effectively serve the needs of European monopolies, through its Global Strategy, but also its "Strategic Concept", so that it can operate both autonomously and in addition to NATO ,a fact recorded, among others, by the establishment of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), the European Initiative for Interventions, etc., within the framework of the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP).

Concluding, he noted "Despite the negative correlation of forces and the militarization of international relations, we are optimistic that the anti-imperialist peace movement is gaining strength and our Assembly is such proof that we are holding high the flag of anti-imperialist struggle and solidarity."

The opening ceremony of the XXII assembly of the WPC was also attended by Ambassador Nguyen Phuong Nga, President of the Vietnam Union for Friendship Organisations (VUFO), which contributed decisively to the success of the Assembly. The special chief guest of the opening was Tran Thanh Man Standing Vice-Chairman of the National Assembly (Parliament) of Vietnam and member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, who welcomed warmly all delegates to Vietnam and to the Assembly. As per decision of the President of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Nguyễn Xuân Phúc, the Supreme Order of Friendship was awarded to the World Peace Council and separately to Socorro Gomes, Thanassis Pafilis and Iraklis Tsavdaridis, for their contribution to the anti-war, anti-imperialist, peace movement. The order was awarded by Tran Thanh Man in a very emotional fraternal ceremony.

During the rich and diverse program of the 22nd WPC Assembly, the international delegates were received by the President of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Nguyễn Xuân Phúc, the local authorities of Hanoi, the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Fatherland Front of Vietnam Do Van Chien, as well as by officials of the Vietnam Peace Committee and the Vietnamese Union for the Friendship of Peoples (VUFO), who were the hosts of the events. The international delegates had also the opportunity to visit the Quang Ninh province where one of the most emblematic sites is situated, the Halong Bay whereas all international guests enjoyed the marvelous environment and local hospitality.

During the Assembly and after the presentation of the five regional reports, a rich discussion took part in which more than 50 delegates and guests took part. The greetings speeches of five International Organisations and structures were conveyed by their representatives such as Rafael Cardino, member of the Presidential Council of the World Federation of Trade Union (WFTU), Aritz Rodriguez, President of the World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY), Annie Raja, Vice-President of the Women International Democratic Federation (WIDF), Jun Sasamoto, Member of the Bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) and Corazon Valdez from the Asia-Europe Peoples’ Forum (AEPF).

After the organizational and financial reports, the 22nd Assembly of the WPC elected its new Executive Committee (EC) consisting of 40 organizations. At its first meeting, the new Executive Committee elected a 13-member Secretariat, consisting of movements from the following : All India Peace& Solidarity Organisation (India), Greek Committee for International Détente &Peace (Greece), Portuguese Council for Peace & Cooperation (Portugal), U.S. Peace Council (USA), South African Peace Initiative (South Africa), Palestinian Committee for Peace &Solidarity (Palestine), Cuban Institute for the Friendship of the Peoples(Cuba), Cyprus Peace Council (Cyprus), Syrian National Peace Council (Syria), Sudan Peace& Solidarity Council (Sudan), Brazilian center for the solidarity of the peoples and struggle for Peace ( Brazil), Nepal Peace &Solidarity Council (Nepal) and Japan Peace Committee (Japan).

During the first session of the new EC, Pallab Sengupta on behalf of the All India Peace and Solidarity Organization (AIPSO) was elected unanimously as the new President of WPC, while Thanassis Pafilis and Iraklis Tsavdaridis were re-elected unanimously to the posts of General and Executive Secretary respectively, representing the Greek Peace Committee (EEDYE). Words of thanks and appreciation were expressed by Iraklis Tsavdaridis and Thanassis Pafilis about Socorro Gomes for the 14 years of contribution and service to the WPC as its President.

The Executive Committee appointed also five Vice-Presidents from respective number of regions, namely: Elisa Salvador, President of the Angolan League for the Friendship and Solidarity of the Peoples (LAASP), Alfred Marder, President of Honor of the U.S. Peace Council (USPC), Uong Chu Luu, President of the Vietnam Peace Committee (VPC), Milan Krajca, Chairman of the Czech Peace Movement (CMH), Jamshid Ahmadi, Coordinator of the Association for the Defense of Peace, Solidarity and Democracy, Iran (ADPSD).

During the meetings of the Executive Committee of 21st and 24th November the following five (5) new Member Organisations were affiliated to the World Peace Council:
• Tunisian Council for Peace and Solidarity
• Kuwaiti Peace and Solidarity Committee
• Network of Struggle for Peace & International Solidarity, SOLI Puerto Rico
• Western Sahara Peace Council
• Solidarwerkstatt Austria

The Assembly of the WPC discussed and unanimously approved a political declaration.

Attached Appendixes:
Political Declaration of the XXII WPC Assembly, and New Elected Executive Committee, Secretariat with Coordinators and Vice-Presidents:

political_declaration_xxii_assembly_wpc_english1.doc
new_executive_committee_hanoi_2022.docx

Launching of Michel Chossudovsky's Book, Belgrade Forum on October 24, 2022

My sincere thanks for this welcome to the Republic of Serbia. I must say my heart is in the Republic of Serbia today. And my thanks to Zivadin.

I should mention that just about 15 minutes ago he gave me a bottle of Sljivovica. It was delivered to my room at quarter to 11, 15 minutes ago. It‘s a weapon  of mass destruction [Laughter] but it’s also an act of solidarity and sharing. And when I arrived here I had the bottle of Sljivovica in my hands and somebody confiscated it and put it on the table over there. But we will share it, we will share it together at the end of this presentation [Laughter]. Well that bottle is a symbol of division but also solidarity in the Serbian context.

This presentation I think is important inasmuch as the world is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history.

In many regards the US-NATO war against Yugoslavia which extended incidentally over a period of 20 years or more, because it started in the early 80s was a dressed rehearsal for all US sponsored subsequent wars.

It is important to point out that prominent scholars entitled that war against Yugoslavia as a “Just War”. Now, there’s nothing “Just” about that war, it’s a criminal undertaking. But you have people like Professor Richard A. Falk from Princeton University (currently involved in the anti-war movement in relation to Ukraine), who in 2001 put forth the notion of “The Just War“.

He was referring to Yugoslavia and Afghanistan: Interview with R. Falk

Yugoslavia was a preamble to Afghanistan based on the same premises of criminality against Sovereign countries.

I should mention also that when the war on Yugoslavia broke out, on the 24th of March 1999, progressives in other words leftist movements in both Western Europe as well as North America we’re firmly behind NATO.  And these were anti-war and anti-globalization activists who were either totally ignorant, but I suspect through complicity, they were supportive of the alleged “humanitarian war” to the rescue of the Albanian population of Kosovo.

I should mention that most of my research was done outside Serbia. I have visited Serbia on several occasions but when the war broke out on the 24th of March, I started writing. Many of the texts which are in this book were written more than 20 years ago, some of them were written actually in the mid 1990s.

I had started my research in the early 1990s focusing on the economic and social dimensions which are crucial to an understanding of the military and  strategic dimensions. I’m referring to the fact that in the early 1980s  there was, what we might describe as, an “Economic War Plan” largely with instrumented by the IMF and the World Bank, which essentially consisted in dismantling an entire National economy.

I recall that the war against Yugoslavia as of March 24 1999 was targeting essentially civilian infrastructure: schools, hospitals, the infrastructure of residential areas.

These are amply documented but there was one element which is beyond criminality.

When I was in Belgrade a year later, I visited the Children’s Hospital and the children hospital had been identified as a target, a strategic target by US – NATO.  And when we say US – NATO, it’s really US. NATO is simply an appendage of the Pentagon.

US-NATO stated categorically that their objective was to save lives and because of that they did not bomb the section of the hospital where the babies were residing, but instead they bombed the power generators which provided electricity to the hospital and to the children in incubators. What this meant is that the entire hospital was destroyed because these smart bombs had undermined the basic functioning of the hospital, which then required the subsequent evacuation of the hospital, and many children, of course, died as a result of this.

That’s one example, but it’s one example that I investigated when I returned to Belgrade a year later to attend the commemoration organized under the auspices of the Belgrade Forum.

I would like to look at the issue of chronology and history of this war.

Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, Yugoslavia was a successful economy with a social project. It was entitled “Market Socialism”, it had a cooperative structure of enterprise management and it had the highest growth rate when compared to European countries, in excess of 6 percent and a full-fledged welfare state.

I should mention that this process was in a country which had experienced heavy casualties during World War II, which were commemorated yesterday.

I should mention my first visit to Yugoslavia was in 1967 as a student. In fact, it was a group of students from the Institute of Social studies in The Hague Netherlands and we decided we wanted to go to Yugoslavia, to take cognizance of “Market Socialism”. The Institute arranged for this to take place.

Without personalizing: during this visit I had a minor health problem. I went to a clinic and received treatment from a medical doctor. Then I said “How much do I owe you?” and he said to me “Nothing”. He responded “In the Republic of Serbia we also welcome our foreign visitors and provide them with full health coverage”.

No other country in the world would have that kind of procedure. It was full-fledged health coverage for the citizens of Yugoslavia but also visitors to the country. That experience was something which had an obvious impact on the way I analyzed the history of what happened to this societal project and how it was deliberately destroyed.

In other words, a societal project [Market Socialism and the Welfare State] had been carried out, with inevitable divisions at a political level. But ultimately based on a social consensus, that was what the people of Yugoslavia wanted. And that that is what was destroyed quite deliberately through a series of economic, social and political mechanisms starting in the early 1980s.

In 1984 the Reagan Administration published what was called a National Security Decision Directive. It was an important policy document, entitled “secret and sensitive”. It was intended to undermine market socialism and integrate Yugoslavia into a so-called free market economy.

That was a 3-page document. I think that many people in this room have read this document. There’s nothing secret about it and there’s nothing sensitive about it. It was made public, but there was also another agenda which was not revealed. There was a military intelligence agenda.

I did not have access to those documents. But there was one document to which I had access and it was a World Bank report published in the early 1990s, which revealed the entire logic of how you destabilize and destroy a country.

I have sent that document, it is on file with the Belgrade Forum. I must say that at the time I received that document it was an internal document of the World Bank. I received it from a representative of the government of Yugoslavia at the time. Normally this was something that was not supposed to be released.

What this document describes is essentially a bankruptcy program, which was initiated under the auspices of the World Bank which then led to the outright closing down of the industrial sector, applied to all major sectors of the Yugoslav economy, dictated of course by the creditors  of the Belgrade government.

What this report described were the policies implemented  on behalf of Belgrade’s creditors, which consisted in the phasing out of socially owned Enterprises. In other words, that was the condition and then there were conditions with regard to bankruptcy and privatization.

They sent in an army of advisors and Western lawyers and consultants to implement this crucial operation. There was the Financial Operations Act of 1989, which was passed and played a crucial role in engineering the collapse of of Yugoslavia’s industrial sector.
The History of “Humanitarian Warfare”: NATO’s Reign of Terror in Kosovo, The Destruction of Yugoslavia

The terminology is diabolical in many regards. The bankruptcy process involved what they called an exit mechanism.

Exit mechanism is like killing the economy, killing the industry.

In other words these enterprises were thrown out of the economic landscape. This was under, what was called, The 1989 Financial Operations Act. It was entirely controlled by Western creditors, the IMF and the World Bank.

And already in 1989 there were tens of thousands of workers who were simply removed from their employment and the socially managed enterprises went bankrupt. In the meantime this set the stage for subsequent macroeconomic policies, because it led to the impoverishment of the entire population.

In other words, it didn’t totally kill the welfare state because, I think, there was a commitment to retaining the welfare state, but it certainly killed the whole economic structure of a sovereign country and its social achievements in the wake of World War II.

Without getting into the detail, this project, was in some regards even more deadly than the US-NATO military operations which were waged at a subsequent stage. Already in 1989 they had more than 200 enterprises which were targeted and almost a 100,000 workers lost their work. That was the first stage both prior and in the wake of the 1990 January IMF Shock Treatment.

January 1990 was the Shock Treatment by the IMF, which ultimately broke down the fiscal structure of the Yugoslav Federation.

The fiscal structure of the Yugoslav federation played a central role in the transfer of resources from the central government to the republics. That’s the basis of a federal structure. These transfers of revenues and expenditures from the central government to the member states of the Federation.

When shock treatment was applied, the federal fiscal structure was destroyed and dismantled, paving the way and creating the conditions for secession.

Already in early 1990, 614 000 workers were dismissed out of a Workforce of the order of 2.7 million. In other words, almost the quarter of the labor force with the largest concentrations of bankrupt firms in Serbia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Macedonia and Kosovo.

The January 1990 IMF Shock Treatment: That was their economic terminology – shock treatment – the idea is that you get shock treatment and then you recover.

Meanwhile the fiscal structure is destroyed, the links between the central government and the republics are undermined and at the same time all the major components of the Yugoslavia economy with regard to large-scale electrical companies, petroleum, refinery, machinery, engineering all of this was precipitated into bankruptcy.

I should mention that this process of economic disintegration was the precondition for the so-called Civil War including military intervention. Social divisions were created. People were impoverished. And this then led to the subsequent stage of military intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

It was also related to Operation Storm in Kraijina and Operation Medak Pocket and the various military actions in Croatia directed against Serbian civilians, from the early 1990s to the mid 1990s.

During the period  1990-1995, the US intelligence strategy was to bring in their terrorists namely Al-Qaeda.

Al Qaeda was integrated into the Bosnian Muslim Army as of an early stage. This is not necessarily known to everybody but Al-Qaeda was a creation of the CIA going back to first War on Afghanistan what was called the the Soviet Afghan War (1979-1989).

It wasn’t the Soviet Afghan War, it was a US sponsored war with so-called “freedom fighters”, namely what was subsequently described as Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda means “The base” and Al-Qaeda was the base in the CIA data bank of the Freedom Fighters who were recruited to wage war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

The relationship between  the Bosnia Muslim Army and Al-Qaeda is documented in a congressional document. In other words it’s a document of the US Senate, which was drafted by the Republican party at the time, and they accused the Clinton administration of bringing in Al Qaeda.

It’s all confirmed. They brought in Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina and, of course, they brought in Al-Qaeda into Kosovo at a subsequent stage.

I should also mention that the Kosovo Liberation Army, they were also trained in Afghanistan, courtesy of the US intelligence.

In other words, the KLA as an entity was linked up with Al-Qaeda terrorists at a much earlier stage, training in Afghanistan and then ultimately these Kosovo terrorists were given United Nations status, as you know that’s came subsequently. But the history goes back to Bosnia  and the use of terrorists to create conditions which then led to ultimately, as far as Bosnia is concerned the so-called Dayton Agreement.

In 1995 there was an alleged peace agreement which was signed in a US military base in Ohio [Dayton, Ohio]. It wasn’t in Geneva, it was in a US military base in Ohio and it was monitored by the US government and military with an army of lawyers and consultants. It was at Dayton that they drafted the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Now this goes beyond colonialism. They drafted the Constitution of a so-called sovereign state. It wasn’t a sovereign state at all. And in that Constitution there is a clause that struck me, I went into the appendices, it wasn’t easy to find it at that time. The Constitution said that the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is a key instrument of monetary and macroeconomic policy, the president of the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina will not be a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or of a neighboring country. He/she she will be appointed by the IMF. That’s what you call democracy.

There is a transition from Bosnia to Kosovo. The United States had private mercenary companies, because they wanted to avoid being directly involved. This was Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI). And MPRI was involved in training terrorists in Croatia and Bosnia and ultimately these acts of training were also conducive to the crimes committed against the Serbian population in Croatia, namely Kraina, the Medak Pocket, if I recall correctly. We then had, of course, a chief of staff whose name was Agim Çeku, which of course everybody knows who he is.

But Agim Çeku was recruited by by Military Professional Resources Incorporated MPRI), mostly composed of former high level officers of the Pentagon.

Agim Çeku, of course, then became Commander in Chief of the Kosovo forces at a subsequent stage.

But in the earlier period he was instrumental in Operation Storm, which was a criminal operation directed against the Serb population in Croatia.

There is another individual which of course everybody knows, it’s General Michael Jackson. It’s not the pop singer. I think I should mention a little bit about the background of Michael Jackson. He was first involved in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, appointed by the United Nations. He held the highest rank in the British Military. And ultimately became Head of the Joint Chief of Staff.

But there’s something else about Michael Jackson which I don’t think people in Serbia know. I know that because I’m of Irish descent and he was the second officer in command of the Bloody Sunday Massacre in Northern Ireland, that was in the 1970s.

He was a young officer and all his training was based in Northern Ireland, largely directed against civilians. I will make that article available. But it’s important to understand how they appoint criminals to high-ranking positions under  UN auspices.

So that in effect, the methods of killing civilians was something that he had inherited from his role in Derry, Northern Ireland. It was in 1972, when civilians were involved in a protest movement and they were shot, killed on the orders of Michael Jackson.

There is a lot of detail in history, but let me proceed to the subsequent stage of the US-Nato Aggression against Yugoslavia, which is the 1999  Illegal invasion and bombing of Yugoslavia, and the role of the alleged Kosovo Freedom Fighters namely the KLA.

This was portrayed as a humanitarian undertaking and the media conformed throughout the Western world and, as I mentioned earlier, the Kosovo Liberation Army was viewed as a legitimate entity protecting the human rights of the Albanian minority.

This of course is total rubbish, because the Kosovo Liberation Army was linked to organized crime. Hashim Thaçi had a file with Interpol, this was well known and they were, of course subsequently, the Kosovo Liberation Army freedom Fighters were then given UN passport, so to speak. The Freedom Fighters linked to organized crime then became the Kosovo Protection Corps and all of that was, of course, not only illegal but criminal.

In late March 1999, I started writing an article which was called and “Kosovo Freedom Fighters financed by organized crime“.

I was a regular contributor to the Le Monde diplomatique which was a prestigious French monthly, and still is, and I worked with them for a period of 10 years starting in 1989, and that article was never published by the Le Monde diplomatique, and I was under attack by various people on the Left regarding my assessment of the Kosovo Liberation Army.

As I mentioned earlier the Kosovo Liberation Army was protected by the CIA and German intelligence – the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND). It was also trained by these intelligence operatives and, as I mentioned, some of the training took place in Afghanistan and the KLA had links to Al-Qaeda right from the beginning prior to 1999.

The issue was as far as media coverage was concerned: it was absolutely prohibited to mention that Hashim Thaçi was on file with Interpol.

I knew it, I checked it, that information was known but it was never released in the course of the war.

In other words not only is the leader of a terrorist organization links to organized crime, but at the same time the leader of that organization becomes the ideal candidate for position of head of state of the self-proclaimed Kosovo Republic. T

he irony is that Hashim Thaçi became president with a criminal record and it was only more than almost 20 years later that there was a report coming from the Hague Tribunal saying that he had committed crimes against humanity etc.

Very convenient: that came 20 years later, when it was known in the late 90s that he was a criminal.

But I should say one thing, criminals were considered as the ideal candidates for high office (President, Prime Minister). Why because they obey orders! Criminal  appointees, corrupt politicians are not going to question the people who are behind them. So what happened: the Mafia State installed by NATO was by a political entity and a leader who was on the Interpol list, but that doesn’t matter because he’s not going to make any decisions, the decisions are taken by US – NATO and this is a very convenient appointment.

I think I should conclude referring to the utmost relevance of US-NATO wars on Yugoslavia in an understanding of what is now happening in Ukraine and beyond.

Because since Yugoslavia there have been a series of US-NATO-sponsored Wars either directly or indirectly but certainly with regard to Libya NATO was involved. Libya, Syria, of course, Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was officially a NATO project, because Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty was endorsed and within three weeks after the 9/11 attacks allegedly by terrorist, (September 11 2001(, on October 7th 2001 they waged war on Afghanistan, based on fraudulent statement that somehow Afghanistan had attacked America. There were no Afghan jets in the skies of New York that day and meanwhile Osama bin Laden had been admitted for treatment to  Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi within walking distance of the US military Mission,

They knew where he was: was he coordinating the 9/11 attacks from his hospital bed with his laptop?

That’s another dimension, but I think what we have undertake, starting in the Republic of Serbia, we have to build a Worldwide movement against US-NATO and also against what is now treason, political treason, within the European Union.

The term Mafia state is not limited to Kosovo. In many regards the European Union has become the Mafia state. I will not dwell upon this but there’s one key appointment in the European Union which is the president of the European Central Bank. Now it just so happens that Christine Lagarde, formerly managing director of the International Monetary Fund, has the criminal record in France. She was condemned to a prison sentence of one year attributable to her role in money laundering  and deviation of public funds. It’s all on record. But she was then released of that decision by  French judges when the IMF governing board, which she chairs, incidentally sent a note to the French government saying that she was a very honest person and they asked for the repeal of the Judgment. But the criminal record is still there and why is that important. Because she is obeying orders from the upper echelons of the financial establishment. There are many elements of Mafia state appointments within the European Union which are now unfolding.

I am going to complete this presentation focusing on the nature of the crisis now affecting the European Union and, of course, Ukraine. It’s interconnected.

There is an act of economic Warfare which in many regards is modeled on the act of economic Warfare against Yugoslavia.

It’s the triggering of bankruptcies, it’s the destabilization of agriculture.

It’s very complex, but it is focusing essentially on two variables:

1. energy and 2. food.

Energy is the input into production, food is survival.

Those two variables and the actions of the United States to block the supply of energy to the European Union are crimes against humanity.

But, on the part of the European, as we say in French La classe politique, it is an act of treason, because they are sleeping with the enemy.

This is a war on Europe, it’s not a war on Russia,

It’s a war in Europe and it has a whole history behind it.

I won’t enter into the details. Specifically North Stream was an act of sabotage by the US government. We have all the information to that effect and Biden said „Yes, I promise we will do it“. We have evidence. In international law, an act of sabotage directed against infrastructure in the territorial waters of sovereign states of the European Union, namely Sweden and Denmark, is an act of War, it’s defined as an act of War.

My thanks to everybody. This is not meant to be a “serious statement” but I think it’s a good idea for the Republic of Serbia not to join the European Union at this particular moment.

Question 1: Thank you very much for coming to Belgrade and for writing this book which I can’t wait to read. I have two questions. One, has there been a promotion of this book in Canada?

The book is available on our website online. Actually, I posted it back today. It has been read quite extensively online and we will continue promoting it.

I think the problem is that print versions are not easy to distribute in this particular context because there is censorship.

My research center is not continuing with print publications. First of all, we don’t have the resources, but we are now moving into what we call ebooks. I’ve just completed a book on the Corona crisis which I think is also relevant to the debate here. But that’s another topic. But yes it is available now.

There are Serbian communities in North America and many cities particularly in Canada and Toronto. I’ve lost contact a little bit because, we were very active in 1999 at various venues in which the late Ramsey Clark was involved. There was a coherent peace movement. I think the problem now is that we don’t have a coherent peace movement.

Question 2: Second, you touched upon a few issues relating to the war in Ukraine and European Union and I’m just wondering if you’re planning to write a book on those topics? It would be very interesting.

I have written extensively on Ukraine in the form of articles and, of course, we’ve also got very numerous contributors and authors which have written on that.

At this stage, all that information is available on Ukraine, in terms of daily coverage.

The books that I’ve written recently or less recently are on nuclear war, the first of which came out in 2011.

Then another book which is entitled “The globalization of War“ came out in 2015 and then my latest book is on the Corona crisis which essentially is almost two years of research,  it’s very detailed.

Let me just mention one dimension, and that’s very important. The economic crisis did not start in February of this year, it started in January of 2020. And what economists do not understand, but that’s also a characteristic of our discipline, is that when you implement a lockdown requiring the confinement of the labor force and you close down the workplace in 193 countries simultaneously, what are the impacts.

it’s the largest economic and social crash in world history which was instrumented on March 11, 2020.

That I’ve tackled very extensively so that all the corona crisis is part of of our understanding of what’s happening in Ukraine and so on and so forth.

Again it’s another topic but that book is available online and I will make sure that it is also available to the Belgrade Forum so that all of you can get a copy of it.

I think in a sense you are very fortunate in Serbia not to have experienced this crisis as in most countries.

Because there was an awareness and I mean, I’m coming from Canada, people are still wearing the mask.

The restrictions, the levels of devastation are beyond description and the logic of this Corona crisis is bankruptcy as well. And it’s the building up of debt and it’s the fiscal crisis of the state. This is outlined in the book there are several chapters on the economic dimensions.

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-nato-war-aggression-against-yugoslavia-michel-chossudovsky/5799983

Download: The-Challenges-of-Global-Security.pdf

Read online:  tzzzs.com/type_rdts/46110.html

Zivadin Jovanovic,  Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals


Excerpts from the speech at the International conference on “Chinese Path to Modernization and New Form for Human Advancement”, hosted by Renmin University, Beijing, November 25-26th, 2022.

Chinese path to modernization and the new form for human advancement, bear specific characteristics. Without ambition to list them all or elaborate in details, here are some to be mentioned.

First, modernization and human advancement is the core of Chinese development philosophy, in general. It is based on the unprecedented achievements of China in all spheres of socio-economic, scientific, technologic and cultural development over the period of building the moderately prosperous society which has been successfully completed. The unique, enormous success of eradication of poverty of the hundreds of millions of the people, not to mention many other great achievements, comprises not only economic and financial resources, but even more, political, cultural, moral and human values, vision and persistence. With such achievements with no comparison in history China is entering the new era of further building and modernizing own society. President Xi Jinping pointed out at the recent 20th Congress of CPC – that “Chinese people of all ethnic groups will realize the second centenary goal of building China into a great modern socialist country in all respects and to advance the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation in all fronts through a Chinese path to modernization”.

Second, Chinese path to modernization stems from the unique socio-economic system of socialism with the Chinese characteristics the core sense of which is satisfying the needs and expectations of the people. Therefore, the Chinese path to modernization is scientifically based as actually, the whole socio-economic system. Its core objective is better life of the people. Therefore the policy of modernization and New Form of Human Advancement is not partial, sectoral, but comprehensive strategy applicable to all fields and all strata of socio-economic, political, governmental and non-governmental, scientific, technologic, educational, cultural and other fields and levels of organizations and entities.

Third, the vision of modernization bears the seal of deep rooted six millennia-long culture of the Chinese nation which has been continuously, enriching humanity with so many innovations, modern solutions and discoveries so that it is hardly possible to find  comparison in the history of civilization, This, of course, is contributing factor  to stability of the process of modernization, essential element of the people’s self-confidence and self-reliance. It is also durable and stable foundation for the successful implementation of the strategy for the New Era including  the new path to modernization and human advancement.

Fourth, Chinese path to modernization presumes firm commitment to deepening of the policy of reform and opening up, but at the same time includes self reliance, further development of the socialist market economy, focusing on domestic economy and interplay between domestic and international economic processes. The new development philosophy adopted at the 20 th Congress of CPC is well based on domestic experiences as well as on good command of the global trends which require built in precaution and adaptability.

Fifth, the new Chinese development philosophy attaches the highest importance to self-reliance in science and technology which are termed “the primary productive forces”, to the advancement of education as “the high priority” and to the innovation as “primary driver of growth”. Such a resolute strategy deserves highest recognition and should serve as inspiration for better understanding of the importance of investing in science, technology, education and culture. This, of course is not left to the automatic solution by market and the private sector but primarily to the government and public sector.

Sixth, the new form of human advancement is based on equality of all nations and all Human beings. It encompasses openness, inclusiveness and human solidarity, excluding any protectionism, privileges or egoism. One of the important directions to strengthen mutual understanding and remove mistrust should be encouraging people-to-people exchange, including exchange and cooperation in the fields of science, education, culture, sports, NGO and think tanks. Chinese concept of building community of the shared future of humanity deserves global promotion and support. Drawing attention of the world community to the coming problem of starvation of about a billion of human beings on our planet and concrete steps to prevent this to happen is the most urgent, top priority of humanity today.

Chinese policy of peace, win win cooperation, support to the democratization of international relations, creation of the new, democratic, multi-polar World Order and adherence to the five principles of peaceful coexistence are also part and parcel of Chinese path to modernization and new form of Human advancement. China has been implementing this policy in many concrete ways, particularly by contributing to the open and inclusive global development, demonstrating impressive solidarity in the global struggle to achieve control of the Covid 19 pandemic, by helping development of the least developed nations and by launching Global Development Initiative Belt and Road decade ago – to mention some. Being comprehensive strategic partner with China, active participant in the process of the Global Belt and Road Initiative (2013) and in China+CEEC cooperation framework (2012), I am convinced that Serbia will continue win win cooperation in the Chinese New Era of modernization and Human Advancement.

Jan Oberg, founder of TFF (Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research), visited the Belgrade Forum for World of Equals on November 25th, 2022, where he met with Zivadin Jovanovic, and talk about potential partnership TFF and Belgrade.

Jan Oberg is a university professor, a researcher of international relations and the author of a number of books, whose main theme is - peace is built exclusively by peaceful means -.

He visited Serbia many times, he was a guest lecturer at the faculties of social sciences, and these days he participated in the Conferences in SANU on the social role of intellectuals.

Il Forum di Belgrado per un Mondo di Eguali esprime la sua più profonda preoccupazione per l'aggravarsi del confronto globale che è accompagnato da una profonda crisi economica e sociale in Europa e nel mondo. Questa crisi, che sta peggiorando ogni giorno, costituisce una minaccia per la vita, la pace e la sicurezza nel mondo. Questa preoccupazione è di vitale importanza, dato il fatto che nessuna iniziativa significativa e onesta sostiene il passaggio a una scelta vitale del confronto, del dialogo, della diplomazia e della distensione.

Le lezioni della storia non possono essere ignorate. Un tale stato di inerzia e di mancanza di comprensione dei pericoli che si stanno manifestando, incide potenzialmente sulle fondamenta stesse dell'esistenza delle discipline umanistiche. Il conflitto in Ucraina deve essere risolto rivolgendosi alle sue radici. Gli sforzi di pace non devono essere ostacolati, le nuove cortine di ferro devono essere rimosse, le sanzioni unilaterali devono essere escluse dalla prassi internazionale. Partendo dall'esperienza storica della Serbia, comprese quelle del recente passato, le esperienze dell'Europa, il Forum di Belgrado per un Mondo di Eguali  rivolge un appello a tutte le associazioni per la pace, i governi, così come le organizzazioni internazionali, in particolare all'ONU, ad appoggiare il dialogo, la diplomazia e la distensione come unica via possibile per prevenire un conflitto globale che minaccia il futuro dell'umanità. Facciamo appello al dialogo immediato e all'azione diplomatica ai massimi livelli tra Washington, Mosca, Pechino e Bruxelles. Il focus di fondo non può che essere sulla “convivenza pacifica” tra nazioni sovrane determinate a prevenire un ulteriore aggravamento del conflitto che potrebbe portare allo scenario della terza guerra mondiale, senza escludere gli incenerimenti nucleari. Il riconoscimento dell'uguaglianza, dell'interdipendenza e del partenariato nel preservare la pace, la sicurezza e lo sviluppo, come valori di civiltà indivisibili, è l'unico modo per la sopravvivenza e il futuro sicuro dell'umanità.

Belgrado, Serbia 26 ottobre 2022

Traduzione a cura di Enrico Vigna, portavoce del Forum Belgrado Italia

Download article

CALL FOR DIALOGUE, DIPLOMACY AND DETENTE

The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals expresses its deepest concern regarding the worsening of the global confrontation which is accompanied by a deep-seated economic and social crisis in Europe as well as worldwide. This crisis which is worsening on a daily basis, constitutes a threat to global life, peace and security.

This concern is of critical significance given the fact that no meaningful and honest initiatives advocate turning from the track of confrontation to essential dialogue, diplomacy and detente.

The lessons of history cannot be ignored. Such a state of inertia and lack of understanding of the unfolding dangers potentially affects the very foundation of humanities existence. The conflict in Ukraine has to be resolved by addressing to its roots. Peace efforts must not be obstructed, new iron curtains must be removed, unilateral sanctions have to be excluded from the international practice.

Starting from the Serbia's historical experience, including those from the recent past, the experiences of Europe, Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals makes an appeal to all peace associations, governments, as well as international organizations, particularly to OUN, to endorse dialogue, diplomacy and detente as the only possible path for preventing a global conflict that threatens the future of humanity.

We appeal for the immediate dialogue and diplomatic action at the highest levels between Washington, Moscow, Beijing and Brussels. The underlying focus can only be on “peaceful coexistence” between sovereign nations determined to prevent further worsening of the conflict which could lead to a World War III scenario, without exclude nuclear incinerations.

Recognition of equality, interdependence and partnership in preserving peace, security and development, as indivisible civilizational values, is the only way for the survival and secure future of humanity.

READ/DOWNLOAD WHOLE ARTICLE

Zivadin Jovanovic,
President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Excerpts from the speech at the International Conference organized by
Mut zur Ethic, Sirnach, Switzerland, September 4th, 2022.

Peace can be preserved by peaceful means, only.
Prevailing narrative today is dominated by attitudes of confrontations, divisions, lining up democracies versus autocracies, escalation, winning the war over Russia by all means.  
Simplified approaches and division on “healthy” and “malign” strategies – sign of weakness.
Illustrative of the global trends are the past June summits – NATO+ (Madrid), G-7 (Elma, Germany), BRIKS+ (Beijing). First two – fueling confrontation, escalation, militarization and sanctions; third – advocating global development, call for partnership.

Global militarization of political decision making, economy, infrastructure, mass media, education – militarization of global thinking.
The pains of birth of the new democratic, inclusive, just World Order.
Pattern of confrontation to be replaced by pattern of detente, peace, partnership, global development.

Openness, adaptation to new realities, vision of common future of mankind.
One New inclusive World Order for the whole mankind, based on sovereign equality of nations and peaceful coexistence - not two, in parallel, confronted.
Vision of common future requires mutual respect.

Global challenges, such as pandemics, climate warming, recession, food and energy production and distribution, need global concerted efforts.

Exclusiveness, domination or hegemonism have to go to history.
Inclusive dialogue based on equality, respect of mutual interests

Dialogue on root causes of problems:

- addressing root causes of escalation, not propaganda
- Consequences of geopolitics of expansion, breach of agreements after the fall of the Berlin Wall
- Real meaning of indivisibility of peace and security, equal security for all – sine qua non
- avoid nuclear catastrophe
- using tactical, “low yield” nuclear armament – dangerous miscalculation
- How to narrow gaps, divisions, mistrust, egoism, protectionism
- Solving present challenges by future oriented, proactive approaches

The role of the Movement of Nonaligned (NAM), making 2/3 of UN membership, in reinstating dialogue and détente.
Role of peace associations, think-thanks, academia and mass-media
The Balkans – long neglected by EU and the West, destabilized and badly damaged by 1999 NATO aggression, now faced with pressures from the same factors to abandon good relations and partnership with Russia and China.

Serbia remains open for win-win cooperation, military neutral, does not wish to join NATO (86% against), nor illegal sanctions against Russia. From the own recent history Serbia is quite aware that sanctions have effects as the armament for massive destruction. EU sanctions against Russia seems to be getting more and more counterproductive.
1999 NATO illegal aggression on the side of separatism in Kosovo and Metohija, violation of UN Charter and Helsinki (1975) Final Document remain tragic precedents. NATO brought back the war to European soil. The problem of the status of Kosovo and Metohija can be resolved on the basis of UN SC resolution 1244, only.
Balkans turning to itself.
The past week Belgrade has been the venue of three days manifestations and Summit of the Open Balkan leaders of Serbia, Albania and N. Macedonia, joined by the leaders of Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary and Turkey. 

Today’s world is in turmoil with obvious risks of further complications and increase of tensions on global level that can lead to the conflict of broader significance and possible tragic consequences. That is an outcome of the extended duration of the system of international relations based, on big part, on inequality between states and nations and of the attempt of some of them to organize the world affairs to fit only their own interests, and the refusal of some states to tolerate that anymore. The inequality is the result of the egoism of the privileged states, that support and practice domination, double standards, injustices, disregard of the international law, oppression, coercion, deception, exploitation, media manipulation and many other bad and negative practices. All them are almost always in favor oft hat privileged group of countries and implemented by them. Consequences of such policies toward other countries are very serious. They consist in restriction of their political independence, devastation and degradation of their economic wealth and the limit of their possibilities to progress and develop.

If the majority of the world’s countries search to change the actual situation and build the world community on a more positive and constructive basis, it have to be conscious of the strength of retrograde forces, of their long experience in troubling world affairs, interfere everywhere and corrupt important institutions and individuals. It should understand that the struggle for freedom and equality in international relations is far to be finished. To succeed It is important to understand that the progressive countries have the imperative to unite for a joint struggle against the oppression that last so long. The difference in position and, consequently, in the approach in relation to this issue by two opposite block of countries is a result of their historical path. Those two groups could be nearly defined as former colonial powers and former colonies or, maybe more precisely, developed and developing ones. Although there are no precise criteria for the definition of “developed” and “developing” countries, it is broadly assessed that the majority of Western countries are in the group of “developed” countries, with the meaning rich and privileged ones, and that the rest of the world is in the group of “developing” ones, in some part former colonies, with the meaning poor and oppressed ones.

By Investopedia team*, countries may be classified as either developed or developing based on the gross domestic product (GDP) or gross national income (GNI) per capita, the level of industrialization, the general standard of living, and the amount of technological infrastructure, among several other potential factors. It is evident that those characteristics depend deeply from the historical development of each country and that the developed ones, 36 countries by Investopedia team, are all located in North America, Europe, or “Developed Asia and Pacific”. On the other side, 126 developing ones (Investopedia team) are all located in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. And they are frequently experiencing a lack of jobs, food, clean drinking water, education, healthcare, and housing. Consequently, developed countries are practically all colonial ones and developing ones in big part former colonies. That’s explaining the base of the antagonisms and the approaches to the international relations.

But today, the difference in economic wealth, level of development and international influence is not anymore so big as it was. Combining previously enumerated factors, Investopedia team consider that, based on the research updated in April 2022, in 2020 the USA was the richest developed country on Earth with a total GDP of $20.95 trillion and China was the richest developing country on Earth, with a total GDP of $14.73 trillion. We can agree or not, but we can’t deny that China has high incomes, developed industrial base, has access to modern technologies, and succeed to eradicate the poverty, in a most populated country of the world and, consequently, could be treated also as developed country. And not just China.

Nevertheless, that clearly demonstrates that the differences between the diverse groups of the countries exists, in their origins, their actual position and consequently in their political engagement. The roots of their differences are in the fact that the developed countries, colonial ones, got their wealth by exploitation and oppression of the colonized ones. Contrary to that, developing countries, many of them former colonies, were by centuries devastated and robbed by colonial states. They are, by that, natural enemies, in first place because former colonial powers, independently of their rhetoric, still practice the same neocolonial policies and doesn’t want to renounce to their domination in the international relations and easy profits. The former colonies think that they have right to be remunerated for the past exploitation, or at least to be free of further exploitation, what is not easy to achieve. The right question is if developing countries became strong enough to confront colonial ones seriously and get not just formal independence, but substantial one.

We are now precisely in one of those moments in which a number of states achieved certain capacity. That’s mean economic, military and consequently political one, and is trying to challenge that unfavorable system, the countries that are representing it, and the ones that have benefits from such a system. It is clear that such a challenge provokes a violent reaction of the privileged former colonial countries with serious risks for a broader war.

The actual conflict in Ukraine is not only an excellent proof of profound differences between two parts of the world represented this time by RF and USA, but in the some time the obvious evidence that the antagonisms between actual and new superpowers began to be disputed by force. The conflict in Ukraine is certainly a consequence of the strategy of domination, expansion and deterrence which NATO conducts under the leadership of USA. Relatively to that, it should be stressed that the security is indivisible and is equal for everybody, not somebody’s privilege at the expense of others.

There are many views that the conflict in Ukraine is a struggle for the multipolarity that should replace the actual unipolarity, lead by USA. It has to be said that in the globalized world nobody is self-sufficient or exempted. Egoism, protectionism, double standards, domination should be left to the history. Only multipolarity, based on full respect of sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs, could be the pillar of peace and stability in the world. How far that conflict can go, we will see. But, the profundity of the antagonisms and their extended duration suggest in fact that they probably can’t be solved easily and without defeat of one of the sides what would have serious impact on tomorrow’s world.

If the conflict in Ukraine is formally run between RF and Ukraine, effectively it is conduct between RF and USA, as representatives of a privileged group of countries and the rest of the world that struggle against inequality. China is not participating actively in it, at least not yet but, in fact, is sharing the position of RF on many aspects and especially on the basic one – a regain of the equality. It has to be said that China and many other countries in the world, didn’t introduce sanctions to RF, in spite of frenetic pressure of the West to do it. Unilateral sanctions are unacceptable. Introducing them doesn’t resolve anything. Contrary, sanctions are an arm for massive destruction and a part of the war policy, sometime its introduction. It is also true that the right question is who those sanctions would hit more- the ones that introduced them or the targeted ones. What is certain is they will cause enormous damage to the global economy that still didn’t overpass the consequences of the Covid 19 pandemic.

Speaking about sanctions, conflict and wars, it is maybe necessary to stress that the world should think about more important global issues, in first place about the big problem of the modern humanity that is the increase of poverty. It could be suppressed if the race in arms became replaced by a race for the extermination of poverty and unjust repartition of the wealth. The world needs investments and help of the developed countries to the countries in development, particularly in Africa, instead of their exploitation. The world needs also the democratization of the inclusive global governance. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the cooperation format  1 + 17 are giving the biggest contribution to the global development and by that to the peace and stability, and China’s win-win cooperation and solidarity have become symbols of its approach to the international community. Those are the good examples of constructive strength.

The challenge of the unipolar world under USA leadership consist in the legitimate attempt of some countries, in first place Russian Federation (RF), and then China, as the ones that have the real capacities to compete, in any field, with USA, to defend themselves from constant aggressive behavior, military encirclement, real threats, conditioning, oppression, economic pressures, media accusations and many other activities of the Western countries The problem for USA and other Western countries  with RF and China is that they are trying to establish free, fair and transparent international relations, based on relative equality and mutual respect of interest. That means especially in the fields of security, economy, and international relations and to build confidence between states, countries, nations and religions. They would like to bring to an end the domination of developed countries in international affairs, the dependence from them,  their interference in bilateral affairs, and relations with other countries, their pressures and threats about many questions in relation to their internal and international policies. Those goals are precisely the attributes of the world based on constructive strength. But precisely those goals represent a big problem for USA, GB, EU and some others Western countries ( including Australia and New Zealand), because if such rules prevail, they will erode their supremacy in the world affairs. That’s practically means that it would  shrink their political influence on the international organizations and on bilateral level, endanger the repartition of world resources and economic distribution of wealth that is in their favor, reduce their financial privileges and exclusive right to print money without control and cover, especially US Dollar, diminish technologic advantages, weaken their media supremacy that is a serious base of their manipulation in the world affairs and many other proceedings.

For centuries, privileged – Western countries use their supremacy toward other countries to incite and deepen differences between them, to spur and incite conflicts, to introduce very often sanctions to other countries as measure of pressure, to disable any country to rise to the level to challenge them, to harm the interest of other countries, undermine the international organizations, disrespect the international laws trying to build and defend their policy of privileges, exceptionality in the international arena and to destroy everything that can endanger their position, especially to prevent any aspirants of overthrowing them. Without their supremacy they would loose their power and influence, consequently profits and, probably, face internal instabilities. Their economic system is based on exploitation of foreign cheap resources and labor and on the monopoly of selling the final products.

The antagonism between the privileged group of the countries and practically the rest of the world last very long, through few centuries, taking diverse forms in different historical periods, provoking from time to time instability, conflicts, political or economic sanctions, regional and even world wars, changing names and actors, but never settling because the basic difference between privileged and oppressed countries. That’s mean in first place in the inequality in position, rights, possibilities, level of development, influence, and many other aspects, that persist even today. But the conflicts are provoked not just because of the attempt of some countries to challenge the exceptional position of superpowers of the Western countries. The truth is that happen much more as the result of the ambition of former colonial countries to grab every time more then they already have- political power, economic resources, territories, richness and wellness in the world. Also, it is the result of the attempt to try to impose itself as the only and supreme power. The periodical challenges of that ambition are just contributing to he turmoil in the world but the everyday life is during whole history full of regional conflict, sanctions, pressures and similar proceeding through which western superpowers were trying to keep the rest of the world under their domination, supremacy and rules, exploit their wealth and resources and prevent them to develop and possibly challenge them.

The colonial policy was  based on inequality, injustice, slavery, exploitation, including all kind of inhuman proceeding against indigenous populations in Africa, America and Asia. From that time, colonial countries adopted the stand of underestimation of indigenous population, then on much lower civilization level. From the difference in level of development and civilization they concluded that the indigenous population deserve to be treated differently that their own, that means much worse. Such an approach had as consequence the behavior toward the indigenous population without any respect of their rights on life, property, territory, integrity, practicing inequality, injustices, slavery, forced labor, exploitation, pressures, conditioning and in some cases even almost total extermination. The problem is because it seems that former colonial powers still believe in the supremacy of their race, culture and civilization and are continue treating the rest of the world and especially their former colonies as inferior. If we analyze the nowadays behavior and the activities of those former colonial powers we can’t avoid to conclude that they are acting on the same old colonial way as in the past. The source of a wealth of today’s richest countries in the world is precisely that period of a wild exploitation of the colonies, using against the indigenous population every mean to keep it enslaved and obedient, in order to continue the robbery as long as possible. The exploitation of the colonies continued during centuries, changing name to neocolonial. In fact, until nowadays, there ware no big changes.  In recent time, such policy is called globalization but, in essence, that was always the same policy and the same approach.

The basic difference between the former colonial block of countries and the block, if we can speak in those terms, of “constructive” countries, could be more understandable with some example; perhaps Serbia could be a good one. Speaking about the violent break up of Yugoslavia, inspired from outside, in the nineteen’s of the previous century, Serbia was the only one accused and guilty for that without taking in account that it was the only one to defend Yugoslavia, as the only legal country in the moment of the attack on it. Serbia was also accused for the crimes and destructions during the civil war committed everywhere on the former Yugoslav territory, regardless the fact that Serbs were all the time first to be attacked. Serbs were accused to be occupiers of territories they lived for centuries, accused for ethnic cleansing of other nationalities and religions contrary of the evidence that they were the only ones ethnically cleansed from Croatia, Bosnia and Hertzegovine (BiH) and Kosovo and Metohija (KiM). Serbia was the sole republic to be subject of severe sanctions of Western countries, attacked by NATO in 1999. (19 mightiest and richest countries of that time) during 78 days, part of its state territory was usurped and put under UN control under false accusations. After that, without any opposition or protest, it was silently given to be occupied by Albanian terrorist and recognized by colonial countries as independent state in 2008 (although illegally), complete political and military leadership of Serbia and Republika Srpska were broth to the illegal Hague tribunal and sentenced. In the same time, the leaders and dignitaries of other republics were liberated. All that is a very good example of the behavior of the former colonial countries, their devotion to a international laws, justice, and truth.

Another good example could be the candidature of Serbia for the full membership in the EU. Serbia applied for a full membership in December 2009 and, until now, didn’t advanced very much. There is always new preconditions to achieve, temporary goals to reach, requests to fulfill, new exigencies and expectations to be delivered and even when done, there is little progress but new conditions comes. Out of very complex and complicated procedures to fulfill, practically “unique” there is always some new “crucial” conditions to reach as the most important step for the faster membership. It was first to deliver to the Hague tribunal former President of Serbia Slobodan Milosevic. Once done, it was to deliver general Ratko Mladic, then Radovan Karadzic, former President of BiH, then successively many times new requests. Today, in 2022, Serbia is still far away of the membership in EU and there is of course new conditions – to recognize KiM, to stop to support Republika Srpska, to renounce from the cooperation with RF and China, because of their “negative influence on Serbia”. And there are many additional requests.

In the same time, Serbia is cooperating very much with RF and China, on base of equality, under fair and correct agreements and acceptable financial arrangements, friendly, without any precondition of similar proceeds, respecting contracts, dates, quality and with full mutual respect. The cooperation between Serbia and China and RF is constantly progressing, on political, but also economic and all other levels, including military-technical cooperation, cooperation in big infrastructural projects, in energy, in the field of transport and all that without any political conditioning. Even contrary to that, with open support in the UN in the questions that are on the vital interest of Serbia, not just because Serbia and China and RF are friends, but because they support the international law and the legality in international affairs. In short, they cooperate on constructive basis and that could be the model how the countries from over the world should cooperate and cherish their relations and interests.

The actual circumstances in the world offer real possibilities for states such RF and China to change the state of things and abolish, at least to some extent, the negative interference and influence of former colonial countries to other states, international organizations and institutions, and by that dismantle the colonial net existing from centuries. They have the opportunity to bring to an end the inequality, injustice and exploitation, liberate the world from chains and open new era of free and open world. By defending itself and their equality, they will defend the oppressed countries, revitalize international organizations and institutions, inciting the rest of the international community to lean on international law, give possibility for free and fair economic cooperation for everybody and continue to give by their example the confirmation that it is possible. On that way they would help the world to rely on constructive forces, interested for free, fair and just international relations and for the equal opportunities for every state to follow its lucky star and achieve its goals- political, economic and social and every other. In that aim it should be crucial to search to achieve those goals respecting fully the interests of its partners, not to act against them, but also, to prevent former colonial states to continue to manipulate and dominate in international affairs. That is certainly not an easy task, even it is risky, but is worth to fight for.

CNGNN & Associazione per un Mondo senza Guerre

Pangea Wide Angle: INSIDE THE NEWS

on BYOBLU Digital terrestrial channel 262

Yugoslavia - Krajina

The Donbass of thirty years ago

After signing the INF Treaty in 1987 with Mikhail Gorbachev, President Ronald Reagan promised Russia that NATO would never reach its borders, a commitment reiterated by President George Bush Sr. in the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. The Cold War was temporarily hibernated, while the United States, now the only world power, had already planned the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the isolation of the Serbs too close to Russia. In addition, it was urgent to find a new placing for NATO.

Through the World Bank, the US enforced the repayment of loans, financed the Croatian far-right parties, and supported the demands of the Muslims of Bosnia, in order to be able to act with the consent of public opinion, they started a media campaign against the Serbs. To complete the work, CIA agents with a lot of cash persuaded politicians and media representatives to support the established narrative. Then they imposed heavy sanctions. The Serbs were portrayed in the international media as warmongers, accused of wanting a Greater Serbia.

There are many similarities with what happened in Donbas: it can be said that in Yugoslavia a dress rehearsal was staged to test a protocol also applied in Ukraine.

Krajina like Ukraine means border. The Serbian Krajines, inserted in Croatia, would not have formed the Serbian Republic of Krajina if they could remain in a Croatia federated with the other Yugoslav republics. But with independence, the Croatian government promulgated a constitution that excluded the rights of any ethnic group other than the Croatian one.

In 1993 the ethnic cleansing of the Krajines began with the Medak Pocket culminating in the Flash and Storm operations (1995) supported by US mercenaries: half a million Serbs without protection had to leave their territory.

This doc-film presented by Pangea Grandangolo - Dentro la Notizia was shot in September 1993 by a cameraman of Knin TV which no longer exists, like the Krajines.

Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXoG0c6Xqq0

Wolfgang Effenberger

After EU Council President Charles Michel proposed to make Ukraine and Moldova candidates for EU membership, the draft final declaration of the June 23-24 EU summit in Brussels on June 21, 2022, stated, "The European Council has decided to grant candidate country status to Ukraine and Moldova."(1) (Georgia is to be granted candidate status as well.) It is assumed that the 27 heads of state and government will follow the EU Commission's recommendation.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Selenskyj reiterated that he believes Ukraine already belongs to Europe. The country attacked by Russia proves every day that it is already part of a united European value area, he said.

Since June 21, the self-propelled howitzer 2000 promised by Germany "has finally become part of the 155-millimeter howitzer arsenal of the Ukrainian artillery," Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksiy Resnikov wrote on Twitter. In doing so, he thanked Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht (SPD) "for all efforts" to support Ukraine.(2)
On the eve of June 22 - on this day in 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the then-Soviet Union (killing over 26 million people) - shells from Western-supplied guns hit Luhansk and Donetsk. In Russia, candles were lit to commemorate the Great Patriotic War.
This June 22 would have been an opportunity to pause once to remember the catastrophe of World War 2 and to look for ways to peace. But the opposite was the case. On that day, the German mainstream media again incited against Russia.

While British Prime Minister Boris Johnson warns the West of a "long war" in Ukraine(3) in the Times, the Chief of the British Army Staff, General Sir Patrick Sanders, tunes soldiers to fight alongside their allies to defeat Russia: "Russia's invasion of Ukraine underlines our core mission to protect the United Kingdom - by being prepared to fight and win wars on the mainland,"(4) Sanders said on Sky News on June 19.

British army chief warns 'must prepare to fight in Europe'(5)

 
On the same day, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also expressed his concern in an interview with the Bild newspaper that the war could drag on for years; should support for Ukraine weaken, a heavy price would be paid.(6)
The most incredible statement was made on Friday, June 17, 22 by Air Force Chief Ingo Gerhartz (56) at the Kiel International Seapowers Symposium: "For credible deterrence, we need both the means and the political will to implement nuclear deterrence if necessary."(7)

Aimed at the First World War

In view of the ever louder drums of war that can currently be heard, a reference to the parallels of the present situation to that before 1914 seems not only permissible but even necessary. After the imperial wars of 1898 (USA against the great power Spain in Cuba and the Philippines), 1899- 1901 (UK against the Boers in Africa) and 1900 (the "value West" against China), tensions were building up in the world and especially on the part of Great Britain, France and Russia against Germany. From early December 1907 to February 1909, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt(8) had a large part of his new war fleet steam around the globe in sensational voyages, to the delight of naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan.(9) Sixteen modern armored battleships and cruisers demonstrated their superiority in striking power and mobility all around the world.

Today, 11 nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carriers are in service on the world's oceans along with their accompanying fleets.

In 2020, NATO and U.S. military spending totaled $1,102 billion, while that of China and Russia was $314 billion. Of this, Germany and Russia's spending balanced out at about $60 billion.(10)
Such an imbalance(11) was also evident before World War I(12):

 

Armament budgets 1880-1913 in U.S. Dollars (in thousandths)

Only a few weeks after the assassination in Sarajevo on July 28, 1914, the time had come. On the morning of August 5, 1914, the New York Times ran the headline, "ENGLAND DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY - 17,ooo,ooo MEN ENGAGED IN GREAT WAR OF EIGHT NATIONS."
In the same issue, the NYT published a column by H.G. Wells in which he wrote that "the sword is now drawn for peace" and "never was a war so just as the war now against Germany." Wells was convinced that Germany would be crushed and ripe for revolution in 2 to 3 months.(13)

Even before this issue of the NYT appeared, the British cut the German-American Atlantic cable in the early hours of the morning; thus, news from Berlin no longer reached the U.S. and vice versa.
With the beginning of the war, Russian news portals were blocked and further dissemination of Russian news was made a punishable offense.

 One day after Woodrow Wilson's pledge of neutrality on August 19, 1914, the naval blockade of Germany by Great Britain, which was contrary to international law, began without any major protest from the United States. This blockade was intended to isolate and economically strangle Germany. According to the official historian of the Royal Navy, Sir Julian Corbett, this blockade had been planned from 1908 on by Lord Hankey in the Committee of Imperial Defence (CID) with "an orderly completeness of detail which has no parallel in our history"(14).
In fact, little is known to this day about "how and why a scant dozen leading U.S. investment bankers supported Britain from the beginning through illegal acts of war." With the election of a clueless U.S. president in late 1912 and the creation of the FED in 1913 (unlimited debt), the decision to go to war had been made.(15)

Realignments after World War I

Three times in the 20th century the international order was "reordered"(16)
1) With the Versailles system of peace treaties and the creation of the League of Nations in 1920,
2) With the Potsdam Agreement and the creation of the United Nations in 1945, and
3) After the end of the Cold War in 1990 with the "Charter of Paris" and the creation of the OSCE.

With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact (and the Soviet Union), the world hoped for a peaceful future. But after the victory of the "West" in 1990, "wars of order" were instigated in many places in the world, such as the war against Iraq orchestrated by Bush Sr. in 1991. Some may still remember the unsavory "incubator lie" that ultimately tipped the scales in favor of the UN's blessing for that war. When, on March 24, 1999, NATO launched the first war of aggression in its history without a UN mandate and thus in violation of international law against a sovereign country, it was immediately followed by a new doctrine permitting future interventions without a UN mandate.
The wars of the so-called "value West" in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria did not reorganize anything, but only led to "failed states", i.e. into never-ending chaos - also a war crime.

NATO's war in Yugoslavia began on March 24, 1999 - 12 days earlier Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary had joined. Was this just another war in the wake of the post-Yugoslav secession wars since the early 1990s? Certainly not, because 4 imperial motives of the USA can be identified(17)
1) A war of NATO Against rest of Yugoslavia in order to insert it into the periphery of the West.
2) A war of the USA, in order to subjugate EU-Europe further to their subjection.
3) "A war whose long-distance effect was also aimed at further chastening Russia"; and
4) A war to demonstrate "NATO or US superiority over China"(18).

After the Yugoslav war, so-called "color revolutions" were concerted in Eastern Europe, most of which then led to regime change and desired EU and NATO accession.  

Former Canadian professor of economics and head of the Globalization Research Centre, Michel Chossudovsky, drew attention in June 2015 to the fact that behind the Ukraine crisis lies a broad military strategy that goes far beyond Ukraine: "NATO - and when we say NATO, we also mean the United States - is engaging in war games on Russia's doorstep ... Now they are threatening Russia with nuclear weapons, and it's obvious that the nuclear option has been discussed in the U.S. Congress."(19)
Then, in the summer of 2015, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law to that effect,(20) stating that deployment of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction on the soil of Ukraine would be legal "until the deployment target is reached." Previously, this was ruled out by law.
From 2015, NATO maneuver frequency (such as DEFENDER 20/21) on Russia's doorstep increased dramatically. In parallel, the military infrastructure road and rail from Antwerp/Bremerhaven/ Hamburg towards Görlitz, Krakow and Kiev was made fit for war.

Turn of the tide?

Three days after the Russian attack on Ukraine - just as illegal under international law as all U.S. wars since the attack on Yugoslavia - Chancellor Olaf Scholz introduced his government statement on Feb. 27 with the words:
"February 24, 2022 marks a turning point in the history of our continent."(21) In a firm voice, Scholz castigated Vladimir Putin's cold-bloodedness and ruthlessness over his war of aggression, which he said could not be justified by anything, and asked:
"May might break right?". The rhetorical answer (with respect to Russia) is clearly no. However, different standards seem to apply to the United States.
Furthermore, Scholz announced ambitious foreign and military policy goals to the applause of the Bundestag majority: Not only to increase the current German military budget to more than 70 billion euros, but in addition to that, to increase the striking power of the Bundeswehr, a so-called "special fund" of 100 billion euros from the current budget. As a reminder: Three days after the start of the war in 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm II convened the Reichstag on August 4 to vote on the war credits. At that time, the term "war loans" was used in all honesty, whereas today the term "special assets" is used to conceal from the public that this is once again a matter of debt.
The fact that Scholz was able to announce within three days "a complete and detailed concept for a no-alternative swing to the foreign policy course of the U.S. and the abrupt transformation of the Federal Republic into a fiscal warfare state suggests that the state apparatus had drafts already at its disposal."(22)
It would be interesting to know who was involved in drafting Scholz's speech and when Scholz first read it.

Two days before the governmental declaration, the SPD newspaper "Vorwärts" stated:
"According to media reports, top U.S. diplomats - and also Foreign Minister Blinken himself - are engaged in these hours in direct talks to bring about the broadest possible condemnation in the General Assembly."(23) In a speech to the United Nations that was celebrated as "emotional," Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (Alliance 90/The Greens) condemned Russia in a way "that elevates Germany, the old World War II loser, to the role of moral judge and demonstrates what "values-based foreign policy" means."(24)
After three days of debate, 141 nations voted yes on March 2 to the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian invasion, with five votes against (Russia, Belarus, Syria, North Korea, and Eritrea) and 35 abstentions (Including China, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, which together make up about half of humanity). Twelve nations were absent from the vote. According to Michael von der Schulenburg, a former top diplomat working for the UN and OSCE, the support for the resolution by most of the small and medium-sized countries had the background that they wanted to strengthen the UN Charter and the ban on all military action as a whole for political reasons. So far, three other permanent members of the Security Council, the U.S., Britain and France, had also broken international law and waged illegal wars without consequences.
In Asia, only the usual allies of the West, i.e. Japan, Australia and Singapore, participate in the comprehensive sanctions packages against Russia, while the other states in Asia, Africa and Latin America do not. For the world of the global South, this is again a white man's war in the North, like the first and second world wars of the 20th century and the cold war. The supposed winners of the cold war had expected the loser to cave in, submit to its role as a "regional power" (Obama) and serve as a junior partner to the West. Even today, they are waiting for a coup by a Moscow elite that would rather be the junior partner of the U.S. than that of the Chinese.

With the attack on Ukraine on Feb. 24, the European order that had more or less held since 1950 had come to an end, said the two "European activists and publicists" Vincent-Immanuel Herr and Martin Speer on April 2 in the guest commentary
"After the war of aggression: the birth of geopolitical Europe" in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. They demand that the EU must now develop into a "value superpower" capable of defense, and in their article they focus on two subjects in particular: "military and security policy issues" and the development of a "European we-feeling."(25)
That this defensible "value superpower" allows whistleblower Julian Assange to languish in a British prison for years and soon even be extradited to the U.S., and refused asylum to Edward Snowden, so that he had to flee to Russia, is more than shameful. A real "value superpower" must be built on a different foundation than that of the military and a questionable "European we-feeling".
This foundation was laid more than 200 years ago by Immanuel Kant in his work "Perpetual Peace", the formulations of which are the basis of our international law today.
At the moment, unfortunately, it looks like the ever-increasing bellicosity of government and media will expand the war and eventually lead NATO into active war participation as outlined in the U.S. long-term strategy TRADOC 525-3-1 "Win in a Complex World 2020-2040" (2014). Meanwhile, the German population is being attuned to blood, sweat and tears. Robert Habeck predicted, "We are all getting poorer"(26). And Christian Lindner declared on the memorable June 22 that he expects "three to five years of shortages"(27). The task now, he said, is to defend "the substance of the German economy in these times of uncertainty."

So we should be prepared for a prolonged war - making a European security order encompassing the EU as well as Russia a very distant prospect.

Comments

1) https://web.de/magazine/politik/russland-krieg-ukraine/ukraine-krieg-news-21-juni-2022-nachlesen-37039708
2) Ebd.
3) https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-british-troops-must-prepare-to-fight-in-europe-once-again-says-new-head-of-army-12636637
4) Ebd.
5) https://www.merkur.de/politik/ukraine-krieg-news-grossbritannien-armee-chef-warnung-kampf-europa-vorbereitung-91618815.html 20. Juni 2022
6) https://www.merkur.de/politik/ukraine-krieg-news-grossbritannien-armee-chef-warnung-kampf-europa-vorbereitung-91618815.html
7) https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/politik-inland/top-general-appelliert-an-nato-muessen-bereit-sein-notfalls-atomwaffen-zu-nutzen-80444834.bild.html
8) Als Imperialist der Mahan-Schule verfolgte Theodore Roosevelt eine offensive Außenpolitik mit zahlreichen Militäreinsätzen zum „Schutz amerikanischer Interessen“, so etwa in Dom.Rep., Honduras, Kolumbien, Kuba, Marokko, Syrien.
9) Vgl. Henry F. Pringle: Theodore Roosevelt, a Biography, New York 1931, S. 409 ff.; XX, pp. 535 ff
10) SIPRI Military Expenditure 2020 (April 2021)
11) Zahlen aus Engelbrecht, Helmut C./Hanighen, F.C.: MERCHANTS OF DEATH A Study of the International Armament Industry, Carter Lane 1934, S. 263
12) Da die Angabe für 1914 fehlte, wurde die von 1910 (348.032.000 )genommen. Die tatsächlichen Ausgaben dürften deutlich darüber gelegen haben.
13) Walter Millis: Road to War, America 1914 -1917, Boston/New York 1935, S. 47
14) Corbett, Julian: Official History. Naval Operations, London 1921,Vol. 1, p.18
15) Helmut Roewer: Unterwegs zur Weltherrschaft Warum England den Ersten Weltkrieg auslöste und Amerika ihn gewann. Zürich 2016, S. 16
16) Zeitschrift Marxistische Erneuerung, Nr. 130, Juni 2022, S. 16
17) Ebd., S. 15
18) Erhard Crome: In tempori belli, in: WeltTrends, Nr. 23, 1999, S. 138
19) Zitiert in Peter Orzechowski: Ist die Gefahr eines Atomkriegs real? KOPP exklusiv 24 /22, S. 7
20)„Gesetz Über die Bedingungen der Streitkräfte anderer Staaten auf dem Territorium der Ukraine“.
21) https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/zeitenwende-im-bundestag,SyfVl4E
22) Zeitschrift Marxistische Erneuerung, Nr. 130, Juni 2022, S. 12
23) Zitat aus der SPD Zeitung "Vorwärts". 25.02.2022
24) https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Was-die-Zeitenwende-von-Bundeskanzler-Scholz-bedeutet-6665130.html?seite-all
25) Zeit-Fragen  14. Juni 2022/ 30. Jahrgang , S. 4
26) https://www.fr.de/meinung/kolumnen/ein-einziger-satz-91456992.html
27) https://www.n-tv.de/mediathek/videos/wirtschaft/Lindner-warnt-vor-drei-bis-fuenf-Jahren-der-Knappheit-article23414488.html

Wolfgang Effenberger, born in 1946, a former officer in the German armed forces, has been a committed peace advocate since his first book, "Pax americana" (2004). In April 2022, he published "Die unterschätzte Macht: Von Geo- bis Biopolitik - Plutokraten transformieren die Welt". Other books by him on the subject:
"Wiederkehr der Hasardeure" (2014, Koautor Willy Wimmer), die Trilogie „Europas Verhängnis 14/18“ (2018/19) sowie "Schwarzbuch EU & NATO" (2020).

Wolfgang Effenberger

On June 7, 2022, Ukrainian President Volodimir Selenskyi told the Financial Times that "victory must be won on the battlefield."(1) Ukraine's short-term goal, he said, was to return to the situation before the Russian invasion on February 24. Selenskyi cited the recapture of all Russian-controlled territory, including Crimea, as a long-term goal.
Selenskyi's statements are consistent with Resolution 758, passed overwhelmingly (410-10) by the U.S. House of Representatives in December 2014: "Resolved, That the House of Representatives .... strongly supports the efforts of President Poroshenko and the Ukrainian people to achieve a lasting peace in their country.
which includes the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory,
the complete control of Ukraine's international borders,
the disarmament of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine, the adoption of measures that limit the Russian Federation's ability to use energy exports and trade barriers as a means of exerting economic and political pressure,
 and ending Russian Federation interference in Ukraine's internal affairs;"(2)

Selenskyi is only a mouthpiece of this resolution, in which the preliminary goal of the U.S. is firmly outlined and on the basis of which Ukraine has been militarily prepared by the U.S. for this war. This also explains why the security guarantees demanded by the Russian president since mid-December 2021 from the U.S. and NATO were never seriously negotiated.
Since 2014, a war unnoticed by Western media has been taking place in the Donbass until February 24, 2022. The first images of Ukrainian military exercises were published in the West in early March 2021, when the Ukrainian population was purposefully tuned into a conflict with Russia. On March 14, the FAZ headlined, "Klitschko trains anti-tank in shooting exercise." The former world boxing champion Klitschko, mayor of Kiev, and in 2014 Merkel's aspirant for the Ukrainian presidency, had moved into the maneuver with his staff and the city district mayors to let himself be rolled over in a hole in the ground by an approaching tank, followed by throwing hand grenades and firing a machine gun in a publicity-grabbing manner. Images showing Klitschko at the Soviet SU-23 anti-aircraft cannon were also impressive. "I am convinced," said the mayor, "that we must be well prepared to defend our city and its residents and our state if necessary."(3)Ten days later, the ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE N2117 / 2021 "On the Decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine of March 11, 2021, on the Strategy of De-occupation and Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol" came into force. 

"In accordance with Article 107 of the Constitution of Ukraine, I (President Volodymyr Selenskyi) resolve: 


1. implementation of the Decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine of March 11, 2021 "On the Strategy of De-occupation and Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol" (attached).

2. approval of the strategy of de-occupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (attached).

3. The control over the implementation of the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine issued by this decree shall be vested in the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine."(4)

This decree comes very close to a Ukrainian declaration of war on Russia. On April 6-7, 2021, the Ukrainian President and his Chief of General Staff Khomchak met with the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Britain's Stuart Perch, Chief of the Royal Air Force, who subsequently stated, "NATO members are united in condemning Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and its aggressive actions in eastern Ukraine."(5) The U.S. President and Chief of General Staff Khomchak are also on the ground of the U.S. resolution. Thus, with the "forcible annexation" version of Crimea, a senior British officer is also on the ground of the U.S. resolution. According to this version, the West indeed had to take coercive measures - similar to the approach taken in the forcible annexation of Kuwait by Iraq. But the circumstances in Crimea are different. Here, on March 16, 2014, the population living in Crimea overwhelmingly decided in a referendum to break away from Ukraine and return to Russia (Crimea had only been assigned to Ukraine within the Soviet Union in 1954).(6) As commander-in-chief, on April 8, 2021, state leader Selenskyi traveled to Crimea. April 2021, head of state Selenskyi traveled in combat gear to the front lines in the east to motivate Ukrainian soldiers loyal to the government.(7) Nothing remained of his campaign promise to ensure peace in the Donbass first and foremost - or had it been just a lie anyway?

On October 21, 2021, the Süddeutsche Zeitung ran the headline: "NATO gears up for conflict with Moscow"(8). The Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014 had led to a reassessment at NATO of the threats from Moscow. As a result, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, a defense plan was defined to respond to possible attacks from Russia. Twenty years before the Western-orchestrated coup in Ukraine, which violated international law, a long-term strategy "for the development of full-dimensional operations for the strategic army of the early twenty-first century" had gone into effect in the United States in TRACOC 525-5.(9)
This document describes a dynamic era, a world in transition. In the two decades (1990-2010), the transition was to be through the stages of turmoil (turmoil), crisis (crisis), conflict (conflict) ultimately leading to war (Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria).

Instead of fighting communism, the 21st century will have to fight national and religious extremism. If in the 20th century one had permanent allies, in the 21st century they are only temporary allies. The U.S. Army should adapt to this, he said, and pay attention to two premises: rapid technological change and the reordering of geostrategy. Modern war theater relies on more advanced technology such as combat robots and drones, as well as "non-nation forces" - mercenary armies that do not have to abide by any laws and are paid according to measured success.

In Ukraine, the stages of escalation described in 525-5 are readily observable: Turmoil (Maidan), Crisis (Slavyansk), Conflict (Crimea), and, since February 24, 2022, All-out War.

"According to 525-5, the path to the intended war leads via the targeted destabilization of the state, in which one wants to bring about a "regime change" for one's own advantage. An important tool here: operations other than war (OOTW) - meaning operations ranging from financial to cyber warfare, the use of covert special forces to drone warfare, and all facets of shadow warfare." At the lowest level of the dynamic is "democracy promotion" in the style of the National Endowment for Democracy.

In early October 2014 - eight months after the Maidan and two months before Resolution 758 - at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) conference, senior officers and representatives of the U.S. Department of Defense showed the vision of future armed conflicts and presented the document Army Operating Concept (AOC) "Win in an Complex World 2020-2040"(10)-surrounded by lobbyists of the weapons industry, whose companies presented the latest weapons systems.
This event prompted Bill Van Auken and David North to write a scathing article in the mouthpiece of the "International Committee of the Fourth International" (ICVI): "US Army Drafts Blueprint for Third World War."(11) Both authors conclude that the text of the document has extremely threatening implications. Bluntly, it admits that the coming military operations will be about changing the geopolitical landscape due to competition for power and wealth. Any country on the globe that opposes the U.S. hegemon will feel the harsh guiding hand of the United States. To that end, the U.S. Army is to develop appropriate capabilities. Future adversaries are to be made unable to respond effectively to U.S. aggression.
The competing powers China and Russia are cited as harbingers of future conflicts. Russia is accused of acting imperially and expanding its territory. A grotesque accusation in view of NATO's expansion and the color revolutions in the former Soviet republics - but one that is used to justify the necessity of stationing American ground troops in Central Europe. In second place are adversarial "regional powers" - e.g., Iran.
The trigger for the processes pointed out is not least the Wolfowitz Doctrine (1992) - the unofficial name for the original version of the Defense Planning Guidelines for fiscal years 1994-1999, which allowed NATO to be used as an instrument of bloody aggression against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya after the Cold War.
In 2019, the RAND Corporation revised the Wolfowitz Doctrine and outlined ways to "overstretch" and, in Kissinger's words, "break" Russia.

Another U.S. Army strategy paper for 2025 to 2040 projects that enemies will launch increasingly massive attacks in a variety of domains - land, sea, air, space, and online-with the lines between war and peace blurring.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Army is preparing for decades of hybrid wars 2025-2040.(12)

Currently, as part of a new security package, the U.S. is supplying Ukraine with modern multiple rocket launchers to defend against the Russian invasion. In an op-ed for the New York Times, U.S. President Joe Biden wrote that the missile delivery will enable the invaded country to more precisely hit "key targets on the battlefield in Ukraine."(13) Russia must pay a high price for attacking Ukraine, he said, or it could lead to the end of the rules-based international order and catastrophic consequences worldwide. Since the war of aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, which violated international law, the U.S. has undermined international law and the UN's monopoly on the use of force by introducing the vague term "rules-based international order," which in reality describes an order based on "U.S. rules" so that Washington can continue to pursue its unipolar power goals.

For the tireless critics of the public broadcasters Friedhelm Klinkhammer and Volker Bräutigam, the "rule-based order" is linguistically as wrong as the "white white horse"; any order already represents a set of rules itself, it does not need to be additionally "based" on rules.(14)

For both, the notion of "rules-based world order" serves only to camouflage the political intentions of the U.S. empire to advance its interests in violation of international law.
Russia and China, which oppose the "Western community of values," WWG, are usually accused of disrupting the "rules-based international order."(15)
The WWG ruthlessly targets weaker states with sanctions and often with brutal military force. Iraq, Syria, and Libya are recent examples of the WWG's permanent breach of international law. The United Nations Charter, international law, is the only globally valid civil order. However, it does not prevent the WWG from its modern colonial wars.
Biden's assurance that "we do not want a war between NATO and Russia" should also be interpreted against this background. Ukraine's assurance not to attack targets on Russian territory with the U.S.-made HIMARS artillery system must be interpreted to mean that Crimea is still seen as Ukrainian territory and that an attack on the Russian naval arsenal in Sevastopol cannot be ruled out. This would then be the final step into the Third World War.
Russia's head of state Putin still takes a relaxed view of the arms deliveries to date. However, should Ukraine receive long-range missiles, he warns of a Russian reaction.(16)

For grassroots organizations like "Fridays for Future", "Campact" or "CORREKTIV", the war in Ukraine does not have the same importance as e.g. climate protection, although the military (armament, maneuvers and wars) is the biggest environmental destroyer. The demand for "outlawing war" is nowhere to be heard. Is it perhaps also because this demand would be directed primarily against the interests of U.S. corporations?
"No wonder," writes Willy Wimmer, "that the public has the impression that the war in Ukraine is the first NGO war in history. One only has to look at the media, which have been brought into line anyway, and their rounds of experts. The NGOs, from whose ranks the ladies and gentlemen represent the NGOs, are all trimmed for total war against Russia and its president."(17)

According to Wimmer, the way of thinking and the choice of words of today's experts in the German media reveal not only whose brainchild they are, but also what their clients expect from them. The public statements of the German Foreign Minister about Russia and its president are not inferior to this.(18)

The constant escalations lead the Ukraine war closer and closer to the edge of a pan-European conflict. In its wake, Europe could be destroyed and the world economy and financial market could be thrown into unprecedented turmoil.
US and EU sanctions policies will cause global supply chains to collapse, leading to an international food crisis. In parallel, runaway inflation will make the poor even poorer and the rich even richer. With the destruction of the legal system, disenfranchisement will continue. There will probably be further eruptions along all the fault lines of the First World War.
Each war-prolonging day will make peace and a necessary reconciliation more difficult.
But where is the resistance to the all-out war propaganda? Where are the peace movements?

Comments

1) https://article.wn.com/view/2022/06/07/selenskyj_x201eder_sieg_muss_auf_dem_schlachtfeld_errungen_w/
2) https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/758/text
3) Klitschko trainiert bei Schießübung Panzerabwehr unter https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/bei-bedarf-kiew-verteidigen-klitschko-trainiert-bei-schiessuebung-panzerabwehr-17244659.html vom 14.3.2021
4 https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/1172021-37533
5) https://www.voltairenet.org/article212706.html
6) Laut einer Umfrage des 2015 vom Deutschen Bundestag eingerichteten Zentrums für Osteuropa- und internationale Studien (ZOIS) betrachten sich 80 Prozent der Krimbewohner als russische und nur 3 Prozent als ukrainische Bürger. 13,3 sehen sich nur als Bürger der Krim, darunter viele Tataren, von denen sich rund die Hälfte auch als Russen bezeichnen. Privat sprechen mehr als 80 Prozent nur Russisch, 1 Prozent nur Ukrainisch und 2 Prozent nur Tatarisch
7) https://www.kyivpost.com/multimedia/photo/zelensky-visits-front-line-amid-russian-escalation-in-donbas-photos
8) https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/allianz-nato-ruestet-sich-fuer-konflikt-mit-moskau-1.5445998
9) https://www.help4you.info/pdf/19940801_TRADOC_Pamphlet_525-5.pdf
10) http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pams/tp525-3-1.pdf
11) http://www.wsws.org/de/articles/2014/10/15/pers-o15.html
12) https://astutenews.com/2017/10/us-army-is-preparing-for-decades-of-hybrid-wars/
13) https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/usa-waffen-ukraine-krieg-russland-100.html
14) https://www.cashkurs.com/demokratieplattform/beitrag/regelbasierte-ordnung-faustrecht-geht-vor-voelkerrecht
15) https://verfassungsblog.de/voelkerrechtswidrigkeit-benennen-warum-die-bundesregierung-ihre-verbuendeten-fuer-den-syrien-luftangriff-kritisieren-sollte/
16) https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Warnung-aus-Russland-Putin-will-Lieferung-von-Raketen-mit-hoher-Reichweite-an-Ukraine-verhindern-article23379014.html
17) https://seniora.org/politik-wirtschaft/deutschland/voelker-sehet-die-signale
18) Ebd.

In this special Pangea's Grandangolo episode Jean Marazzani Visconti interviews Prof.  Michel Chossudovsky - award-winning, author of 11 books, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, and Founder, and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Prof. Chossudovsky discusses current geopolitical events, including the war in Ucraine and the possibility of nuclear escalation. He remarks that the US Military-Industrial Complex and nuclear weapons manufacturers, through a progressive whitewashing operation started in 2003, have gradually convinced government decision-makers to soften the thresholds for using nuclear bombs, even in conventional wars, claiming their limited danger to the population. He also talks about the privatization of war and governments and how this impacts current events.

Traduzione in Italiano (video in Inglese)
In questo episodio speciale di Grandangolo di Pangea Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti intervista il Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - pluripremiato, autore di 11 libri, Professore (emerito) di Economia all'Università di Ottawa, Fondatore e Direttore del Centro di Ricerca sulla Globalizzazione (CRG).

Il Prof. Chossudovsky discute gli attuali eventi geopolitici, inclusa la guerra in Ucraina e la possibilità di un'escalation nucleare. Osserva che il complesso militare-industriale degli Stati Uniti e i produttori di armi nucleari, attraverso un'operazione di sbiancatura progressiva iniziata nel 2003, hanno gradualmente convinto i responsabili delle decisioni nei governi a ridurre le soglie per l'uso delle bombe nucleari, anche nelle guerre convenzionali, perché limitatamente pericolose per le popolazioni. Parla anche della privatizzazione della guerra e dei governi e di come ciò influisca sull'attualità.

Wolfgang Effenberger

Obviously, in the 21st century, the U.S. is consistently implementing the global strategy of the long-serving and influential Polish-born U.S. security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski with his road-map to "empire."

Rough drafts of a globalist road map were already sketched out by the British geographer Alfred Mackinder with his theory of the three steps to world domination published in 1904:
Via Eastern Europe, the Russian Heartland (eastward of the Urals, south of the Arctic Sea to the Caucasus), and the World Island (Eurasia) to domination of the world. Above all, according to Mackinder, it is a matter of preventing the domination of the world island of Eurasia by powers other than the USA and GB. For he who dominates the world island, dominates the world.

The long-serving and influential Polish-born U.S. national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has done much to further fine-tune this road map to empire and, above all, has had a lasting influence on the Democratic elite - from President Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama. In his 1997 book, The Only World Power: America's Strategy for Domination (English: The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and is geostrategic Imperatives), Brzezinski explains a comprehensive and self-contained "geostrategy" with regard to "winning" Eurasia. The very first page of the introduction states:
''The extent to which the United States can assert its global preeminence depends on how a globally engaged America copes with the complex power relations on the Eurasian continent-and whether it can prevent the emergence of a dominant adversary power there.''(1)
Of central importance to future American foreign policy, he said, is the space from Lisbon to Vladivostok. It is necessary to prevent "the emergence in Eurasia of a power that could challenge U.S. primacy; indeed, not even the refereeing role of the United States may cease."(2) According to Brzezinski, this requires a high degree of tactics and manipulation. Ultimately, the European states are supposed to be the bridgehead for the USA to keep all of Eurasia under control. And not only that: As vassals of the USA, they are to pay for and enforce the domination of the Eurasian continent. In this, France and Germany are given a special position.  They are to be the vanguard in Europe and, together with Poland and Ukraine, are to be given special privileges by the USA.(3)
Moreover, the process of EU enlargement and the expansion of the transatlantic security alliance should proceed in well-considered stages.(4)
Brzezinski takes a visionary view of the coming developments in Europe: the time frame between 2005 and 2015 should be envisaged for a successive integration of Ukraine.(5)
Brzezinski's prevision was probably a bit too euphoric: "After Romania and the Baltic states, Sweden and Finland will be subordinated to the U.S. after 2005 and Ukraine by 2010."(6)
According to Brzezinski, the possible stalling of NATO enlargement means the end of a comprehensive U.S. policy for all of Eurasia. "Such a failure would discredit American leadership; it would destroy the plan for an expanding Europe."(7)
The foreword for the German edition was written by the go-getting German politician Hans-Dietrich Genscher (FDP) - who, among other things, was Germany's foreign minister almost continuously from 1974 to 1992. Right at the beginning, he pointed to the end of bipolarity after the Cold War and the new global challenges that have arisen as a result: "It is a matter of shaping a stable world order in the age of globalization" and taking to heart Brzezinski's plea to view the area from Lisbon to Vladivostok as a single entity.(8)
Given the developments in Eastern Europe and especially in Ukraine, one might think that Brzezinski has provided the script here:

"Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent state contributes to Russia's transformation. Without Ukraine, Russia is no longer a Eurasian empire.... However, if Moscow were to regain dominion over Ukraine, with its 52 million people, significant mineral resources, and access to the Black Sea, Russia would automatically gain the means to become a powerful empire spanning Europe and Asia. If Ukraine lost its independence, this would have immediate consequences for Central Europe and would make Poland a geopolitical pivot on the eastern border of a united Europe."(9)
It is against this backdrop that the U.S./NATO and EU orchestrated influences on Ukraine should be understood: the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Maidan coup in 2014.
On August 7, 2014, NATO Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen pledged in Kiev that the Western alliance stood firmly by Ukraine's side, accusing Russia of destabilizing the country and supporting the pro-Russian separatists.(10)

How could the NATO Secretary General arbitrarily make such far-reaching promises to a country without EU or NATO membership?
A month later, the new U.S. long-term strategy, Win in a Complex World 2020-2040 (TRADOC 525-3-1), went into effect. In it, the Army, Navy and Air Force were attuned to future conflicts: First was the threat from Russia and China, then Iran and North Korea, and only last was the threat from transnational terrorists.
On December 4, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H. Res. 758, which strongly condemned the actions of the Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin: The Russian Federation was pursuing a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.(11)
The resolution was passed with a speed unusual in the history of the U.S. legislative process. In just 16 days, H.RES.758 was debated in the Foreign Affairs Committee and then referred back to the House of Representatives for debate and passage. Subsequently, the resolution passed by a vote of 411 to 10!
On the very day the resolution was passed, congressional veteran Ron Paul called it "one of the nastiest pieces of legislation" on his website in the article "Reckless Congress 'Declares War' on Russia."(12) He saw this 16-page bill as pure war propaganda that should make even neocons blush with shame.
And Canadian economist Michel Chossudovsky worried about global security. In his view, the House of Representatives had effectively given the U.S. president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces a "green light" to enter into a process of military confrontation with Russia without further congressional approval.(13) "This historic vote," Chossudovsky said, "potentially affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world, was virtually blanketed in the media." To this day, the public hardly knows anything about it! Former Reagan Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary and Wall Street Journal editor Paul Craig Roberts saw the resolution against Russia as a pack of lies(14) at the time, and he asks today, "Will we be destroyed in a war before we lose our freedom to the establishment's orchestrated "covid pandemic"?
On December 18, 2014, U.S. President Obama signed another bill to combat "Russian military intervention in Ukraine" (referring to Russian support for separatists in the Donbass): the "Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014" (H.R. 5859).

In October 2017, another strategic concept went into effect, U.S. Army Is Preparing For Decades Of Hybrid Wars 2025-2040.(15)

Also indicative of clandestine war preparations is the spring 2019 re-establishment of the Committee on the Present Danger: China.(16)This committee existed during the McCarthy era in the 1950s, but now it has been re-established and is directing its activities solely against China. Thus, the Anglo-American financial oligarchy is planning war against Russia and China as a way out of its own misery.
In view of their geopolitical goals, the transatlantic tacticians were able to ensure a suitable EU leadership duo. The EU's most important posts were divided between Germany and France, with Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen inheriting Claude Juncker. She had cleverly placed a commentary in the New York Times(17) on January 18, 2019, throwing her candidacy into the transatlantic ring. In it, she pathetically described NATO as an alliance based on the "common aspirations of its members and determined to protect the freedom, common heritage, and civilization of peoples founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law."(18) She also described NATO as an alliance based on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law.
She cited Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, the Chinese show of force in the South China Sea, and the terror of the Islamic State as counterpoints to this noble worldview.
During her appearances at the Bilderbergers, the Atlantic Bridge and the Munich Security Conference, von der Leyen clearly demonstrated that there is no doubt about her loyalty to the United States. She came up with the slogan of the "military union," the forced advancement of military cooperation all the way to a European army. She stands for the militarization of the entire EU and is a representative of the military-industrial complex.(19)

With Christine Lagarde, a woman without any experience in banking inherited ECB President Mario Draghi. To compensate, she can think strategically, because as a member of the think tank "Center for Strategic and International Studies" (CSIS) she led the USA-EU-Poland Action Committee together with Zbigniew Brzezinski from 1995 to 2002. From 1995 to 2002, she was especially involved in the working group "Arms Industry USA-Poland". In 2003, she was also a member of the "Euro- Atlantic Action Commission" in Washington.(20) When analyzing Poland's military activities today, it must be noted that Ms. Largarde did great groundwork, which was purposefully continued by Ms. von der Leyen.
Since the war against Yugoslavia, which violated international law, NATO has reserved the right to intervene militarily in exceptional cases and on the basis of a consensus decision by the allies, even without a UN mandate. NATO as an offensive alliance! Paul Craig Roberts put it in a nutshell:
"If the majority of humanity does not wake up soon and resolutely oppose this madness, Washington will destroy the world!"
The warning fizzled out unheard, and the war drums beat louder and louder. Just before America's national holiday, July 4, 2019, influential think tanks Bloomberg and Council on Foreign Relations promoted war against the Sino-Russian alliance. The originators of this intention, which is momentous for the world, are not unserious cranks, but renowned men from the academic, military and financial worlds: Professor Hat Brands, an expert on geostrategy at Johns Hopkins University, and James Stavridis, the former admiral and current financial analyst at the Carlyle Group.
The Ukraine conflict has a long lead-in. The Los Alamos Study Group - one of the most respected and well-informed anti-nuclear war groups in the world, according to John Pilger - sees the main cause in the current Ukrainian war as the 1992 Wolfowitz Doctrine, which postulated preventing the reemergence of a new rival to the United States, whether in the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere. Any hostile power must be prevented from dominating a region whose resources would be sufficient to produce a global power.(21)
In 2019, the RAND Corporation - an influential think tank founded in 1948 - outlined ways to overextend and unbalance Russia in its study (Overextending and Unbalancing Russia).(22)
On the benefits of increased arms deliveries to Ukraine, the study states:
"Expanding U.S. aid to Ukraine, including lethal military support, would likely increase the cost of holding the Donbass region for Russia, both in blood and in the national budget. More Russian aid to the separatists and an additional Russian troop presence would lead to higher costs, equipment losses, and Russian casualties. The latter could become quite controversial at home, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan."(23)

On January 10, 2022, the nuclear engagement paper, "The Nuclear Disposition Review: What It Is and Why It Matters," became public. Putin's February 21, 2022 statement was likely a response to U.S. threats to use nuclear weapons preemptively against Russia.(24)

On February 28, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly (417:10) passed the "Ukrainian Democracy Defense Land-Lease Act," a reauthorization of the January 1941 Land-Lease Act - the same year the U.S. was then in World War 2. The bill had been introduced on January 19, 2022 - one month before the outbreak of war in Ukraine(!). In view of such an overwhelming majority in the U.S. Congress for a war-promoting law, it is not to be expected that peace-promoting impulses will emanate from this Congress, especially since this war will again flush a lot of money into the U.S. arms industry. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that the United States is aiming to "provoke Russian President Vladimir V. Putin into a major war."(25)
On March 27, 2022, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz bluntly admitted on Anne Will's talk show that the elaborate sanctions against Russia had been decided long before the Russian attack on Ukraine.
On May 3, 2022, to the horror of many transatlanticists, Pope Francis stated in an interview with Corriere Della Sera, "it may have been NATO's barking at Russia's gates that prompted Putin to invade Ukraine." He does not know whether his (Putin's) anger was provoked, but he suspects the West's attitude played its part."(26)
Since this war could not only drag on but escalate further, it is worth recalling the cautionary words of important contemporaries:

Ramsey Clark 1991:
"The greatest crime since World War II has been American foreign policy.
I warn Europeans not to believe that the U.S. would have any qualms about intervening militarily in Europe as well, within the framework of the New World Order. The U.S. would not tolerate a European nuclear and economic superpower for long."

And Thomas Mann, in U.S. exile, had recognized the Americans' inclination,
"to treat Europe as an economic colony, a military base, a glacis in the future atomic crusade against Russia, as a piece of the earth which may be antiquarian interesting and worth traveling, but about whose complete ruin one will give a damn when the struggle for world domination is on."(27)

On May 8, the day on which world peace is praised as the highest good worldwide and especially in Germany, and no parliament can do without the dogma of gaining peace for the future from an unpeaceful past, the U.S. continues its unreserved march to expand its global domination, even at the price of world peace.

Notes

1) Zbigniew Brzezinski: „Die einzige Weltmacht: Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft“ 1999 (Englisch: The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and ist geostrategic Imperatives 1997), S. 15
2) Ebd., S. 283
3) Ebd., S. 128
4) Ebd., S. 126
5) Ebd., S. 128
6) Ebd.
7) Ebd., 129
8) Ebd., S. 10
9) Ebd. 74/75
10) https://rotefahne.eu/2014/08/nato-rasmussen-kiew-wir-stehen-bereit/
11) https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/758/text
12) http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/december/04/reckless-congress-declares-war-on-russia/
13) Michel Chossudovsky: Amerika auf dem »Kriegspfad«: Repräsentantenhaus ebnet Krieg mit Russland den Weg vom 6.112.2014 unter http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/prof-michel-chossudovsky/amerika-auf-demkriegspfad- repraesentantenhaus-ebnet-krieg-mit-russland-den-weg.html
14) Paul Craig Roberts: Russia Has Western Enemies, Not Partners vom 5. Dezember 2014, unter http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/12/05/russia-western-enemies-partners-paul-craig-roberts/
15) Multi-doman Battle: Evolution of Combined Arms fort he 21st Century
https://admin.govexec.com/media/20171003_-_working_draft_-_
16) https://presentdangerchina.org/
17) Ursula von der Leyen: The World Still Needs NATO, NYT am 18. Januar 2019
18) Ebd.
19)Top oder Flop? Die aussichtsreichsten Kandidaten für die EU-Spitzenpositionen:

htts://de.sputniknews.com/politik/20190703325375732-kandidaten-eu-spitzenposten/
20) Wolfgang Effenberger: NATO und EU teuflische Institutionen – kreiert durch US-Geheimdienste? Mit EU-Triumvirat in den NATO-Krieg gegen Russland und China: http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26077&css=print
21) seniora.org/wunsch-nach-frieden/der-wunsch-nach-frieden/ein-loesungsvorschlag-fuer-den-ukraine-krieg
22) https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
23) Zitiert nach https://linkezeitung.de/2021/05/04/was-die-rand-corporation-2019-in-einer-studie-geschrieben-hat-ist-zwei-jahre-spaeter-alles-eingetreten/
24) https://www.globalresearch.ca/preemptive-nuclear-war-a-third-world-war-spells-the-end-of-humanity-as-we-know-it/5772695
25) United States seeks to provoke Russia into escalation in Ukraine
http://www.defenddemocracy.press/united-states-seeks-to-provoke-russia-into-escalation-in-ukraine/
26) https://www.corriere.it/cronache/22_maggio_03/pope-francis-putin-e713a1de-cad0-11ec-84d1-341c28840c78.shtml
27) Thomas Mann: Deutsche Hörer! Europäische Hörer! Verlag Darmstädter Blätter 1986
Wolfgang Effenberger, born in 1946, a former officer in the German armed forces, has been a committed peace advocate since his first book, "Pax americana" (2004). In April 2022, he published "Die unterschätzte Macht: Von Geo- bis Biopolitik - Plutokraten transformieren die Welt". Other books by him on the subject:
"Wiederkehr der Hasardeure" (2014, Koautor Willy Wimmer), die Trilogie „Europas Verhä

 An indisputable authority on NATO affairs reveals the truth – without knowing he does and without the media
understanding his sensational statements

Jan Oberg

April 8, 2022

Truth will out, as they say, and sometimes it in strange ways. On March 9, 2022, the former Danish Prime Minister and former NATO Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, gave an interview to Danish Television 2. Here a 30 sec excerpt.

In my view, it was deeply shocking for three reasons.

First, what he actually says:

“If we send planes, it’s to protect Ukrainian airspace, and then we have to be ready to shoot down Russian planes. That would undeniably mean war between NATO and Russia.”

That doesn’t worry him. He does not say that the West/NATO should therefore refrain from doing so. See below how he thinks it will go.

“I think if it’s going to deter Putin, we shouldn’t rule anything out. And I’m among those who say we should keep Putin in maximum uncertainty.”

Not ruling out anything in NATO parlance indisputably means that the use of nuclear weapons is also a possibility. And he knows that very well as a former NATO S-G.

Fogh Rasmussen does not mention nuclear weapons. It is better not to. But he does know that NATO is based on nuclear weapons and reserves the right to be the first to use them even against conventional attacks, so that is what he must be interpreted to mean. Precisely with the background he has.

Keeping an adversary in “maximum insecurity” in a dangerous conflict is, from a risk-analytic perperspective, an insane and dangerous philosophy. The conflict is already heavily militarized and both sides have large arsenals of nuclear weapons; moreover, all Western media and commentators are now claiming that Putin has probably gone mad in the psychiatric meaning of mad.

So it is not just a completely irresponsible philosophy. The statement testifies that Fogh Rasmussen, despite his background, is conflict illiterate.

“We cannot exclude that NATO sends fighter aircraft against Russia, says Fogh”

“The Ukrainians have shown an amazing willingness to fight, and we will support them to the end.”

To the end?

In the context of his escalation idea, it is reasonable to assume that he also – by that formulation – includes nuclear bombing of Russia until it stops its military activities in Ukraine.

It also says that in Fogh Rasmussen’s view Ukraine is in effect a NATO member that we should support – even though formally it is not. He does not stress that the West has no obligation to support Ukraine since it is not a NATO member and therefore not covered by NATO’s musketeer oath (Art 5 in the NATO Treaty).

Then TV2 continues: “And should the Russian president end up interpreting the West’s weapons as a declaration of war, the former secretary general has no doubt who would ultimately win?

And listen carefully to Fogh Rasmussen’s answer with no hesitation:

“Putin will be beaten to a pulp by NATO. Once NATO moves, it will be with enormous force. You have to remember that the investments we make in defence are ten times greater than Putin’s,” he says.

So what has not been mentioned in the Danish and Western media so far suddenly comes out here: Russia is a military dwarf compared to NATO’s 30 members. It can beat Putin – Russia – to a pulp (in Danish “Plukfisk” – fish meat torn to pieces).

Says a man who knows NATO from the inside.

In other words, you and I have been deceived – grossly – the last three decades. Tax payers money squeezed out by lying about the immense Russian threat and, thereby, increasing citizens’ fears.

The exact situation right now, I can inform you, is that Russia’s military expenditure is 8% of NATO’s – namely US$ 66 billion and has been decreasing the last few years. There will now be a gigantic further over-armament within NATO – all up to 2% of their GNP, or more.

Germany has shrugged off all restrictions and will henceforth have a military budget of US$ 112 – that alone is almost double Russia’s.

In other words, Fogh Rasmussen speaks as the suddenly militarily superior, victory-proof militarist who in reality does not at all see Russia as a threat but is confident that the formidable alliance can beat Putin – by which he means by definition all of Russia and its people – to a “pulp.”

I wrote “shocking” above.

It is deeply shocking what is actually being said here: nuclear war in Europe is perfectly OK, even if it is not something Fogh Rasmussen wants. But that bastard in Moscow, we can corner even further so he might overreact again – and then we beat the crap out of him.

Russia, which we have heard for decades is a gigantic threat to us, must be crushed with our superior power. We’re not the least bit afraid of Putin Plukfisk!

The second shocking thing is that TV2 does not understand what it is doing – or not doing with these sensational views.

He is allowed to state them unchallenged, without their content being problematised, without others being asked to comment on such extremist positions or point out that Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s statements are completely unacceptable both professionally and ethically.

How long will TV2 – and virtually all other media – continue to cheer on the West’s self-righteous war of revenge? How far will they go? Consciously or because editors and journalists have no relevant expertise on war – let alone peace – but think mainly in terms of ratings.

And then it’s shocking for a third reason. If it had come to light that twenty years ago Fogh Rasmussen had put his hand on a woman’s thigh, the Danish press would be in a frenzy to condemn him in the media court.

So far, he has – only – been partly responsible, as NATO S-G, for the suffering of millions in Iraq and Libya, in total violation of international law and the UN Treaty.

Now he says – only – that we must win over Russia once and for all even if it means major war.

Nuclear war.

And nobody reacts.

In the Danish spirit pond and its media, he is regarded as a great statesman who speaks wise words.

About nuclear war for the sake of good democracies.

Source: https://transnational.live

Wolfgang Effenberger

At the invitation of U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, representatives of 40 countries discussed the Ukraine war at U.S. Air Force Base Ramstein/Rhineland-Palatinate on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, one day after his departure from Kiev. Among them were countries that are not members of NATO. In the run-up, the U.S. Department of Defense had stressed that the meeting was not taking place under the umbrella of the alliance.

Why did the meeting not take place in Washington, why not in Brussels, but at the U.S. base in Ramstein? On a military airfield of the "United States Air Force", which is located on German territory but has immunity similar to an embassy and is thus exempt from German jurisdiction,(1) "Ramstein Air Base" also hosts the headquarters of the "United States Air Forces Europe", the "Air Forces Africa" and the "Allied Air Command Ramstein", a NATO command authority for the command of air forces. Furthermore, the base is home to the "US-603d Air and Space Operations Center"(2) which conducts the control of combat drone missions with targeted killings of terror suspects in Africa (Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan and formerly Afghanistan).(3) Potentially illegal US arms deliveries as well as prisoner transfers running through Ramstein are also off-limits to German law enforcement agencies. Most importantly, the U.S. base, always a hub of U.S. military operations, has been increasingly used for cargo and troop shipments to Rzeszów-Jasionka in southern Poland, near the Ukrainian border, for several months. On March 25, 2022 -U.S. President Joe Biden visited the U.S. garrison there and pointed out the importance of their deployment far beyond Ukraine. Should these U.S. soldiers be wounded, they would be transported to the "Landstuhl Regional Medical Center", the largest U.S. military hospital outside the United States, located just 13 kilometers from Ramstein Air Base.

Largely unnoticed by the public, the not only largest but also most modern American military clinic is now being built within walking distance of Ramstein: nine operating theaters, a total of more than 4,500 rooms (a large part of the costs are borne by the Federal Republic).(4) The best U.S. military surgeons and trauma specialists will be working here as late as 2022. So the U.S. is well prepared for a major war in Europe.

Departing Kiev on 4/25/2022, Austin emphasized that the Ukrainians could win "if they have the right equipment and the right support."(5) As a war goal, Austin stated, "We want Russia weakened to the point where it is no longer capable of something like invading Ukraine."(6) Pushing Russia even below the status of a regional power means, in plain English, conjuring up a nuclear war.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke of a "historic meeting" at the opening of the Ukraine consultations in Ramstein.
The Ukraine conflict, he said, is about a challenge to all free people around the world.
"We are all here because we admire Ukraine's courage and because we cannot bear to see your people suffer and civilians killed." And addressing the representatives of Ukraine, "Your country was invaded, your hospitals were bombed, your citizens were executed, your children were traumatized."(7) In conclusion, Austin praised the outstanding defense performance and predicted that the courage and capabilities of Ukrainians would go down in military history.
Austin promised Ukraine "our help" even after the war ended. "We're behind you." Yet a look at U.S. war history should sober Ukrainians. The U.S. paid five billion U.S. dollars for the coup it orchestrated in 2013/14 - there's a dividend coming.
With this emotionally charged pro-war welcome, there is unlikely to be room for peacemaking approaches in the "consultations." Thus, suffering is likely to continue on both sides and Ukraine will have to endure unimaginable destruction.
The longer the war lasts, the more difficult the necessary reconciliation will be later on.
And this war does not seem to be just about a proxy war: The U.S. is implementing the goals set out in its 2014 long-term strategy TRADOC 525-3-1: "Win in a Complex World 2020-2040." U.S. forces are primarily to reduce the threat posed by Russia and China: The only way to do that is through one or more wars.
Unfortunately, the geopolitical context of the conflict is largely ignored and the blame is placed solely on Russia, which is accused of pursuing a policy of unilateral conquest. Further motives for Russia's "special military operation" must not be asked.

There is no doubt that the Russian leadership disregarded the prohibition of the use of force under international law by invading Ukraine and united left and right, liberals and conservatives, nationalists and globalists in one front with this operation. In March 1999, at the start of the war against Yugoslavia/Kosovo, the United States permanently enshrined NATO's crisis intervention role with the new NATO Strategy MC 400/2. Since then, the alliance has reserved the right to intervene militarily even without an explicit mandate from the United Nations Security Council. Thus, Serbia was then bombed for 78 days and nights with appropriate enemy propaganda. In 2001, the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan followed. The only offense: The Taliban had not delivered asylum seeker Osama bin Laden fast enough.
Before the war against Iraq, U.S. President G.W. Bush had codified the Pre-Emptive Doctrine in a National Security Directive to legitimize a new type of war. Since an armed attack on the United States or a neighboring state of Iraq, which the U.S. could then have come to the aid of, was not imminent, the "pre-emptive war" was conjured out of the hat.(8) It is intended to nip "possible" dangers in the bud - similar to the murder of the children of Bethlehem after the birth of Christ. This concept also includes the "preventive military strike" (e.g. the strike against Iraqi nuclear research on June 7, 1981). Then, in 2003, the destruction of Iraq took place. Scanty evidence of (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction sufficed as a pretext. In 2011, the Libyan army was destroyed, plunging the country into continuing chaos. And a year later it was Syria's turn (after 9/11, seven Arab countries were put on a destruction list by the Pentagon that same month). Even today, military units of the NATO countries USA and Turkey are on Syrian soil in violation of international law, against the declared will of the internationally recognized government.
Since April 18, 2022, NATO member Turkey has been conducting an air and land military operation beyond its borders in northern Iraq in violation of international law - without any protests from the "Western community of values." Ankara argues that Turkey has the right to this cross-border military action according to the principle of so-called disadvantages.(9) This view is accepted by Washington, and so this war has been simmering on since 1984. Turkey is militarily superior, but cannot defeat the Kurdish Workers' Party, PKK, in northern Iraq.
For the self-proclaimed Western community of values, the law of the fist seems to apply, and not only since 1999.
On October 25, 1983, the superpower USA invaded the mini-Caribbean island of Grenada as part of its Operation Urgent Fury. U.S. President Reagan justified the invasion with a preceding violent coup d'état by "leftist murderers" on the island. It was necessary to "protect our own citizens (on the island) ... and to help rebuild democratic institutions in Grenada"(10). After four days, the unequal battle ended in absolute victory for the U.S.(11)
Most people in the world certainly do not want the law of the strongest to prevail. Rather, the strength of the law should prevail. This is always consensual when the value West wants to assert its interests. For example, Angela Merkel insisted on the primacy of the strength of the law vis-à-vis Russia on the occasion of the Crimea crisis, just as she did vis-à-vis her hosts on a trip to China in 2016. And in January 2022, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz admonished Russia with similar words.
That the United States has now rediscovered international law is more than welcome, if not necessarily credible.
In the run-up to the Ukraine consultation in Ramstein, the largest opposition faction in the Bundestag (CDU/CSU) clearly spoke out in favor of supplying heavy weapons to Ukraine, as did FDP defense politician Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann.(12) The Greens' willingness to do so is unbroken anyway.
And Ramstein will send a clear signal for extensive deliveries of war-critical material.
The U.S. wants to help Ukraine defeat Russia, supply it with armaments and support it with advisors, but prevent the U.S. or NATO from officially becoming a party to the war. This sounds like wash me, but don't get me wet. Such decisions should include input from the opposing belligerent's assessment of the facts. Before the heatedly discussed topic of arms deliveries, serious tones came from Moscow. On April 25, 2022, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, according to the Interfax news agency, that the Ukraine war could degenerate into a world war: "The danger is serious, it is real, it is not to be underestimated."(13) In this regard, Russia views the NATO arms deliveries as legitimate targets for attack by Russian forces. "When NATO enters into a de facto war with Russia through a proxy and arms that proxy, "Lavrov said, "you do in war what you have to do in war."(14)
The looming catastrophe could have been avoided. Once by consistent application of international law - even externally organized regime change is a crime - and recognition of the rights of others. In the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs, U.S. political scientist at the University of Chicago, John J. Mearsheimer wrote the seminal article "Why the West is to Blame for the Ukraine Crisis." Mearsheimer, who focuses primarily on International Relations, believes it is the height of folly to admit new members to NATO that others are unwilling to defend. Previous NATO expansions, he says, were made on the assumption that, according to the liberal worldview, the alliance would never have to honor its new security guarantees. But the recent Russian power play proved that Russia and the West would be on a collision course if Ukraine became a NATO member.
Continuing current policies would strain the West's relations with Moscow and bring Moscow and Beijing even closer together.
"The U.S. and its European allies face a choice on the Ukraine issue. They can continue their current policies, intensifying hostilities with Russia and wrecking Ukraine - a scenario from which all parties would emerge as losers. Or they can change course and aim for a prosperous but neutral Ukraine that poses no threat to Russia and allows the West to patch up its relations with Moscow. With such an approach, all sides would win."(15)

Mearsheimer can only be agreed with this. However, this honorable approach collides with the Anglo-Saxon competitive ideology of "the winner takes it all". At the time of publication of his article, Mearsheimer could not have known anything about the strategy paper TRADOC 525-3-1 "Win in a Complex World 2020-2040", which was also published in September 2014.
Fatally, the U.S. risks only the destruction of its allies in Europe with its aggressive policy, so one may well ask to what extent American and European interests are still in harmony. According to Klaus von Dohnanyi, former Federal Minister of Education and Science and First Mayor of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg from 1981 to 1988, Germany and Europe today are anything but sovereign in matters of security and foreign policy. "It is the U.S. that sets the direction here in Europe."(16) Against this background, the choice of the U.S. airbase in Ramstein as a "place of consultation" in the Ukraine conflict has more than symbolic character. It is more likely to have been a matter of issuing orders to the dependent allies.

Notes

1)Wissenschaftliche Dienste „Der Bundestag“: https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/531932/f011954610186c3edadc3cf94c6f1e86/wd-2-086-17-pdf-data.pdf
2)https://web.archive.org/web/20101227075807/http://www.3af.usafe.af.mil/units/index.asp
3)https://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/archiv/2013/US-Drohnenkrieg-laeuft-ueber-Deutschland,ramstein109.html
4)https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/nahe-ramstein-im-bau-groesstes-amerikanisches-krankenhaus-100.html
5)https://www.gmx.at/magazine/politik/russland-krieg-ukraine/ukraine-krieg-news-ticker-us-verteidigungsminister-austin-richtigen-militaerausruestung-ukraine-krieg-gewinnen-36757878
6)Ebd.
7)https://www.merkur.de/politik/ukraine-krise-us-verteidigungsminister-40-staaten-gipfel-deutschland-ramstein-news-91501345.html
8)https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2717104
9)https://www.srf.ch/news/international/fruehjahrsoffensive-gegen-pkk-wenn-der-schnee-schmilzt-schlaegt-die-tuerkei-im-nordirak-zu
10)Grenada-Invasion: »Ronald Reagans größte Stunde«
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/grenada-invasion-ronald-reagans-groesste-stunde-a-0563f4c3-0002-0001-0000-000014024311
11)19 Tote auf amerikanischer Seite und 70 tote Soldaten und 24 Zivilisten auf der anderen Seite
12)Bundestag diskutiert über Waffenlieferung
https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/schwere-waffen-fuer-die-ukraine-ein-streitgespraech-im-br24live,T42pojD
13)Lawrow sieht „reale Gefahr“ eines Weltkriegs - und nennt Nato-Waffenlieferungen legitime Angriffsziele
https://www.merkur.de/politik/ukraine-news-lawrow-russland-dritte-weltkrieg-nato-waffen-angriffsziele-usa-verhandlungen-zr-91501592.html
14)Ebd.
15)John J. Mearsheimer: Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin unter http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-cri- sis-is-the-wests-faul
16)Klaus von Dohnany: Nationale Interessen. Orientierung für deutsche und europäische Politik in Zeiten globaler Umbrüche. Siedlerverlag 2022, S. 10

NOW - China: "The US is the master of disinformation."pic.twitter.com/VpJtfp8HSN

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) April 25, 2022

Pirkko Turpeinen-Saari, MD. Chief psychiatrist, former member of Finnish Parliament

 

The propaganda stream from last week has reminded me strongly of the propaganda surrounding the US-EU-Germany initiated destruction and occupation of Yugoslavia 30 years ago.

The actions of Ruder-Finn marketing firm, economically supported by CIA and US-nazi-diaspora resembled the present ”western” propaganda. Now it is not only one firm but more than 100 firms.

Ruder-Finn had a permanent collaboration with 400 journalists, to whom they fed the  information CIA and US-foreign policy and EU-Germany’s BND wanted them to convey. The journalists needed to visit places of action only briefly in order to get the taste of genuinity and blood to their stories.

Serbs, who supported democracy, international law and the independence of Yugoslavia, not the splitting, had to be demonized. Deeply humane general Ratko Mladic, who because of his intelligence and creativity described the false images conveyed by the ”west” as questionable, had to be proven a ”war criminal”, just like president Putin is described in the present conflict in Ukraine.

The explosions in Markale square and bread-line were false flags and gave the reason to bomb the Serbs by NATO. The collaboration between caliphate building Bosnian muslims, NATO and American generals leading the muslim troops like John Galvin was seamless.

The ”Srebrenica massacre” had been ordered by president Clinton already in 1993. Now it was reinvented in August 1995 by ICTY official visiting Tuzla, 80 km apart from Srebrenica. At the same time, side by side with him was an UN-official interviewing Srebrenica inhabitants, out of whom no one had seen any massacres.

During 25  years scientists have collected enourmous amounts of information about what happened during 1992-93 in Serb-villages around Srebrenica, when muslim villagers attaced and killed Serbs. There is also piles of information, what happened after Bosnian Serb army had arrived in Srebrenica, the Muslim army had fled fighting its way towards Tuzla.

Every bone has been studied. Has the person died of artillery barrage, in the minefields or been executed. The number of executed persons has been around 400.

I have on my desk a massive book: Srebrenica, Reality and Manipulations. Articles have been written by scientists, generals, UN-commanders out of whom general Karremans has explaned how massive the politcal pressure was right after the conflict, to describe what happened according to the western narrative.

In spite of all the information available, the first propaganda narrative is very much alive and is in use again in the information war concerning the Russian military operation in Ukraine.

The governments of Finland in the 1990s  gave their unconditional support to the Ruder-Finn war-narrative. Finland wanted to be a member of EU. That is why it wanted to please the US-led NATO, but especially EU-Germany and Helmut Kohl. That decennium was in a way psychological and physical; military rehearsal to join the unipolar US-led world, where the expansion was performed through bombings and horrendous economic sanctions.

For me it is most painful to tell my grand-children to which extent the Finnish government led by Paavo Lipponen was ready to go to serve the US and Germany.

President Bill Clinton wanted to occupy militarily the whole of Yugoslavia. It had a strong military presence in Europe already  by occupying Germany. He wanted however more. He wanted to rule the whole of Balkans to rule the oil- and drugtrade and human trafficing. Finnish president Ahtisaari was a helping hand in all of this.

Yugoslavia had been threatened with new bombings since the Dayton accords. Nazi-Croats and Osama bin Laden’s jihadists were president Clintons allies. Kosovo Albanians were not for democarcy but for direct action and violence. They did not want to participate in democratic rule for 9 years. In 1998 president Clinton renamed the terrorists as freedom-fighters.

The Serbian government police-force informed the media and society that it was 15.1.1999 going to empty the village of Racak in Kosovo of terrorists and weapons as the Albanians had killed local police-officers. AP-TV cameras recorded the fights from early morning until afternoon about 15.pm. Several journalists, OSCE- inspecors were stationed at the hill tops. The bodies could not be fethced from the hills as there was sporadic shooting at judical officers trying to get the bodies down.

As the judge and policemen came the next day to verify the situation, the US chairman of Kosovo OSCE, William Walker was already at the scene with a large group of journalists. The group convened around a ditch, which was full of dead bodies 45, all together. Walter claimed that the people had been executed in a brutal way. Heads cut, shot at neck as victims had tried to climbe from the ditch.

This false statement was telephoned to all NATO-governments during the week-end, before the journalists had got their articles and films out for the public.

As a result of this provocation all the NATO-countries agreed that there is no space for any negotiations longer. The only alternative is to bomb Yugoslavia.

The Yugoslav government invited a Finnish forensic team to study the Racak bodies and find out if the victims had died of execution or fighting.

The Finnish forensic specialists found that no one had been shot from short distance. None the less there were any decpitations, as Clinton had claimed. There were no minors either.

The government of Finland had chosen a dentist, Helena Ranta, to function as the chairman of the forensic team in spite of the fact that a dentist has nothing to do with finding the cause of death of the victims. She did not explain at all to the media what her collagues had found. Instead of clearly saying the results, she pondered filosophically about matters, which had nothing to do with the team’s task. The term crime against humanity was on her vocabulary, not the facts.

It seems that the chosen chairman was politically suitable for the task.

The government of Finland in collaboration with the German ministry of foreign affairs decided to hide the results of the forensic team, permanently. They could care less, what would be the result of their omission.

The chief specialist of the forensic team, world known professor Antti Penttilä could not accept this end result. He published the results in an international forensic journal – two years after the bombings had already occurred.

Because of the decisions by the Finnish governent, the bombings of Yugoslavia started some days after the media statements by Helena Ranta.

***

In the case of Srebrenica the end results are the following:

The political ICTY-court has sentenced, as a result of the western propaganda, Serb-generals to long prison sentences.

Facts based on scientific research and scientific research as such have been declared criminal.

After Dayon accords in 1995, the highest official in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been the High Comissionen, the first commisioner having been Swedish Carl Bild.

The US has had through NATO- occupation and later a bit lighter EU-military presence a position which resembles a colonial ruler just like US has now in Ukraine.

The last High comissioner Christian Schmidt, German christian democrat, has been member of the German government until 2018. One could say the the country is ruled by US-German tandem.

Christian Schmidt has ruled questioning of the ”Srebrenica western truth” a crime . If a person according to scientific research questions the western narrative, he is threatened by a jail  sentence.

***

Denial of the western narrative about Racak ”execution” and telling the truth about the fight in the village is a crime in Kosovo.

Ivan Todosijevic, a Serb-member of Kosovo parliament spoke the truth about Racak in a speech commemorating the 20 year anniversary of Yugoslav-bombings in 2019. He told that the execution was staged by William Walker.

The ”high court” of Kosovo sentenced him to 2 years in prison. If the government of Finland would like to save mr Todosijevic, they should tell the truth.

William Walker has got a statue in Racak village in a celebration in  2017 in the presence of that time president HashimThaci.

***

The procedures by the government of Finland have distanced themselves further and further from the truthful reality  and humanity which it valued before entering the membership in EU.

Former Finnish prime minister Alexander Stubb visits, these weeks, all around Sweden to encourage the country to join NATO.

Alexander Stubb served the US- and EU- interests remarkably as he as EU-representative claimed in 2008 that Russia had attacked Georgia in 8.8.2008. The truth was that president Saakashvili of Georgia had attacked Russian peace-keepers in South-Ossetia and bombed Tsinvali expecting for support from the US.

As prime minister of Finland Alexander Stubb prepared the steps together with president Sauli Niinistö towards Finland joining the military alliance NATO.

The first task was to educate the Finnish media and prepare them to fit the NATO-narrative. To achieve that he found that by sending 100 Finnish journalists and civil servants to Harvard for special CIA-indoktrination would do the job. (In Jugoslav wars, the CIA had too much work preparing the news by itself, in order to deliver them to journalists. It would be smoother as the journalists themselves would have the right attitude to start with)

The government in power after Alexander Stubb, was Juha Sipilä’s right wing government. They put the Harvard-education  to action. In addition to that education, NATO-hybrid information Center was invited to start its function in Helsinki, Finnish capital. So the collaboration between educated journalists, civil servants and NATO would be smooth.

President Sauli Niinistö let the representative of Finnish army to sign NATO- host country agreement, during the summer vacation of the parliament, in 2014. So the parlament was not bothered by discussing and deciding this strong allignment with NATO. Locating nuclear weapons on Finnish soil were not forbidden in the agreement. President Niinistö made several bilater military collaboration agreements for example with the US, Britain and Germany.

The Swedish parliament worked through the NATO-host agreement and bringing nuclear weapons to Sweden became forbidden.

Finland has a committee for security matters. The highest civil servants of each ministry form the committee, the chief civil-servant of Finlans’s president included.

This security committee, supports economically so called ”Mediapool”, the task of which is to secure the co-ordination of all newspapers, publishing houses and State TV according to the NATO-narrative.

***

Russia started its military operation in Ukraine February 24, 2022. Its goal is to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine and secure Donbass, which has been for 8 years under military threat by the government of Ukraine.

Russia has tried diplomatic approach for 8 years to save the Russian speaking parts of the country from annihilation. EU-countries Germany and France, even though signatories of the Minsk treaties, have done nothing to persuade the government of Ukraine to proceed to fulfilment of the treaty.

14000 killed during the 8 years, 400 children too. Continuous pressure and sleeping nights in cellars have made all children of the area vulnerable according to a study by a Finnish doctor. He compared children from Donbass, to children on middle Ukrainian areas and western parts. The differense in mental stress is enormous.

Finnish NATO-educated media does not reveal that it knows about US led military coup in Ukraine in 2014. It does not reveal that it knows that president Obamas vice president ruled Ukraine as a colonial ruler. Biden’s son Hunter’s role in supporting economically the founding of military laboratories in Ukraine, has not reaced the Finnish media. Neither they know that president Obama threatened to make Russia to become a pariah-state.

The Finnish media does not know about the US and British military advisers in Ukraine nor the NATO exercises there. They do not know that the, in the military coup so essential, nazi- army has been integrated to the Ukrainian army seamlessly. Nor do they know that all opposition parties have been denied their function. Russian language is forbidden to be spoken in public. Education in Russian language is forbidden. A multitude of TV-stations have been closed.

In the UN vote, fall 2021,  conserning support to nazism, only USA and Ukraine did not mind nazism. The EU-countries absteined as they could not revel their positive attitude to Ukrainian nazism. However EU-countries have supported and allied with nazis and jihadists in Libya, Syria, Afganistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Ukraine.

The western media claimed that in Mariupol the maternity hospital had been bombed by Russian forces. Without any further information , president of Finland and prime minister Marin, condemned with a stern voice, the horrific attac to the hospital by Russians.
Only some days later, the information reached audiences, that the hospital had been occupied by Ukrainian Azov battallion, who had emptied the location of its patients before the bombing. It became also known that the Azov-forces had misused the patients and inhibited them from escaping the city, by shooting at them while being evacuated.

The publicly announced principal of the Ukrainian nazis is to systematically kill all Russians, roma and Russian speaking ukrainians or expell them accross the border to Russia.

In the neighbourhood of capital Kiev, in the city of Bucha the Russian army was accused of killing civilians and leaving the bodies laying along the streets. After the initial report, the Finnish president and prime minister again condemd the brutality of Russian soldiers on twitter.

From several sources the story appeared to be different.

After the Russian troops left the city March the 30th, the mayor of Bucha rejoiced the recapture of the city by Ukrainian army and  the Azov nazi-groups arrived the following day. A female city council member in military gear boasted on TV that the Azov had arrived and started clensing the city of collaborators. They killed civilians who had Russian army rations in their hands or had white ribbons on their arms symbolizing to Russian soldiers that these civilians are their friends.

Ilja Kiva, member of Ukraine’s parliament until last month and chairman of socialist party, reported Bucha killings by Russian forces to be a false flag planned and organized by the SBU, Ukrainian intelligence service together with MI6, the British intelligence.

The US/EU-media denies the Ukrainian war from being a civil war, where Ukrainians fight between themselves. The war was initiated after the US-led coup, when the newly formed illegal government had been formed and the illegal chairman of the parliament, Mr Turchinov, declared a war against Eastern Ukrainians, who did not want to obey the illegal coup, the illegal government and the parliament clensed from major parties.

***

Mariupol steel factory in Donbass is now the last bastion of the nazi-Azov-army. One part of the military escaped in two helicopters. Among the passengers were US military advisers, just like in Syria. After the liberation of Aleppo, US- and other NATO- advisers were found in the cement tunnels built by the western forces for the rebel-fighters.

Why do the president and prime minister of Finland support the false flag information case after case even though there is no proof from what has really happened.

Why the government of Finland hides the scientific forensic results of what happened in the village of Racak in winter 1999.

Why the Finnish government and the media have built a horrific and disgusting  atmosphere of hate towards Russia and Russians that they hope all inhabitants of Finland to aquire and identify with.
It was awkward to watch the chairman of the German Green party and German minister of foreign affairs Annalena Baerbok to almost shout in her speech to increase the sanctions against Russia because of the Bucha killings. Even though even the nazi-killings in Bucha have no comparison with German bombings of Yugoslavia or US killing of millions of people in Libya, Afganistan, Irak and Laos.

In the destruction of Yugoslavia, German minister of foreign affairs, Joschka Fisher was most eager to bomb the Serbs. He declaired right after he became minister of foreign affairs that ”Serbs must be put on their knees”. It felt unbelievable that a relative of nazi-occupiers should treat holocaust survivors like that.

Now it is the turn of Russians to be in place of Serbs. Russians have managed to overcome the nazi-invasion in 1940- 45.They will never forget the atrozities of nazis no matter wether in Eastern Europe or Ukraine now. The Russians are on the right side of the history, building a multipolar world together with countries who are tired of US atrocities, military oppression,killings, economic sanctions, injustice, and colonial attitude towards other countries.

Too many countries are still afraid of US power-using and cannot act independantly. Russia is corageous and hopefully soon wins the battle against nazism everywhere where it still excists.

Über das Jahr 1914, Hetzkampagnen gegen Russland und einen klugen Schweizer Exoberst
Von Stefan Siegert

imago/United Archives International
Auf Pferderücken: Munition auf dem Weg zu den Verbündeten (Hamel, Frankreich, 1916)

Man kommt in Gedanken immer wieder darauf zurück. 1914. So ungefähr muss es gewesen sein, die Hetze, der Hass, der – heute durchgeschaltet wertebasierte – Propagandapilz in voller Entfaltung. Mit allerdings dem einen, alles entscheidenden Unterschied: Es gab 1914 noch keine Atomwaffen. Das heißt, alle konnten mit Begeisterung und ohne Angst vor dem Globalsuizid die einzig gerechte Strafe für soviel Greuel und Schlechtigkeit auf seiten des Feindes herbeisehnen – der Feind, das waren damals die Serben, die es frech gewagt hatten, den österreichischen Thronfolger zu ermorden; es war vor allem der Franzos’, er sann ja die ganze Zeit schon auf Rache für »70/71«; und es waren natürlich mal wieder die Russen. Die einzig gerechte Strafe: der Krieg. Jeder Krieg der Neuzeit begann mit einer Hetzkampagne, mit fundamentalen Lügen. Der Feind musste mit allen Mitteln bis hin zu raffinierten Greuelinszenierungen verachtet, gehasst, verdammt sein.

Es waren wenige, die 1914 einen kühlen Kopf behielten. Selbst ein mit Recht als Leuchtturm des bürgerlichen Journalismus bewunderter Autor wie Theodor Wolff brauchte zwei Jahre, bis er sich von seiner Kriegsbegeisterung geheilt hatte. Thomas Mann brauchte länger, immerhin: Er schaffte es auf beeindruckende Weise noch im Exil.

Heute sieht es eher aus, als müssten wir auf die Theodor Wolffs, die Alfred Döblins und Erich Maria Remarques, die Hermann Hesses und Brüder Mann lange warten. Heute schallt es uns von überall dröhnend entgegen: »Stimmt ja alles nicht!« Die freieste Presse, die es je auf deutschem Boden gab, weiß es besser: »Im Unterschied zu 1914«, triumphiert sie, »war es Putin, der, wie 1914 der deutsche Kaiser, den Krieg vom Zaun brach!«

Aber sage niemand etwas gegen die sozialen Medien. Neben allem Schlechten, was sie in Händen schlechter Menschen anrichten, haben sie ihr Gutes in Händen guter Menschen. Ob indes der ehemalige schweizerische Oberst Jacques Baud ein guter oder schlechter Mensch ist, entzieht sich meiner Kenntnis. Er ist ein bürgerlicher Mensch, er hat sich akademisch mit den Ursachen des Krieges beschäftigt und ist als Schweizer Militär für die UNO und für die NATO unterwegs gewesen, unter anderem vier Jahre in der Ukraine. Und er hat sich, über die sozialen Medien verbreitet, von einer Schweizer Zeitung interviewen lassen. Als Bürger eines neutralen Landes, das aus schlechten Gründen auf der russischen Liste »unfreundlicher« Staaten gelandet ist, zeigt er sich geradlinig empört über die westliche Art Berichterstattung. Was er als exzellenter Kenner der Situation und ihrer Vorgeschichte dagegen setzt, dürfte in manchen Punkten selbst linke Durchblicker überraschen. Im Ergebnis kommt er zu dem Schluss: Nein, Putins Krieg ist eine Katastrophe wie jeder Krieg, aber er ist kein Angriffskrieg. Er ist ein Verteidigungskrieg gegen eine aggressive NATO, die Russland seit dem Verschwinden der Sowjetunion Schritt für Schritt systematisch eingekreist hat (kurzelinks.de/baud-ukraine).

Wenn es, neben zahllosen Fakten, eines letzten Beweises dafür bedürfte, wer der Angreifer und wer der Angegriffene ist, dann liegt er in der Antwort auf die Frage: Wo war die große Hetzkampagne vor diesem, dem ukrainischen Krieg? Von seiten Russlands gab es zwar die kriegsüblich extrem einseitige Sicht auf die jeweilige Situation. Aber weder vor dem Krieg noch in seinem Verlauf waren aus Moskau hasserfüllte Töne in Richtung Gegenseite wahrzunehmen. Statt dessen anhaltendes Dringen auf friedliche Lösungen bis zuletzt, ja noch während des Krieges, alles NATO-seitig abgebogen. Der Westen dagegen arbeitet seit mehr als einem Jahrzehnt in einer Weise an der Dämonisierung Putins, die von Anfang an auf einen Krieg hindrängte. Wer ist der Angreifer, wer der Angegriffene?

Wolfgang Effenberger

On Monday, March 28, 2022, the Pentagon submitted a $773 billion budget request for fiscal year 2023, asking Congress for a significant increase in spending to build new weapons "to curb the emerging Chinese military, check Russia's aggression in Europe, and boost pay for troops."(1)

"I am calling for one of the largest investments in our national security in history," U.S. President Biden said of the budget request, "with the funding necessary to ensure that our military remains the best-prepared, best-trained, and best-equipped military in the world"; he noted that the funds were being requested to " forcefully respond to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's aggression against Ukraine."(2) However, the request was largely completed before Putin ordered his troops into Ukraine on February 24.
For U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Senator Jack Reed, D-(Rhode Island), this budget is only a "starting point." While it would recognize "China and Russia as the most important strategic competitors to our military," he said, it must still take into account the broader needs of the U.S. military. Reed called on Congress to "make thoughtful decisions about how we equip and transform our national instruments of power. Now that President Biden has submitted his budget request, the committee can begin crafting a [National Defense Authorization Act] that meets America's needs now and in the future."(3)
Among the most pressing needs of the United States since the end of World War II has been the dismantling of the Soviet Union. To this end, the DROPSHOT war plan went into effect on December 19, 1949, a few months after NATO was formed. It was to be triggered after the economic reconstruction of Western Europe (Marshall Plan) and the establishment of the Bundeswehr in 1957.

The U.S. responded to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 with dynamic imperial geopolitics that quickly filled the resulting power vacuum - a policy that virtuously uses the connections between geography and space for its strategic visions in foreign policy.

It is not currently about Putin Biden or even Selensky, it is about a gigantic power game that has been set in motion at the latest since the collapse of the Soviet Union: Five days before the bombing of Yugoslavia began, the U.S. House of Representatives had passed the "Silk Road Strategy Act." It stated:
"The five former Soviet republics that make up Central Asia - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan - are eager to establish relations with the United States. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have large oil and gas reserves around the Caspian Sea that they are desperate to exploit."(4)
The template for this law was Polish-American political scientist and geostrategist Zbigniew Brzeziński's 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard(5). It formed the blueprint for U.S. global policy in recent decades, the goal of which is to bring both China and Russia under its control. Pentagon planners see both a strong Russia and a powerful China as threats.(6) And Ukraine is a pivotal point for U.S. long-term strategists in the struggle for world power. According to Brzeziński, Ukraine's very existence as an independent state contributes to Russia's transformation: "Without Ukraine, Russia is no longer a Eurasian empire."(7)
His prediction as early as 1997 was that "sometime between 2005 and 2010, Ukraine should be ready for serious negotiations with both the EU and NATO, especially if in the meantime it has made significant progress in its domestic reforms and has more clearly identified itself as a Central European state."(8) By integrating Ukraine into the EU and NATO, Brzeziński wanted to put Russia in its place.
Since the Taiwan crisis in 1995/96, the U.S. has (once again) seen China as a potential military adversary and has aligned its strategic plans accordingly. In the South China Sea, the American claim to free access to the world's oceans continues to collide with Chinese efforts to establish a security zone there. "The geopolitical conflict over the South China Sea is also intertwined with the nuclear dimension. China appears to be developing this sea in the sense of a protected bastion for nuclear-armed submarines with which it wants to ensure second-strike capability against the United States."(9)
Already in his first year in office - on November 13, 2009 - U.S. President Barack Obama referred to himself as the "first Pacific president" of the U.S. in a keynote address to his Pacific ally Tokyo, because the "history of America and the Asia-Pacific region have never been more closely connected."(10) At the same time, he announced greater engagement with Asian countries and emphasized U.S. leadership in the world. In early October 2011, then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton underscored her "first Pacific" president's new foreign policy as a "swing to Asia": "The future of policy will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be at the center of the action."(11) Thus, the shift of the U.S. military's operational focus from the greater Middle East to Asia would be inevitable. And on February 9, 2012, Admiral Samuel Locklear spoke plainly to the U.S. Senate Defense Committee on the occasion of his nomination to head U.S. Pacific Command: "We are a major power in Asia. The Chinese and the other countries in the region need to understand that the United States is prepared to defend their national interests there."(12)

In Ukraine, after the initial successes of the 2010 "Orange Revolution" were challenged with the election of Viktor Yanukovych, Western-directed unrest erupted in late 2013, eventually leading to the president's flight to Russia on February 21, 2014. This brought the coup to a "successful" conclusion. The U.S. sponsored the coup to the tune of $5 billion. In parallel, George Soros also supported the Maidan revolution.(13) In current reporting, however, Putin alone was and is seen as responsible for the Ukrainian tragedy.
One day after the referendum in Crimea - here the Crimean population had voted with an overwhelming majority for annexation to the Russian Federation - the NATO summit began in Wales (March 17-19, 2014). The subsequently published conference report outlining the new strategic concepts(14) states that strategic communications and outreach are critical "if the Alliance is to be properly positioned for the challenges and shocks that the 21st century beyond 2014 will undoubtedly bring."(15) The summit is also a time when the Alliance must be prepared for the challenges and shocks that the 21st century will undoubtedly bring.
In this regard, the Ukraine/Crimea crisis must be seen in a historical context: "This is not the beginning of a new Cold War, unless Putin overreaches and invades all of Ukraine. However, the European security and defense architecture must be strengthened and made fit for the challenges of the 21st century."(16)
The report's authors logically recognized that the Syria and Ukraine crises highlight the danger of "multiple threats merging as great powers compete for influence which prevents solutions to humanitarian tragedies."(17) China's emergence and growing tensions in the Asia-Pacific region would also highlight "the extent to which the Alliance must prepare for challenges across the spectrum of conflict and around the world." The text then definitely states, "NATO is the ultima ratio for safeguarding freedom and security."(18)

In early October 2014, at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) conference, senior officers and representatives of the U.S. Department of Defense revealed the vision of future armed conflicts. Amidst weapons industry lobbyists whose companies presented the latest weapons systems, the new TRADOC document 525-3-1 "Win in an Complex World 2020-2040"(19) was unveiled. The United States Army "Training and Doctrine Command" (TRADOC) is one of three Army-level commands, and thus one of the most important commands in the U.S. Armed Forces.

This event prompted Bill van Auken and David North to write a blistering article on wsws.org, the mouthpiece of the "International Committee of the Fourth International" (ICVI): "U.S. Army Drafts Blueprint for Third World War."(20) Both authors infer extremely ominous implications from the text of the document, as the first priority for the armed forces was to reduce the threat from Russia and China, second was the threat from North Korea and Iran, and only third was terrorism. Successfully, the U.S. military under its first "Pacific" president shifted its capabilities massively toward Asia.

On December 4, 2014, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly (only 10 votes against) passed H. Res. 758. On the same day, long-time Congressman Ron Paul commented on it on his website with the article "Reckless Congress 'Declares War' on Russia"(21), saying:
"Today in the U.S. House of Representatives, in my opinion, one of the most evil pieces of legislation was passed."
Ron Paul sees this 16-page bill as pure war propaganda that should make even neoconservatives blush with shame. Resolution 758 reminds him of 1998, when he argued vehemently against passage of the Iraq Liberation Act. At that time, he had stated that this law would lead to war. "I voted against the bill at that time" said Paul, "not because I was an admirer of Saddam Hussein. Nor am I an admirer of Vladimir Putin or any other foreign leader. What made me vote against the bill at the time was a personal belief that another U.S. war against Iraq would not solve the underlying problems. Rather, it became apparent even then that such a war would tend to make things worse in the region. We all know today what happened in the aftermath"(22). This is one of the reasons "why I can hardly believe that this development is now repeating itself and that those responsible are ruthlessly imposing their will. And this time it is about much more: namely provoking a war against Russia, which could end in a total destruction of the world we know!"(23)
Former Reagan Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts saw the resolution against Russia as a pack of lies(24), and Canadian economist Michel Chossudovsky worried about global security. For him, the House of Representatives had effectively given the U.S. president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces a "green light" to enter into a process of military confrontation with Russia without further congressional approval.(25) "This historic vote," Chossudovsky said, "potentially affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world, has been virtually blanketed in the media - and this state of affairs continues."(26)
 
The speed with which the resolution was passed is unusual in the history of the U.S. legislative process. In just 16 days, H. Res.758 had been debated in the Foreign Affairs Committee and then sent back to the House of Representatives for debate and passage.
 
This legislation can be activated at any time by the sitting U.S. President.  
On March 30, the Austrian "Standard" published an interview with Gerard Toal, representative of "Critical Geopolitics" and professor of International Relations at Virginia Tech in the United States. He sees the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a string of hubris, misinformation and misinterpretation. From a military standpoint, this view seems accurate. But Russia's military operation is more likely to be politically motivated. Consequently, Toal recognizes that the Vladimir Putin of today has been honed by interactions with the West over the past 20 years: Putin "is angry, he drew red lines that were neither accepted nor respected. He operates out of a massive distrust of the West. He believes they always want to humiliate and undermine Russia. For Putin, the autocrat, Western ideology is liberal imperialist warfare along with constant expansion of democratic institutions, constant expansion of a kind of capitalist economy and politics. For Putin, this presents itself as a kind of permanent revolution against him and his worldview - the color revolutions, for example, which were supposed to trigger a kind of domino effect. This is his revanchism."(27)
Toal's statement on Putin's operating may contain some kernels of truth, but it is ultimately too superficial and not conducive to finding a peace solution for Europe.
What will happen next?
The fighting in Ukraine could drag on for a long time, while Selensky and parts of the Polish and American elite want NATO to be involved in this war. A cause will be quick to construct (see Tonkin 1964 - Meddox, Iraq 1991- incubators. Iraq 2003 WMD etc).
And that could happen now - even with the threat of nuclear war.
Today's winners are again in the US. Money flows to the drug companies, to the defense companies, to the oil and gas companies. Non-Americans are once again bleeding to death for interests across the Atlantic.
Regardless of the war propaganda, however, the suffering of the people maltreated in this fratricidal war must now urgently be ended and a lasting peace solution set in motion.

Notes

1) https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2022-03-28/defense-department-budget-troops-pay-raises-china-russia-5505695.html?utm_source=Stars+and+Stripes+Emails&utm_campaign=a0d39cf547-Newsletter+-+Weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0ab8697a7f-a0d39cf547-296504235
2) Ebd.
3) Ebd.
4) Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999 (H. R. 1152 –106th Congress): "To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to Target Assistance to Support the Economic and Political Independence of the Countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia. The term "Countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia" means Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan." Unter Bush im Mai 2006 modifiziert: Silk Road Strategy Act of 2006 (S. 2749 – 109th Congress)
5) Zbigniew Brzeziński: Die einzige Weltmacht: Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft. Rottenbuch 2015
6) Ebd. S. 62-63
7) Ebd. S. 65
8) Ebd. S. 109
9) https://www.swp-berlin.org/publikation/strategische-rivalitaet-zwischen-usa-und-china
10) „Obama umwirbt Asiens Staaten“
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/us-praesident-in-tokioobama-umwirbt-asiens-staaten-a-661256.html
11) Hillary Clinton: America’s Pacific Century vom 11. Oktober 2011
https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/
https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/gehen-china-und-usa-auf-konfrontation/
12) NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, SECOND SESSION, 112TH CONGRESS
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112shrg80073/html/CHRG-112shrg80073.htm
13) https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/welt/osteuropa/politik/ukraine-soros-kampagne-100.html
14) Conference Report NATO’s post 2014 strategic narrative WP1
15) https://www.wiltonpark.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/WP1319-Report.pdf, S. 1
16) Ebd. S. 2
17) Ebd. S. 4
18) Ebd.
19) http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pams/tp525-3-1.pdf
vom 7. Oktober 2014
20) http://www.wsws.org/de/articles/2014/10/15/pers-o15.html
vom 15. Oktober 2014
21) http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/december/04/reckless-congress-declares-war-on-russia/
Ronald Ernest „Ron“ Paul (*1935) ist US-amerikanischer Arzt und Politiker, Mitglied der Republikanischen Partei und war zwischen 1976 und 2013 (mit Unterbrechungen) Abgeordneter im Repräsentantenhaus der Vereinigten Staaten. Er war bei der US-Präsidentschaftswahl 1988 Kandidat der Libertarian Party und Bewerber um die republikanische Kandidatur für die Präsidentschaftswahl 2008 und 2012.
22) Ron Paul: Rücksichtsloser US-Kongress hat Russland gerade den Krieg erklärt, Institute for Peace and Prosperity unter http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/ [08.12.14], als Gastbeitrag in Cashkurs vom 8.12.2014 unter http://www.cashkurs.com/kategorie/wirtschaftsfacts/beitrag/gastbeitrag-dr-ron-paul-ruecksichtsloser-us-kongress-hat-russland-gerade-den-krieg-erklaert/
23) Ebd.
24) Paul Craig Roberts: Russia Has Western Enemies, Not Partners vom 5. Dezember 2014, unter http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/12/05/russia-western-enemies-partners-paul-craig-roberts/
25) Michel Chossudovsky: Amerika auf dem »Kriegspfad«: Repräsentantenhaus ebnet Krieg mit Russland den Weg vom 6.112.2014 unter http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/prof-michel-chossudovsky/amerika-auf-demkriegspfad- repraesentantenhaus-ebnet-krieg-mit-russland-den-weg.html
26) Ebd.
27) https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000134372634/geopolitiker-toal-putin-hat-seine-eigene-propaganda-geglaubt

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”

Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]

The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3]

This latter idea of special status for the GDR territory was codified in the final German unification treaty signed on September 12, 1990, by the Two-Plus-Four foreign ministers (see Document 25). The former idea about “closer to the Soviet borders” is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.

The “Tutzing formula” immediately became the center of a flurry of important diplomatic discussions over the next 10 days in 1990, leading to the crucial February 10, 1990, meeting in Moscow between Kohl and Gorbachev when the West German leader achieved Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east. The Soviets would need much more time to work with their domestic opinion (and financial aid from the West Germans) before formally signing the deal in September 1990.

The conversations before Kohl’s assurance involved explicit discussion of NATO expansion, the Central and East European countries, and how to convince the Soviets to accept unification. For example, on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, “The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.” (See Document 2)

Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev.

Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6)

Afterwards, Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day, with much of the very same language. Baker reported: “And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options [….] He then added, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’” Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl’s benefit, “By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.” (See Document 8)

Well-briefed by the American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.” (See Document 9) After this meeting, Kohl could hardly contain his excitement at Gorbachev’s agreement in principle for German unification and, as part of the Helsinki formula that states choose their own alliances, so Germany could choose NATO. Kohl described in his memoirs walking all night around Moscow – but still understanding there was a price still to pay.

All the Western foreign ministers were on board with Genscher, Kohl, and Baker. Next came the British foreign minister, Douglas Hurd, on April 11, 1990. At this point, the East Germans had voted overwhelmingly for the deutschmark and for rapid unification, in the March 18 elections in which Kohl had surprised almost all observers with a real victory. Kohl’s analyses (first explained to Bush on December 3, 1989) that the GDR’s collapse would open all possibilities, that he had to run to get to the head of the train, that he needed U.S. backing, that unification could happen faster than anyone thought possible – all turned out to be correct. Monetary union would proceed as early as July and the assurances about security kept coming. Hurd reinforced the Baker-Genscher-Kohl message in his meeting with Gorbachev in Moscow, April 11, 1990, saying that Britain clearly “recognized the importance of doing nothing to prejudice Soviet interests and dignity.” (See Document 15)

The Baker conversation with Shevardnadze on May 4, 1990, as Baker described it in his own report to President Bush, most eloquently described what Western leaders were telling Gorbachev exactly at the moment: “I used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.” (See Document 17)

Baker said it again, directly to Gorbachev on May 18, 1990 in Moscow, giving Gorbachev his “nine points,” which included the transformation of NATO, strengthening European structures, keeping Germany non-nuclear, and taking Soviet security interests into account. Baker started off his remarks, “Before saying a few words about the German issue, I wanted to emphasize that our policies are not aimed at separating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. We had that policy before. But today we are interested in building a stable Europe, and doing it together with you.” (See Document 18)

The French leader Francois Mitterrand was not in a mind-meld with the Americans, quite the contrary, as evidenced by his telling Gorbachev in Moscow on May 25, 1990, that he was “personally in favor of gradually dismantling the military blocs”; but Mitterrand continued the cascade of assurances by saying the West must “create security conditions for you, as well as European security as a whole.” (See Document 19) Mitterrand immediately wrote Bush in a “cher George” letter about his conversation with the Soviet leader, that “we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country’s security.” (See Document 20)

At the Washington summit on May 31, 1990, Bush went out of his way to assure Gorbachev that Germany in NATO would never be directed at the USSR: “Believe me, we are not pushing Germany towards unification, and it is not us who determines the pace of this process. And of course, we have no intention, even in our thoughts, to harm the Soviet Union in any fashion. That is why we are speaking in favor of German unification in NATO without ignoring the wider context of the CSCE, taking the traditional economic ties between the two German states into consideration. Such a model, in our view, corresponds to the Soviet interests as well.” (See Document 21)

The “Iron Lady” also pitched in, after the Washington summit, in her meeting with Gorbachev in London on June 8, 1990. Thatcher anticipated the moves the Americans (with her support) would take in the early July NATO conference to support Gorbachev with descriptions of the transformation of NATO towards a more political, less militarily threatening, alliance. She said to Gorbachev: “We must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its security would be assured…. CSCE could be an umbrella for all this, as well as being the forum which brought the Soviet Union fully into discussion about the future of Europe.” (See Document 22)

The NATO London Declaration on July 5, 1990 had quite a positive effect on deliberations in Moscow, according to most accounts, giving Gorbachev significant ammunition to counter his hardliners at the Party Congress which was taking place at that moment. Some versions of this history assert that an advance copy was provided to Shevardnadze’s aides, while others describe just an alert that allowed those aides to take the wire service copy and produce a Soviet positive assessment before the military or hardliners could call it propaganda.

As Kohl said to Gorbachev in Moscow on July 15, 1990, as they worked out the final deal on German unification: “We know what awaits NATO in the future, and I think you are now in the know as well,” referring to the NATO London Declaration. (See Document 23)

In his phone call to Gorbachev on July 17, Bush meant to reinforce the success of the Kohl-Gorbachev talks and the message of the London Declaration. Bush explained: “So what we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others, and we did it in the following ways: by our joint declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO; in our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and our offer on assurances on the future size of the armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded, stronger CSCE with new institutions in which the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe.” (See Document 24)

The documents show that Gorbachev agreed to German unification in NATO as the result of this cascade of assurances, and on the basis of his own analysis that the future of the Soviet Union depended on its integration into Europe, for which Germany would be the decisive actor. He and most of his allies believed that some version of the common European home was still possible and would develop alongside the transformation of NATO to lead to a more inclusive and integrated European space, that the post-Cold War settlement would take account of the Soviet security interests. The alliance with Germany would not only overcome the Cold War but also turn on its head the legacy of the Great Patriotic War.

But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued, a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern Europe. Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990 was to leave “the door ajar” for East European membership in NATO. (See Document 27) The view of the State Department was that NATO expansion was not on the agenda, because it was not in the interest of the U.S. to organize “an anti-Soviet coalition” that extended to the Soviet borders, not least because it might reverse the positive trends in the Soviet Union. (See Document 26) The Bush administration took the latter view. And that’s what the Soviets heard.

As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.” (See Document 28)

When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.” According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, “Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).” (See Document 30)

Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO. Instead, the dissolution of the USSR was brought about by Russians (Boris Yeltsin and his leading advisory Gennady Burbulis) in concert with the former party bosses of the Soviet republics, especially Ukraine, in December 1991. The Cold War was long over by then. The Americans had tried to keep the Soviet Union together (see the Bush “Chicken Kiev” speech on August 1, 1991). NATO’s expansion was years in the future, when these disputes would erupt again, and more assurances would come to Russian leader Boris Yeltsin.

The Archive compiled these declassified documents for a panel discussion on November 10, 2017 at the annual conference of the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES) in Chicago under the title “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?” The panel included:

* Mark Kramer from the Davis Center at Harvard, editor of the Journal of Cold War Studies, whose 2009 Washington Quarterly article argued that the “no-NATO-enlargement pledge” was a “myth”;[4]

* Joshua R. Itkowitz Shifrinson from the Bush School at Texas A&M, whose 2016 International Security article argued the U.S. was playing a double game in 1990, leading Gorbachev to believe NATO would be subsumed in a new European security structure, while working to ensure hegemony in Europe and the maintenance of NATO;[5]

* James Goldgeier from American University, who wrote the authoritative book on the Clinton decision on NATO expansion, Not Whether But When, and described the misleading U.S. assurances to Russian leader Boris Yeltsin in a 2016 WarOnTheRocks article;[6]

* Svetlana Savranskaya and Tom Blanton from the National Security Archive, whose most recent book, The Last Superpower Summits: Gorbachev, Reagan, and Bush: Conversations That Ended the Cold War (CEU Press, 2016) analyzes and publishes the declassified transcripts and related documents from all of Gorbachev’s summits with U.S. presidents, including dozens of assurances about protecting the USSR’s security interests.[7]

[Today’s posting is the first of two on the subject. The second part will cover the Yeltsin discussions with Western leaders about NATO.]

Read the documents:

Document 01
U.S. Embassy Bonn Confidential Cable to Secretary of State on the speech of the German Foreign Minister: Genscher Outlines His Vision of a New European Architecture.
Feb 1, 1990
Source

U.S. Department of State. FOIA Reading Room. Case F-2015 10829

One of the myths about the January and February 1990 discussions of German unification is that these talks occurred so early in the process, with the Warsaw Pact still very much in existence, that no one was thinking about the possibility that Central and European countries, even then members of the Warsaw Pact, could in the future become members of NATO. On the contrary, the West German foreign minister’s Tutzing formula in his speech of January 31, 1990, widely reported in the media in Europe, Washington, and Moscow, explicitly addressed the possibility of NATO expansion, as well as Central and Eastern European membership in NATO – and denied that possibility, as part of his olive garland towards Moscow. This U.S. Embassy Bonn cable reporting back to Washington details both of Hans-Dietrich Genscher’s proposals – that NATO would not expand to the east, and that the former territory of the GDR in a unified Germany would be treated differently from other NATO territory.

Document 02
Mr. Hurd to Sir C. Mallaby (Bonn). Telegraphic N. 85: Secretary of State’s Call on Herr Genscher: German Unification.
Feb 6, 1990
Source
Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Documents on British Policy Overseas, edited by Patrick Salmon, Keith Hamilton, and Stephen Twigge, Oxford and New York, Routledge 2010). pp. 261-264

The U.S. State Department’s subsequent view of the German unification negotiations, expressed in a 1996 cable sent to all posts, mistakenly asserts that the entire negotiation over the future of Germany limited its discussion of the future of NATO to the specific arrangements over the territory of the former GDR. Perhaps the American diplomats missed out on the early dialogue between the British and the Germans on this issue, even though both shared their views with the U.S. secretary of state. As published in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s official 2010 documentary history of the UK’s input into German unification, this memorandum of British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd’s conversation with West German Foreign Minister Genscher on February 6, 1990, contains some remarkable specificity on the issue of future NATO membership for the Central Europeans. The British memorandum specifically quotes Genscher as saying “that when he talked about not wanting to extend NATO that applied to other states beside the GDR. The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.” Genscher and Hurd were saying the same to their Soviet counterpart Eduard Shevardnadze, and to James Baker.[8]

Document 03
Memorandum from Paul H. Nitze to George H.W. Bush about “Forum for Germany” meeting in Berlin.
Feb 6, 1990
Source

George H. W. Bush Presidential Library

This concise note to President Bush from one of the Cold War’s architects, Paul Nitze (based at his namesake Johns Hopkins University School of International Studies), captures the debate over the future of NATO in early 1990. Nitze relates that Central and Eastern European leaders attending the “Forum for Germany” conference in Berlin were advocating the dissolution of both the superpower blocs, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, until he (and a few western Europeans) turned around that view and instead emphasized the importance of NATO as the basis of stability and U.S. presence in Europe.

Document 04
Memorandum of Conversation between James Baker and Eduard Shevardnadze in Moscow.
Feb 9, 1990
Source

U.S. Department of State, FOIA 199504567 (National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38)

Although heavily redacted compared to the Soviet accounts of these conversations, the official State Department version of Secretary Baker’s assurances to Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze just before the formal meeting with Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, contains a series of telling phrases. Baker proposes the Two-Plus-Four formula, with the two being the Germanies and the four the post-war occupying powers; argues against other ways to negotiate unification; and makes the case for anchoring Germany in NATO. Furthermore, Baker tells the Soviet foreign minister, “A neutral Germany would undoubtedly acquire its own independent nuclear capability. However, a Germany that is firmly anchored in a changed NATO, by that I mean a NATO that is far less of [a] military organization, much more of a political one, would have no need for independent capability. There would, of course, have to be iron-clad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward. And this would have to be done in a manner that would satisfy Germany’s neighbors to the east.”

Document 05
Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow.
Feb 9, 1990
Source

U.S. Department of State, FOIA 199504567 (National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38)

Even with (unjustified) redactions by U.S. classification officers, this American transcript of perhaps the most famous U.S. assurance to the Soviets on NATO expansion confirms the Soviet transcript of the same conversation. Repeating what Bush said at the Malta summit in December 1989, Baker tells Gorbachev: “The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process” of inevitable German unification. Baker goes on to say, “We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Later in the conversation, Baker poses the same position as a question, “would you prefer a united Germany outside of NATO that is independent and has no US forces or would you prefer a united Germany with ties to NATO and assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward?” The declassifiers of this memcon actually redacted Gorbachev’s response that indeed such an expansion would be “unacceptable” – but Baker’s letter to Kohl the next day, published in 1998 by the Germans, gives the quote.

Document 06
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. (Excerpts)
Feb 9, 1990
Source

Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Fond 1, Opis 1.

This Gorbachev Foundation record of the Soviet leader’s meeting with James Baker on February 9, 1990, has been public and available for researchers at the Foundation since as early as 1996, but it was not published in English until 2010 when the Masterpieces of History volume by the present authors came out from Central European University Press. The document focuses on German unification, but also includes candid discussion by Gorbachev of the economic and political problems in the Soviet Union, and Baker’s “free advice” (“sometimes the finance minister in me wakes up”) on prices, inflation, and even the policy of selling apartments to soak up the rubles cautious Soviet citizens have tucked under their mattresses.

Turning to German unification, Baker assures Gorbachev that “neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that “not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Baker argues in favor of the Two-Plus-Four talks using the same assurance: “We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the ‘two+four’ mechanism should guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.” Gorbachev responds by quoting Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski: “that the presence of American and Soviet troops in Europe is an element of stability.”

The key exchange takes place when Baker asks whether Gorbachev would prefer “a united Germany outside of NATO, absolutely independent and without American troops; or a united Germany keeping its connections with NATO, but with the guarantee that NATO’s jurisdiction or troops will not spread east of the present boundary.” Thus, in this conversation, the U.S. secretary of state three times offers assurances that if Germany were allowed to unify in NATO, preserving the U.S. presence in Europe, then NATO would not expand to the east. Interestingly, not once does he use the term GDR or East Germany or even mention the Soviet troops in East Germany. For a skilled negotiator and careful lawyer, it seems very unlikely Baker would not use specific terminology if in fact he was referring only to East Germany.

The Soviet leader responds that “[w]e will think everything over. We intend to discuss all these questions in depth at the leadership level. It goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable.” Baker affirms: “We agree with that.”

Document 07
Memorandum of conversation between Robert Gates and Vladimir Kryuchkov in Moscow.
Feb 9, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91128, Folder “Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive.”

This conversation is especially important because subsequent researchers have speculated that Secretary Baker may have been speaking beyond his brief in his “not one inch eastward” conversation with Gorbachev. Robert Gates, the former top CIA intelligence analyst and a specialist on the USSR, here tells his kind-of-counterpart, the head of the KGB, in his office at the Lubyanka KGB headquarters, exactly what Baker told Gorbachev that day at the Kremlin: not one inch eastward. At that point, Gates was the top deputy to the president’s national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, so this document speaks to a coordinated approach by the U.S. government to Gorbachev. Kryuchkov, whom Gorbachev appointed to replace Viktor Chebrikov at the KGB in October 1988, comes across here as surprisingly progressive on many issues of domestic reform. He talks openly about the shortcomings and problems of perestroika, the need to abolish the leading role of the CPSU, the central government’s mistaken neglect of ethnic issues, the “atrocious” pricing system, and other domestic topics.

When the discussion moves on to foreign policy, in particular the German question, Gates asks, “What did Kryuchkov think of the Kohl/Genscher proposal under which a united Germany would be associated with NATO, but in which NATO troops would move no further east than they now were? It seems to us to be a sound proposal.” Kryuchkov does not give a direct answer but talks about how sensitive the issue of German unification is for the Soviet public and suggests that the Germans should offer the Soviet Union some guarantees. He says that although Kohl and Genscher’s ideas are interesting, “even those points in their proposals with which we agree would have to have guarantees. We learned from the Americans in arms control negotiations the importance of verification, and we would have to be sure.”

Document 08
Letter from James Baker to Helmut Kohl
Feb 10, 1990
Source
Deutsche Enheit Sonderedition und den Akten des Budeskanzleramtes 1989/90, eds. Hanns Jurgen Kusters and Daniel Hofmann (Munich: R. Odenbourg Verlag, 1998), pp. 793-794

This key document first appeared in Helmut Kohl’s scholarly edition of chancellery documents on German unification, published in 1998. Kohl at that moment was caught up in an election campaign that would end his 16-year tenure as chancellor, and wanted to remind Germans of his instrumental role in the triumph of unification.[9] The large volume (over 1,000 pages) included German texts of Kohl’s meetings with Gorbachev, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher and more – all published with no apparent consultation with those governments, only eight years after the events. A few of the Kohl documents, such as this one, appear in English, representing the American or British originals rather than German notes or translations. Here, Baker debriefs Kohl the day after his February 9 meeting with Gorbachev. (The chancellor is scheduled to have his own session with Gorbachev on February 10 in Moscow.) The American apprises the German on Soviet “concerns” about unification, and summarizes why a “Two Plus Four” negotiation would be the most appropriate venue for talks on the “external aspects of unification” given that the “internal aspects … were strictly a German matter.” Baker especially remarks on Gorbachev’s noncommittal response to the question about a neutral Germany versus a NATO Germany with pledges against eastward expansion, and advises Kohl that Gorbachev “may well be willing to go along with a sensible approach that gives him some cover …” Kohl reinforces this message in his own conversation later that day with the Soviet leader.

Document 09
Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl
Feb 10, 1990
Source
Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006)

This meeting in Moscow was the moment, by Kohl’s account, when he first heard from Gorbachev that the Soviet leader saw German unification as inevitable, that the value of future German friendship in a “common European home” outweighed Cold War rigidities, but that the Soviets would need time (and money) before they could acknowledge the new realities. Prepared by Baker’s letter and his own foreign minister’s Tutzing formula, Kohl early in the conversation assures Gorbachev, “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people.” Later the two leaders tussle about NATO and the Warsaw Pact, with Gorbachev commenting, “They say what is NATO without the FRG. But we could also ask: what is the WTO without the GDR?” When Kohl disagrees, Gorbachev calls merely for “reasonable solutions that do not poison the atmosphere in our relations” and says this part of the conversation should not be made public.

Gorbachev aide Andrei Grachev later wrote that the Soviet leader early on understood that Germany was the door to European integration, and “[a]ll the attempted bargaining [by Gorbachev] about the final formula for German association with NATO was therefore much more a question of form than serious content; Gorbachev was trying to gain needed time in order to let public opinion at home adjust to the new reality, to the new type of relations that were taking shape in the Soviet Union’s relations with Germany as well as with the West in general. At the same time he was hoping to get at least partial political compensation from his Western partners for what he believed to be his major contribution to the end of the Cold War.”[10]

Document 10-1
Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze notes from Conference on Open Skies, Ottawa, Canada.
Feb 12, 1990
Source

Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.

Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze was particularly unhappy with the swift pace of events on German unification, especially when a previously scheduled NATO and Warsaw Pact foreign ministers’ meeting in Ottawa, Canada, on February 10-12, 1990, that was meant to discuss the “Open Skies” treaty, turned into a wide-ranging negotiation over Germany and the installation of the Two-Plus-Four process to work out the details. Shevardnadze’s aide, Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze, wrote notes of the Ottawa meetings in a series of notebooks, and also kept a less-telegraphic diary, which needs to be read along with the notebooks for the most complete account. Now deposited at the Hoover Institution, these excerpts of the Stepanov-Mamaladze notes and diary record Shevardnadze’s disapproval of the speed of the process, but most importantly reinforce the importance of the February 9 and 10 meetings in Moscow, where Western assurances about Soviet security were heard, and Gorbachev’s assent in principle to eventual German unification came as part of the deal.

Notes from the first days of the conference are very brief, but they contain one important line that shows that Baker offered the same assurance formula in Ottawa as he did in Moscow: “And if U[nited] G[ermany] stays in NATO, we should take care about nonexpansion of its jurisdiction to the East.” Shevardnadze is not ready to discuss conditions for German unification; he says that he has to consult with Moscow before any condition is approved. On February 13, according to the notes, Shevardnadze complains, “I am in a stupid situation – we are discussing the Open Skies, but my colleagues are talking about unification of Germany as if it was a fact.” The notes show that Baker was very persistent in trying to get Shevardnadze to define Soviet conditions for German unification in NATO, while Shevardnadze was still uncomfortable with the term “unification,” instead insisting on the more general term “unity.”

Document 10-2
Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze diary, February 12, 1990.
Feb 12, 1990
Source

Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.

This diary entry from February 12 contains a very brief description of the February 10 Kohl and Genscher visit to Moscow, about which Stepanov-Mamaladze had not previously written (since he was not present). Sharing the view of his minister, Shevardnadze, Stepanov reflects on the hurried nature of, and insufficient considerations given to, the Moscow discussions: “Before our visit here, Kohl and Genscher paid a hasty visit to Moscow. And just as hastily – in the opinion of E.A. [Shevardnadze] – Gorbachev accepted the right of the Germans to unity and self-determination.” This diary entry is evidence, from a critical perspective, that the United States and West Germany did give Moscow concrete assurances about keeping NATO to its current size and scope. In fact, the diary further indicates that at least in Shevardnadze’s view those assurances amounted to a deal – which Gorbachev accepted, even while he stalled for time.

Document 10-3
Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze diary, February 13, 1990.
Feb 13, 1990
Source

Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.

On the second day of the Ottawa conference, Stepanov-Mamaladze describes difficult negotiations about the exact wording on the joint statement on Germany and the Two-Plus-Four process. Shevardnadze and Genscher argued for two hours over the terms “unity” versus “unification” as Shevardnadze tried to slow things down on Germany and get the other ministers to concentrate on Open Skies. The day was quite intense: “During the day, active games were taking place between all of them. E.A. [Shevardnadze] met with Baker five times, twice with Genscher, talked with Fischer [GDR foreign minister], Dumas [French foreign minister], and the ministers of the ATS countries,” and finally, the text of the settlement was settled, using the word “unity.” The final statement also called the agreement on U.S. and Soviet troops in Central Europe the main achievement of the conference. But for the Soviet delegates, “ the ‘Open Sky’ [was] still closed by the storm cloud of Germany.”

Document 11
U.S. State Department, “Two Plus Four: Advantages, Possible Concerns and Rebuttal Points.”
Feb 21, 1990
Source

State Department FOIA release, National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38.

This memo, likely authored by top Baker aide Robert Zoellick at the State Department, contains the candid American view of the Two-Plus-Four process with its advantages of “maintain[ing] American involvement in (and even some control over) the unification debate.” The American fear was that the West Germans would make their own deal with Moscow for rapid unification, giving up some of the bottom lines for the U.S., mainly membership in NATO. Zoellick points out, for example, that Kohl had announced his 10 Points without consulting Washington and after signals from Moscow, and that the U.S. had found out about Kohl going to Moscow from the Soviets, not from Kohl. The memo pre-empts objections about including the Soviets by pointing out they were already in Germany and had to be dealt with. The Two-Plus-Four arrangement includes the Soviets but prevents them from having a veto (which a Four-Power process or a United Nations process might allow), while an effective One-Plus-Three conversation before each meeting would enable West Germany and the U.S., with the British and the French, to work out a common position. Especially telling are the underlining and handwriting by Baker in the margins, especially his exuberant phrase, “you haven’t seen a leveraged buyout until you see this one!”

Document 12-1
Memorandum of conversation between Vaclav Havel and George Bush in Washington.
Feb 20, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)

These conversations might be called “the education of Vaclav Havel,”[10] as the former dissident-turned-president of Czechoslovakia visited Washington only two months after the Velvet Revolution swept him from prison to the Prague Castle. Havel would enjoy standing ovations during a February 21 speech to a joint session of Congress, and hold talks with Bush before and after the congressional appearance. Havel had already been cited by journalists as calling for the dissolution of the Cold War blocs, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and the withdrawal of troops, so Bush took the opportunity to lecture the Czech leader about the value of NATO and its essential role as the basis for the U.S. presence in Europe. Still, Havel twice mentioned in his speech to Congress his hope that “American soldiers shouldn’t have to be separated from their mothers” just because Europe couldn’t keep the peace, and appealed for a “future democratic Germany in the process of unifying itself into a new pan-European structure which could decide about its own security system.” But afterwards, talking again to Bush, the former dissident clearly had gotten the message. Havel said he might have been misunderstood, that he certainly saw the value of U.S. engagement in Europe. For his part, Bush raised the possibilities, assuming more Czechoslovak cooperation on this issue, of U.S. investment and aid.

Document 12-2
Memorandum of conversation between Vaclav Havel and George Bush in Washington.
Feb 21, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)

This memcon after Havel’s triumphant speech to Congress contains Bush’s request to Havel to pass the message to Gorbachev that the Americans support him personally, and that “We will not conduct ourselves in the wrong way by saying ‘we win, you lose.’” Emphasizing the point, Bush says, “tell Gorbachev that … I asked you to tell Gorbachev that we will not conduct ourselves regarding Czechoslovakia or any other country in a way that would complicate the problems he has so frankly discussed with me.” The Czechoslovak leader adds his own caution to the Americans about how to proceed with the unification of Germany and address Soviet insecurities. Havel remarks to Bush, “It is a question of prestige. This is the reason why I talked about the new European security system without mentioning NATO. Because, if it grew out of NATO, it would have to be named something else, if only because of the element of prestige. If NATO takes over Germany, it will look like defeat, one superpower conquering another. But if NATO can transform itself – perhaps in conjunction with the Helsinki process – it would look like a peaceful process of change, not defeat.” Bush responded positively: “You raised a good point. Our view is that NATO would continue with a new political role and that we would build on the CSCE process. We will give thought on how we might proceed.”

Document 13
Memorandum of Conversation between Helmut Kohl and George Bush at Camp David.
Feb 24, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)

The Bush administration’s main worry about German unification as the process accelerated in February 1990 was that the West Germans might make their own deal bilaterally with the Soviets (see Document 11) and might be willing to bargain away NATO membership. President Bush later commented that the purpose of the Camp David meeting with Kohl was to “keep Germany on the NATO reservation,” and that drove the agenda for this set of meetings. The German chancellor arrives at Camp David without Genscher because the latter does not entirely share the Bush-Kohl position on full German membership in NATO, and he recently angered both leaders by speaking publicly about the CSCE as the future European security mechanism.[12]

At the beginning of this conversation, Kohl expresses gratitude for Bush and Baker’s support during his discussions with Gorbachev in Moscow in early February, especially for Bush’s letter stating Washington’s strong commitment to German unification in NATO. Both leaders express the need for the closest cooperation between them in order to reach the desired outcome. Bush’s priority is to keep the U.S. presence, especially the nuclear umbrella, in Europe: “if U.S. nuclear forces are withdrawn from Germany, I don’t see how we can persuade any other ally on the continent to retain these weapons.” He refers sarcastically to criticisms coming from Capitol Hill: “We have weird thinking in our Congress today, ideas like this peace dividend. We can’t do that in these uncertain times.” Both leaders are concerned about the position Gorbachev might take and agree on the need to consult with him regularly. Kohl suggests that the Soviets need assistance and the final arrangement on Germany could be a “matter of cash.” Foreshadowing his reluctance to contribute financially, Bush replies, “you have deep pockets.” At one point in the conversation, Bush seems to view his Soviet counterpart not as a partner but as a defeated enemy. Referring to talk in some Soviet quarters against Germany staying in NATO, he says: “To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn’t. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat.”

Document 14
Memorandum of conversation between George Bush and Eduard Shevardnadze in Washington.
Apr 6, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)

Foreign Minister Shevardnadze delivers a letter to Bush from Gorbachev, in which the Soviet president reviews the main issues before the coming summit. Economic issues are at the top of the list for the Soviet Union, specifically Most Favored Nation status and a trade agreement with the United States. Shevardnadze expresses concern about the lack of progress on these issues and the U.S. efforts to prevent the EBRD from extending loans to the USSR. He stresses that they are not asking for help, “we are only looking to be treated as partners.” Addressing the tensions in Lithuania, Bush says that he does not want to create difficulties for Gorbachev on domestic issues, but notes that he must insist on the rights of Lithuanians because their incorporation within the USSR was never recognized by the United States. On arms control, both sides point to some backtracking by the other and express a desire to finalize the START Treaty quickly. Shevardnadze mentions the upcoming CSCE summit and the Soviet expectation that it will discuss the new European security structures. Bush does not contradict this but ties it to the issues of the U.S. presence in Europe and German unification in NATO. He declares that he wants to “contribute to stability and to the creation of a Europe whole and free, or as you call it, a common European home. A[n] idea that is very close to our own.” The Soviets—wrongly—interpret this as a declaration that the U.S. administration shares Gorbachev’s idea.

Document 15
Sir R. Braithwaite (Moscow). Telegraphic N. 667: “Secretary of State’s Meeting with President Gorbachev.”
Apr 11, 1990
Source
Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Documents on British Policy Overseas, edited by Patrick Salmon, Keith Hamilton, and Stephen Twigge, Oxford and New York, Routledge 2010), pp. 373-375

Ambassador Braithwaite’s telegram summarizes the meeting between Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Douglas Hurd and President Gorbachev, noting Gorbachev’s “expansive mood.” Gorbachev asks the secretary to pass his appreciation for Margaret Thatcher’s letter to him after her summit with Kohl, at which, according to Gorbachev, she followed the lines of policy Gorbachev and Thatcher discussed in their recent phone call, on the basis of which the Soviet leader concluded that “the British and Soviet positions were very close indeed.” Hurd cautions Gorbachev that their positions are not 100% in agreement, but that the British “recognized the importance of doing nothing to prejudice Soviet interests and dignity.” Gorbachev, as reflected in Braithwaite’s summary, speaks about the importance of building new security structures as a way of dealing with the issue of two Germanies: “If we are talking about a common dialogue about a new Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals, that was one way of dealing with the German issue.” That would require a transitional period to pick up the pace of the European process and “synchronise it with finding a solution to the problem of the two Germanies.” However, if the process was unilateral – only Germany in NATO and no regard for Soviet security interest – the Supreme Soviet would be very unlikely to approve such a solution and the Soviet Union would question the need to speed up the reduction of its conventional weapons in Europe. In his view, Germany’s joining NATO without progress on European security structures “could upset the balance of security, which would be unacceptable to the Soviet Union.”

Document 16
Valentin Falin Memorandum to Mikhail Gorbachev (Excerpts)
Apr 18, 1990
Source
Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006), pp. 398-408

This memorandum from the Central Committee’s most senior expert on Germany sounds like a wake-up call for Gorbachev. Falin puts it in blunt terms: while Soviet European policy has fallen into inactivity and even “depression” after the March 18 elections in East Germany, and Gorbachev himself has let Kohl speed up the process of unification, his compromises on Germany in NATO can only lead to the slipping away of his main goal for Europe – the common European home. “Summing up the past six months, one has to conclude that the ‘common European home,’ which used to be a concrete task the countries of the continent were starting to implement, is now turning into a mirage.” While the West is sweet-talking Gorbachev into accepting German unification in NATO, Falin notes (correctly) that “the Western states are already violating the consensus principle by making preliminary agreements among themselves” regarding German unification and the future of Europe that do not include a “long phase of constructive development.” He notes the West’s “intensive cultivation of not only NATO but also our Warsaw Pact allies” with the goal to isolate the USSR in the Two-Plus-Four and CSCE framework.

He further comments that reasonable voices are no longer heard: “Genscher from time to time continues to discuss accelerating the movement toward European collective security with the ‘dissolving of NATO and WTO into it.’ … But very few people … hear Genscher.” Falin proposes using the Soviet Four-power rights to achieve a formal legally binding settlement equal to a peace treaty that would guarantee Soviet security interests as “our only chance to dock German unification with the pan-European process.” He also suggests using arms control negotiations in Vienna and Geneva as leverage if the West keeps taking advantage of Soviet flexibility. The memo suggests specific provisions for the final settlement with Germany, the negotiation of which would take a long time and provide a window for building European structures. But the main idea of the memo is to warn Gorbachev not to be naive about the intentions of his American partners: “The West is outplaying us, promising to respect the interests of the USSR, but in practice, step by step, separating us from ‘traditional Europe.’”

Document 17
James A. Baker III, Memorandum for the President, “My meeting with Shevardnadze.”
May 4, 1990
Source

George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91126, Folder “Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive 1989 – June 1990 [3]”

The secretary of state had just spent nearly four hours meeting with the Soviet foreign minister in Bonn on May 4, 1990, covering a range of issues but centering on the crisis in Lithuania and the negotiations over German unification. As in the February talks and throughout the year, Baker took pains to provide assurances to the Soviets about including them in the future of Europe. Baker reports, “I also used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.” Shevardnadze’s response indicates that “our discussion of the new European architecture was compatible with much of their thinking, though their thinking was still being developed.” Baker relates that Shevardnadze “emphasized again the psychological difficulty they have – especially the Soviet public has – of accepting a unified Germany in NATO.” Astutely, Baker predicts that Gorbachev will not “take on this kind of an emotionally charged political issue now” and likely not until after the Party Congress in July.

Document 18
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow.
May 18, 1990
Source

Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Fond 1, Opis 1.

This fascinating conversation covers a range of arms control issues in preparation for the Washington summit and includes extensive though inconclusive discussions of German unification and the tensions in the Baltics, particularly the standoff between Moscow and secessionist Lithuania. Gorbachev makes an impassioned attempt to persuade Baker that Germany should reunify outside of the main military blocs, in the context of the all-European process. Baker provides Gorbachev with nine points of assurance to prove that his position is being taken into account. Point eight is the most important for Gorbachev—that the United States is “making an effort in various forums to ultimately transform the CSCE into a permanent institution that would become an important cornerstone of a new Europe.”

This assurance notwithstanding, when Gorbachev mentions the need to build new security structures to replace the blocs, Baker lets slip a personal reaction that reveals much about the real U.S. position on the subject: “It’s nice to talk about pan-European security structures, the role of the CSCE. It is a wonderful dream, but just a dream. In the meantime, NATO exists. …” Gorbachev suggests that if the U.S. side insists on Germany in NATO, then he would “announce publicly that we want to join NATO too.” Shevardnadze goes further, offering a prophetic observation: “if united Germany becomes a member of NATO, it will blow up perestroika. Our people will not forgive us. People will say that we ended up the losers, not the winners.”

Document 19
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Francois Mitterrand (excerpts).
May 25, 1990
Source
Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006), pp. 454-466

Gorbachev felt that of all the Europeans, the French president was his closest ally in the construction of a post-Cold War Europe, because the Soviet leader believed Mitterrand shared his concept of the common European home and the idea of dissolving both military blocs in favor of new European security structures. And Mitterrand did share that view, to an extent. In this conversation, Gorbachev is still hoping to persuade his counterpart to join him in opposing German unification in NATO. Mitterrand is quite direct, telling Gorbachev that it is too late to fight this issue and that he would not give his support, because “if I say ‘no’ to Germany’s membership in NATO, I will become isolated from my Western partners.” However, Mitterrand suggests that Gorbachev demand “appropriate guarantees” from NATO. He speaks about the danger of isolating the Soviet Union in the new Europe and the need to “create security conditions for you, as well as European security as a whole. This was one of my guiding goals, particularly when I proposed my idea of creating a European confederation. It is similar to your concept of a common European home.”

In his recommendations to Gorbachev, Mitterrand is basically repeating the lines of the Falin memo (see Document 16). He says Gorbachev should strive for a formal settlement with Germany using his Four-power rights and use the leverage of conventions arms control negotiations: “You will not abandon such a trump card as disarmament negotiations.” He implies that NATO is not the key issue now and could be drowned out in further negotiations; rather, the important thing is to ensure Soviet participation in new European security system. He repeats that he is “personally in favor of gradually dismantling the military blocs.”

Gorbachev expresses his wariness and suspicion about U.S. effort to “perpetuate NATO,” to “use NATO to create some sort of mechanism, an institution, a kind of directory for managing world affairs.” He tells Mitterrand about his concern that the U.S. is trying to attract East Europeans to NATO: “I told Baker: we are aware of your favorable attitude towards the intention expressed by a number of representatives of Eastern European countries to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact and subsequently join NATO.” What about the USSR joining?

Mitterrand agrees to support Gorbachev in his efforts to encourage pan-European processes and ensure that Soviet security interests are taken into account as long as he does not have to say “no” to the Germans. He says “I always told my NATO partners: make a commitment not to move NATO’s military formations from their current territory in the FRG to East Germany.”

Document 20
Letter from Francois Mitterrand to George Bush
May 25, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, FOIA 2009-0275-S

True to his word, Mitterrand writes a letter to George Bush describing Gorbachev’s predicament on the issue of German unification in NATO, calling it genuine, not “fake or tactical.” He warns the American president against doing it as a fait accompli without Gorbachev’s consent implying that Gorbachev might retaliate on arms control (exactly what Mitterrand himself – and Falin earlier – suggested in his conversation). Mitterrand argues in favor of a formal “peace settlement in International law,” and informs Bush that in his conversation with Gorbachev he “indicated that, on the Western side, we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country’s security.” Mitterrand thinks that “we must try to dispel Mr. Gorbatchev’s worries,” and offers to present “ a number of proposals” about such guarantees when he and Bush meet in person.

Document 21
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush. White House, Washington D.C.
May 31, 1990
Source

Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Moscow, Fond 1, opis 1.[13]

In this famous “two anchor” discussion, the U.S. and Soviet delegations deliberate over the process of German unification and especially the issue of a united Germany joining NATO. Bush tries to persuade his counterpart to reconsider his fears of Germany based on the past, and to encourage him to trust the new democratic Germany. The U.S. president says, “Believe me, we are not pushing Germany towards unification, and it is not us who determines the pace of this process. And of course, we have no intention, even in our thoughts, to harm the Soviet Union in any fashion. That is why we are speaking in favor of German unification in NATO without ignoring the wider context of the CSCE, taking the traditional economic ties between the two German states into consideration. Such a model, in our view, corresponds to the Soviet interests as well.” Baker repeats the nine assurances made previously by the administration, including that the United States now agrees to support the pan-European process and transformation of NATO in order to remove the Soviet perception of threat. Gorbachev’s preferred position is Germany with one foot in both NATO and the Warsaw Pact—the “two anchors”—creating a kind of associated membership. Baker intervenes, saying that “the simultaneous obligations of one and the same country toward the WTO and NATO smack of schizophrenia.” After the U.S. president frames the issue in the context of the Helsinki agreement, Gorbachev proposes that the German people have the right to choose their alliance—which he in essence already affirmed to Kohl during their meeting in February 1990. Here, Gorbachev significantly exceeds his brief, and incurs the ire of other members of his delegation, especially the official with the German portfolio, Valentin Falin, and Marshal Sergey Akhromeyev. Gorbachev issues a key warning about the future: “if the Soviet people get an impression that we are disregarded in the German question, then all the positive processes in Europe, including the negotiations in Vienna [over conventional forces], would be in serious danger. This is not just bluffing. It is simply that the people will force us to stop and to look around.” It is a remarkable admission about domestic political pressures from the last Soviet leader.

Document 22
Letter from Mr. Powell (N. 10) to Mr. Wall: Thatcher-Gorbachev memorandum of conversation.
Jun 8, 1990
Source
Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Documents on British Policy Overseas, edited by Patrick Salmon, Keith Hamilton, and Stephen Twigge, Oxford and New York, Routledge 2010), pp 411-417

Margaret Thatcher visits Gorbachev right after he returns home from his summit with George Bush. Among many issues in the conversation, the center of gravity is on German unification and NATO, on which, Powell notes, Gorbachev’s “views were still evolving.” Rather than agreeing on German unification in NATO, Gorbachev talks about the need for NATO and the Warsaw pact to move closer together, from confrontation to cooperation to build a new Europe: “We must mould European structures so that they helped us find the common European home. Neither side must be afraid of unorthodox solutions.”

While Thatcher speaks against Gorbachev’s ideas short of full NATO membership for Germany and emphasizes the importance of a U.S. military presence in Europe, she also sees that “CSCE could provide the umbrella for all this, as well as being the forum which brought the Soviet Union fully into discussion about the future of Europe.” Gorbachev says he wants to “be completely frank with the Prime Minister” that if the processes were to become one-sided, “there could be a very difficult situation [and the] Soviet Union would feel its security in jeopardy.” Thatcher responds firmly that it was in nobody’s interest to put Soviet security in jeopardy: “we must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its security would be assured.”

Document 23
Record of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl, Moscow (Excerpts).
Jul 15, 1990
Source
Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006), pp. 495-504

This key conversation between Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev sets the final parameters for German unification. Kohl talks repeatedly about the new era of relations between a united Germany and the Soviet Union, and how this relationship would contribute to European stability and security. Gorbachev demands assurances on non-expansion of NATO: “we must talk about the nonproliferation of NATO military structures to the territory of the GDR, and maintaining Soviet troops there for a certain transition period.” The Soviet leader notes earlier in the conversation that NATO has already began transforming itself. For him, the pledge of NATO non-expansion to the territory of the GDR in spirit means that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet willingness to compromise on Germany. He also demands that the status of Soviet troops in the GDR for the transition period be “regulated. It should not hang in the air, it needs a legal basis.” He hands Kohl Soviet considerations for a full-fledged Soviet-German treaty that would include such guarantees. He also wants assistance with relocating the troops and building housing for them. Kohl promises to do so as long as this assistance is not construed as “a program of German assistance to the Soviet Army.”

Talking about the future of Europe, Kohl alludes to NATO transformation: “We know what awaits NATO in the future, and I think you are now in the know as well.” Kohl also emphasizes that President Bush is aware and supportive of Soviet-German agreements and will play a key role in the building of the new Europe. Chernyaev sums up this meeting in his diary for July 15, 1990: “Today – Kohl. They are meeting at the Schechtel mansion on Alexei Tolstoy Street. Gorbachev confirms his agreement to unified Germany’s entry into NATO. Kohl is decisive and assertive. He leads a clean but tough game. And it is not the bait (loans) but the fact that it is pointless to resist here, it would go against the current of events, it would be contrary to the very realities that M.S. likes to refer to so much.”[14]

Document 24
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush
Jul 17, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons ((https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)

President Bush reaches out to Gorbachev immediately after the Kohl-Gorbachev meetings in Moscow and the Caucasus retreat of Arkhyz, which settled German unification, leaving only the financial arrangements for resolution in September. Gorbachev had not only made the deal with Kohl, but he had also survived and triumphed at the 28th Congress of the CPSU in early July, the last in the history of the Soviet Party. Gorbachev describes this time as “perhaps the most difficult and important period in my political life.” The Congress subjected the party leader to scathing criticism from both conservative Communists and the democratic opposition. He managed to defend his program and win reelection as general secretary, but he had very little to show from his engagement with the West, especially after ceding so much ground on German unification.

While Gorbachev fought for his political life as Soviet leader, the Houston summit of the G-7 had debated ways to help perestroika, but because of U.S. opposition to credits or direct economic aid prior to the enactment of serious free-market reforms, no concrete assistance package was approved; the group went no further than to authorize “studies” by the IMF and World Bank. Gorbachev counters that given enough resources the USSR “could move to a market economy,” otherwise, the country “will have to rely more on state-regulated measures.” In this phone call, Bush expands on Kohl’s security assurances and reinforces the message from the London Declaration: “So what we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others, and we did it in the following ways: by our joint declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO; in our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and our offer on assurances on the future size of the armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded, stronger CSCE with new institutions in which the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe.”

Document 25
September 12 Two-Plus-Four Ministerial in Moscow: Detailed account [includes text of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany and Agreed Minute to the Treaty on the special military status of the GDR after unification]
Nov 2, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Condoleezza Rice Files, 1989-1990 Subject Files, Folder “Memcons and Telcons – USSR [1]”

Staffers in the European Bureau of the State Department wrote this document, practically a memcon, and addressed it to senior officials such as Robert Zoellick and Condoleezza Rice, based on notes taken by U.S. participants at the final ministerial session on German unification on September 12, 1990. The document features statements by all six ministers in the Two-Plus-Four process – Shevardnadze (the host), Baker, Hurd, Dumas, Genscher, and De Maiziere of the GDR – (much of which would be repeated in their press conferences after the event), along with the agreed text of the final treaty on German unification. The treaty codified what Bush had earlier offered to Gorbachev – “special military status” for the former GDR territory. At the last minute, British and American concerns that the language would restrict emergency NATO troop movements there forced the inclusion of a “minute” that left it up to the newly unified and sovereign Germany what the meaning of the word “deployed” should be. Kohl had committed to Gorbachev that only German NATO troops would be allowed on that territory after the Soviets left, and Germany stuck to that commitment, even though the “minute” was meant to allow other NATO troops to traverse or exercise there at least temporarily. Subsequently, Gorbachev aides such as Pavel Palazhshenko would point to the treaty language to argue that NATO expansion violated the “spirit” of this Final Settlement treaty.

Document 26
U.S. Department of State, European Bureau: Revised NATO Strategy Paper for Discussion at Sub-Ungroup Meeting
Oct 22, 1990
Source

George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Heather Wilson Files, Box CF00293, Folder “NATO – Strategy (5)”

The Bush administration had created the “Ungroup” in 1989 to work around a series of personality conflicts at the assistant secretary level that had stalled the usual interagency process of policy development on arms control and strategic weapons. Members of the Ungroup, chaired by Arnold Kanter of the NSC, had the confidence of their bosses but not necessarily the concomitant formal title or official rank.[15] The Ungroup overlapped with a similarly ad hoc European Security Strategy Group, and this became the venue, soon after German unification was completed, for the discussion inside the Bush administration about the new NATO role in Europe and especially on NATO relations with countries of Eastern Europe. East European countries, still formally in the Warsaw Pact, but led by non-Communist governments, were interested in becoming full members of international community, looking to join the future European Union and potentially NATO.

This document, prepared for a discussion of NATO’s future by a Sub-Ungroup consisting of representatives of the NSC, State Department, Joint Chiefs and other agencies, posits that “[a] potential Soviet threat remains and constitutes one basic justification for the continuance of NATO.” At the same time, in the discussion of potential East European membership in NATO, the review suggests that “In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or of the U.S. that these states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees.” The United States does not “wish to organize an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is the Soviet border” – not least because of the negative impact this might have on reforms in the USSR. NATO liaison offices would do for the present time, the group concluded, but the relationship will develop in the future. In the absence of the Cold War confrontation, NATO “out of area” functions will have to be redefined.

Document 27
James F. Dobbins, State Department European Bureau, Memorandum to National Security Council: NATO Strategy Review Paper for October 29 Discussion.
Oct 25, 1990
Source

George H. W. Bush Presidential Library: NSC Philip Zelikow Files, Box CF01468, Folder “File 148 NATO Strategy Review No. 1 [3]”[16]

This concise memorandum comes from the State Department’s European Bureau as a cover note for briefing papers for a scheduled October 29, 1990 meeting on the issues of NATO expansion and European defense cooperation with NATO. Most important is the document’s summary of the internal debate within the Bush administration, primarily between the Defense Department (specifically the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney) and the State Department. On the issue of NATO expansion, OSD “wishes to leave the door ajar” while State “prefers simply to note that discussion of expanding membership is not on the agenda….” The Bush administration effectively adopts State’s view in its public statements, yet the Defense view would prevail in the next administration.

Document 28
Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite diary, 05 March 1991
Mar 5, 1991
Source

Rodric Braithwaite personal diary (used by permission from the author)

British Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite was present for a number of the assurances given to Soviet leaders in 1990 and 1991 about NATO expansion. Here, Braithwaite in his diary describes a meeting between British Prime Minister John Major and Soviet military officials, led by Minister of Defense Marshal Dmitry Yazov. The meeting took place during Major’s visit to Moscow and right after his one-on-one with President Gorbachev. During the meeting with Major, Gorbachev had raised his concerns about the new NATO dynamics: “Against the background of favorable processes in Europe, I suddenly start receiving information that certain circles intend to go on further strengthening NATO as the main security instrument in Europe. Previously they talked about changing the nature of NATO, about transformation of the existing military-political blocs into pan-European structures and security mechanisms. And now suddenly again [they are talking about] a special peace-keeping role of NATO. They are talking again about NATO as the cornerstone. This does not sound complementary to the common European home that we have started to build.” Major responded: “I believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current situation are the result of misunderstanding. We are not talking about strengthening of NATO. We are talking about the coordination of efforts that is already happening in Europe between NATO and the West European Union, which, as it is envisioned, would allow all members of the European Community to contribute to enhance [our] security.”[17] In the meeting with the military officials that followed, Marshal Yazov expressed his concerns about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership. In the diary, Braithwaite writes: “Major assures him that nothing of the sort will happen.” Years later, quoting from the record of conversation in the British archives, Braithwaite recounts that Major replied to Yazov that he “did not himself foresee circumstances now or in the future where East European countries would become members of NATO.” Ambassador Braithwaite also quotes Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd as telling Soviet Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh on March 26, 1991, “there are no plans in NATO to include the countries of Eastern and Central Europe in NATO in one form or another.”[18]

Document 29
Paul Wolfowitz Memoranda of Conversation with Vaclav Havel and Lubos Dobrovsky in Prague.
Apr 27, 1991
Source

U.S. Department of Defense, FOIA release 2016, National Security Archive FOIA 20120941DOD109

These memcons from April 1991 provide the bookends for the “education of Vaclav Havel” on NATO (see Documents 12-1 and 12-2 above). U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz included these memcons in his report to the NSC and the State Department about his attendance at a conference in Prague on “The Future of European Security,” on April 24-27, 1991. During the conference Wolfowitz had separate meetings with Havel and Minister of Defense Dobrovsky. In the conversation with Havel, Wolfowitz thanks him for his statements about the importance of NATO and US troops in Europe. Havel informs him that Soviet Ambassador Kvitsinsky was in Prague negotiating a bilateral agreement, and the Soviets wanted the agreement to include a provision that Czechoslovakia would not join alliances hostile to the USSR. Wolfowitz advises both Havel and Dobrovsky not to enter into such agreements and to remind the Soviets about the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act that postulate freedom to join alliances of their choice. Havel states that for Czechoslovakia in the next 10 years that means NATO and the European Union.

In conversation with Dobrovsky, Wolfowitz remarks that “the very existence of NATO was in doubt a year ago,” but with U.S. leadership, and NATO allied (as well as united German) support, its importance for Europe is now understood, and the statements of East European leaders were important in this respect. Dobrovsky candidly describes the change in the Czechoslovak leadership’s position, “which had revised its views radically. At the beginning, President Havel had urged the dissolution of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO,” but then concluded that NATO should be maintained. “Off the record,” says Dobrovsky, “the CSFR was attracted to NATO because it ensured the U.S. presence in Europe.”

Document 30
Memorandum to Boris Yeltsin from Russian Supreme Soviet delegation to NATO HQs
Jul 1, 1991
Source

State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), Fond 10026, Opis 1

This document is important for describing the clear message in 1991 from the highest levels of NATO – Secretary General Manfred Woerner – that NATO expansion was not happening. The audience was a Russian Supreme Soviet delegation, which in this memo was reporting back to Boris Yeltsin (who in June had been elected president of the Russian republic, largest in the Soviet Union), but no doubt Gorbachev and his aides were hearing the same assurance at that time. The emerging Russian security establishment was already worried about the possibility of NATO expansion, so in June 1991 this delegation visited Brussels to meet NATO’s leadership, hear their views about the future of NATO, and share Russian concerns. Woerner had given a well-regarded speech in Brussels in May 1990 in which he argued: “The principal task of the next decade will be to build a new European security structure, to include the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. The Soviet Union will have an important role to play in the construction of such a system. If you consider the current predicament of the Soviet Union, which has practically no allies left, then you can understand its justified wish not to be forced out of Europe.”

Now in mid-1991, Woerner responds to the Russians by stating that he personally and the NATO Council are both against expansion—“13 out of 16 NATO members share this point of view”—and that he will speak against Poland’s and Romania’s membership in NATO to those countries’ leaders as he has already done with leaders of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Woerner emphasizes that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.” The Russian delegation warned that any strengthening or expanding of NATO could “seriously slow down democratic transformations” in Russia, and called on their NATO interlocutors to gradually decrease the military functions of the alliance. This memo on the Woerner conversation was written by three prominent reformers and close allies of Yeltsin—Sergey Stepashin (chairman of the Duma’s Security Committee and future deputy minister of Security and prime minister), Gen. Konstantin Kobets (future chief military inspector of Russia after he was the highest-ranking Soviet military officer to support Yeltsin during the August 1991 coup) and Gen. Dmitry Volkogonov (Yeltsin’s adviser on defense and security issues, future head of the U.S.-Russian Joint Commission on POW-MIA and prominent military historian).

Photo: Michail Gorbachev discussing German unification with Hans-Dietrich Genscher and Helmut Kohl in Russia, July 15, 1990. Photo: Bundesbildstelle / Presseund Informationsamt der Bundesregierung.

Notes

[1] See Robert Gates, University of Virginia, Miller Center Oral History, George H.W. Bush Presidency, July 24, 2000, p. 101)

[2] See Chapter 6, “The Malta Summit 1989,” in Svetlana Savranskaya and Thomas Blanton, The Last Superpower Summits (CEU Press, 2016), pp. 481-569. The comment about the Wall is on p. 538.

[3] For background, context, and consequences of the Tutzing speech, see Frank Elbe, “The Diplomatic Path to Germany Unity,” Bulletin of the German Historical Institute 46 (Spring 2010), pp. 33-46. Elbe was Genscher’s chief of staff at the time.

[4] See Mark Kramer, “The Myth of a No-NATO-Enlargement Pledge to Russia,” The Washington Quarterly, April 2009, pp. 39-61.

[5] See Joshua R. Itkowitz Shifrinson, “Deal or No Deal? The End of the Cold War and the U.S. Offer to Limit NATO Expansion,” International Security, Spring 2016, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 7-44.

[6] See James Goldgeier, Not Whether But When: The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO (Brookings Institution Press, 1999); and James Goldgeier, “Promises Made, Promises Broken? What Yeltsin was told about NATO in 1993 and why it matters,” War On The Rocks, July 12, 2016.

[7] See also Svetlana Savranskaya, Thomas Blanton, and Vladislav Zubok, “Masterpieces of History”: The Peaceful End of the Cold War in Europe, 1989 (CEU Press, 2010), for extended discussion and documents on the early 1990 German unification negotiations.

[8] Genscher told Baker on February 2, 1990, that under his plan, “NATO would not extend its territorial coverage to the area of the GDR nor anywhere else in Eastern Europe.” Secretary of State to US Embassy Bonn, “Baker-Genscher Meeting February 2,” George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Kanter Files, Box CF00775, Folder “Germany-March 1990.” Cited by Joshua R. Itkowitz Shifrinson, “Deal or No Deal? The End of the Cold War and the U.S. Offer to Limit NATO Expansion,” International Security, Spring 2016, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 7-44.

[9] The previous version of this text said that Kohl was “caught up in a campaign finance corruption scandal that would end his political career”; however, that scandal did not erupt until 1999, after the September 1998 elections swept Kohl out of office. The authors are grateful to Prof. Dr. H.H. Jansen for the correction and his careful reading of the posting.

[10] See Andrei Grachev, Gorbachev’s Gamble (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2008), pp. 157-158.

[11] For an insightful account of Bush’s highly effective educational efforts with East European leaders including Havel – as well as allies – see Jeffrey A. Engel, When the World Seemed New: George H.W. Bush and the End of the Cold War (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017), pp. 353-359.

[12] See George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed (New York: Knopf, 1998), pp. 236, 243, 250.

[13] Published in English for the first time in Savranskaya and Blanton, The Last Superpower Summits (2016), pp. 664-676.

[14] Anatoly Chernyaev Diary, 1990, translated by Anna Melyakova and edited by Svetlana Savranskaya, pp. 41-42.

[15] See Michael Nelson and Barbara A. Perry, 41: Inside the Presidency of George H.W. Bush (Cornell University Press, 2014), pp. 94-95.

[16] The authors thank Josh Shifrinson for providing his copy of this document.

[17] See Memorandum of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and John Major published in Mikhail Gorbachev, Sobranie Sochinenii, v. 24 (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2014), p. 346

[18] See Rodric Braithwaite, “NATO enlargement: Assurances and misunderstandings,” European Council on Foreign Relations, Commentary, 7 July 2016.

Published at nsarchive.gwu.edu
Source: http://www.defenddemocracy.press/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard/

In keeping with the tradition maintained over all previous years, the Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals is marking March 24, remembering this day back in 1999 when the NATO Alliance’s illegal and criminal aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the FRY) began, thus paying tribute to the fallen defenders of the motherland and the killed civilians.

This aggression was the first war on European soil waged since the end of World War II. As the bombs and cruise missiles thrown by the most powerful military machinery in the history of civilization were busy destroying a small European country, they also destroyed the European and global security system based on the UN Charter, the OSCE Final Act and the Paris Charter. To this day, Europe and the world still suffer the severe consequences of that destruction. In the process, NATO allied with the so-called KLA, a separatist-terrorist formation, as its infantry wing, thus boosting separatism and terrorism.

On March 23, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., representatives of the Belgrade Forum, together with its partner Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia and other patriotic-oriented organisations, will lay a wreath at the Monument to Serbian children killed during the aggression in the Tašmajdan Park. During the ceremony, Dragutin Brčin, Director of the Belgrade Forum, will address the audience on behalf of the Forum. Next, around the noon, representatives of the Belgrade Forum and the Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia, together with other patriotic organizations, will pay tribute to all victims of NATO aggression at the monument “Eternal Fire”, in Novi Beograd. On the occasion, General Luka Kastratović, ret., President of the Executive Board of the Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia, will address the audience.

The Belgrade Forum invites all patriotic organisations and individuals that cherish the memory of the fallen members of the Serbian military and security forces and all those killed in the aggression, to join these events and thus pay their respect for the fallen defenders and civilians. At present, we are witnessing calls for observance of international law and blaming other countries for violating it, cynically made by the USA, the UK, Germany and NATO as a whole, that is, the exactly same countries and bodies that had themselves illegally attacked the FRY without a UN Security Council decision, the same ones who intentionally used missiles filled with depleted uranium and other banned weapons to deliberately and indiscriminately bomb our country’s infrastructure and the civilian targets, killed children, women, hospital patients and civilians, and who openly conducted smear campaigns against the Serbian people in global media.

The marking of the beginning of the 1999 NATO aggression against our country is another opportunity to recall all their crimes and atrocities and to remind our public, especially the youth, of the horrors and damage the aggression caused, as well as of the consequences of which many are yet to be remedied. The precedent of aggression executed without the UN Security Council approval was reused in the subsequent aggressions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. NATO’s aggression against the FRY in 1999 was a stepping stone in bringing to life the strategy of military expansion to the East, closer to the Russian borders, which is the root cause of the Ukrainian crisis.

During 79 days of unrelenting attacks on the FRY, from March 24 to June 10, 1999, the mass- scale assaults of NATO aviation sending missile systems and other weapons from air, waterways and land, with collaboration comprising the terrorists Albanian KLA, the regular army of the Republic of Albania, the mercenaries recruited and financed by Western states, and the instructors and special operation units of the leading Western states, has indiscriminately killed members of the Yugoslav Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies of the Republic of Serbia, as well as civilians including children, and destroyed cultural monuments, churches and monasteries, devastated military, economic, strategic and traffic infrastructure, business facilities, civilian facilities and institutions, schools, kindergartens, hospitals, and even the public broadcaster – the Radio Television of Serbia, killing 16 of the RTS employees. Over the course of this aggression, NATO carried out 2,300 airstrikes on 995 facilities throughout the coutnry, and its 1,150 fighter planes launched some 420,000 projectiles with the total mass of 22,000 tons, including depleted uranium weapons.

About 4,000 casualties were estimated, of whom some 3,000 civilians and 1,031 members of the army and the police. 89 children were killed. In total, more than 12,000 people were wounded, of whom about 6,000 civilians including 2,700 children, and 5,173 soldiers and police officers. 25 persons are still listed as missing.

Since the precise list of civilian casualties has not been established yet, the Belgrade Forum reiterates its appeal to the state authorities to finally see to this sad task being completed. In their attacks on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, NATO forces employed approximately a thousand aircrafts (fighters, fighter-bombers, bombers, spy planes, etc.); the largest share in the air attacks had the forces of the USA, UK and Germany, albeit with significant roles in the aggression also played by other members.

The air assaults destroyed and damaged 25,000 residential buildings, disabled 470 km of roads and 595 km of railways. They also inflicted damage to 14 airports, 19 hospitals, 20 health centers, 18 kindergartens, 69 schools, 176 cultural monuments, and 44 bridges, while leaving additional 38 totally destroyed. Among the latter, of special significance are the destruction of two oil refineries (in Pančevo and Novi Sad), the demolition of the Avala Broadcasting Tower, the building of the Serbian Radio and Television, the Petrochemistry Complex in Pančevo, the bombing of bridges in Novi Sad, the Zastava automobile factory in Kragujevac, the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, and many other civilian targets. Estimates are that some 38% of targeted facilities were of a civilian purpose.. The war damage was estimated to about USD 100 billion.

During the bombing of the territory of the Republic of Serbia, ammunition banned under the Geneva Convention was routinely used, with in total 15 tons of uranium dumped on Serbia. As a direct consequence of missiles filled with depleted uranium, in 2015 Serbia was announced to be the top-ranking country in Europe in terms of mortality from malignant tumors. In addition, about 1,000 cluster bombs were dropped on 219 locations on an area of 23,000 km2, killing a large number of civilians. As a result of that, from the end of the aggression until 2006, 6 people perished from detonated cluster bombs throughout the territory of Serbia and Montenegro, while additional 12 were wounded.

In all likelihood, all those who fell victims to the delayed effects of missiles with depleted uranium, unexploded cluster bombs and other lethal means, will hardly ever be exactly accounted for. The Belgrade Forum invites the competent state authorities to ensure the continuation of the work of special bodies tasked with determining the consequences of the use of depleted uranium weapons and other means and methods employed during the NATO aggression.

The aggression ended on June 10, 1999, upon the signing of the Military-Technical Agreement in Kumanovo and the subsequent adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which established the truce and temporarily transferred the administering of Kosovo and Metohija to the United Nations. Pursuant to this Agreement, the FRY Army, the Police and the administration of the FRY and the Republic of Serbia, withdrew on an interim basis to the territory of Central Serbia. Along the withdrawal of the army and police, about 250,000 Serbs and other non-Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija fled to central parts of Serbia. This made Serbia the country hosting the largest number of refugees and internally displaced persons in Europe, after this and other wars that marked the violent and forcible breakup of Yugoslavia.

It is cynical to the extreme to take to accusing other countries of crimes that the leading NATO states have continuously committed themselves. It would serve them well if, at least as late as today, as they stand accusing others, they halt for a moment and remember their own misdeeds, repent and remedy all the injustices they have done to our country as well as to others, most notably, to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and others. . Never forget. See you on March 24, 2022

NATO expansion, the Ukrainian crisis and sanctions against Russia will most likely accelerate the strategic connection between Russia and China, and also accelerate the placement of China to the first place in the world economy. Sanctions are a particularly severe blow to export-oriented economies (EU, Germany, Japan, South Korea).

The strengthening of the synergy of the New Silk Road and The Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) and the accelerated reduction of the West's participation in world trade and GDP are to be expected.

The Bretton Woods system will face new systemic challenges as the strengthening and creation of new international institutions accelerates. A further reduction of the global role of the dollar is almost certain. This will, among other things, significantly limit the spillover of Western inflation, enormous arms costs and productivity decline to the East and developing countries. The loss of privileges of the former economic and financial system, the deficit of energy and strategic minerals will most likely further encourage egoism within Western integrations and thus their dispersal (EU).

All in all, the constitution of a new multipolar world order has gained momentum.

Zivadin Jovanovic

Many governments and media figures are rightly condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine as an act of aggression and a violation of international law. But in his first speech about the invasion, on February 24, US President Joe Biden also called the invasion “unprovoked.”

It’s a word that has been echoed repeatedly across the media ecosystem. “Putin’s forces entered Ukraine’s second-largest city on the fourth day of the unprovoked invasion,” Axios (2/27/22) reported; “Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine entered its second week Friday,” said CNBC (3/4/22). Vox (3/1/22) wrote of “Putin’s decision to launch an unprovoked and unnecessary war with the second-largest country in Europe.”

The “unprovoked” descriptor obscures a long history of provocative behavior from the United States in regards to Ukraine. This history is important to understanding how we got here, and what degree of responsibility the US bears for the current attack on Ukraine.
Ignoring expert advice

The story starts at the end of the Cold War, when the US was the only global hegemon. As part of the deal that finalized the reunification of Germany, the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”  Despite this, it wasn’t long before talk of expansion began to circulate among policy makers.

In 1997, dozens of foreign policy veterans (including former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and former CIA Director Stansfield Turner) sent a joint letter to then-President Bill Clinton calling “the current US-led effort to expand NATO…a policy error of historic proportions.” They predicted:

In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West [and] bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (5/2/98) in 1998 asked famed diplomat George Kennan—architect of the US Cold War strategy of containment—about NATO expansion. Kennan’s response:

I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.

Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are—but this is just wrong.

Despite these warnings, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were added to NATO in 1999, with Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia following in 2004.

US planners were warned again in 2008 by US Ambassador to Moscow William Burns (now director of the CIA under Joe Biden). WikiLeaks leaked a cable from Burns titled “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines” that included another prophetic warning worth quoting in full (emphasis added):

Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region.  Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests.

Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war.  In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.

A de facto NATO ally

But the US has pushed Russia to make such a decision. Though European countries are divided about whether or not Ukraine should join, many in the NATO camp have been adamant about maintaining the alliance’s “open door policy.” Even as US planners were warning of a Russian invasion, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reiterated NATO’s 2008 plans to integrate Ukraine into the alliance (New York Times, 12/16/21). The Biden administration has taken a more roundabout approach, supporting in the abstract “Kyiv’s right to choose its own security arrangements and alliances.” But the implication is obvious.

Even without officially being in NATO, Ukraine has become a de facto NATO ally—and Russia has paid close attention to these developments. In a December 2021 speech to his top military officials, Putin expressed his concerns:

Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises. The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads….

Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course on joining NATO. Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one’s own security at the expense of the security of other states….

In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia’s security.

In an explainer piece, the New York Times (2/24/22) centered NATO expansion as a root cause of the war. Unfortunately, the Times omitted the critical context of NATO’s pledge not to expand, and the subsequent abandonment of that promise. This is an important context to understand the Russian view of US policies, especially so given the ample warnings from US diplomats and foreign policy experts.

The Maidan Coup of 2014

A major turning point in the US/Ukraine/Russia relationship was the 2014 violent and unconstitutional ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych, elected in 2010 in a vote heavily split between eastern and western Ukraine. His ouster came after months of protests led in part by far-right extremists (FAIR.org, 3/7/14). Weeks before his ouster, an unknown party leaked a phone call between US officials discussing who should and shouldn’t be part of the new government, and finding ways to “seal the deal.” After the ouster, a politician the officials designated as “the guy” even became prime minister.

The US involvement was part of a campaign aimed at exploiting the divisions in Ukrainian society to push the country into the US sphere of influence, pulling it out of the Russian sphere (FAIR.org, 1/28/22). In the aftermath of the overthrow, Russia illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine, in part to secure a major naval base from the new Ukrainian government.

The New York Times (2/24/22) and Washington Post (2/28/22) both omitted the role the US played in these events. In US media, this critical moment in history is completely cleansed of US influence, erasing a critical step on the road to the current war.
Keeping civil war alive

In another response to the overthrow, an uprising in Ukraine’s Donbas region grew into a rebel movement that declared independence from Ukraine and announced the formation of their own republics. The resulting civil war claimed thousands of lives, but was largely paused  in 2015 with a ceasefire agreement known as the Minsk II accords.

The deal, agreed to by Ukraine, Russia and other European countries, was designed to grant some form of autonomy to the breakaway regions in exchange for reintegrating them into the Ukrainian state. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian government refused to implement the autonomy provision of the accords. Anatol Lieven, a researcher with the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in The Nation (11/15/21):

The main reason for this refusal, apart from a general commitment to retain centralized power in Kiev, has been the belief that permanent autonomy for the Donbas would prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and the European Union, as the region could use its constitutional position within Ukraine to block membership.

Ukraine opted instead to prolong the Donbas conflict, and there was never significant pressure from the West to alter course. Though there were brief reports of the accords’ revival as recently as late January, Ukrainian security chief Oleksiy Danilov warned the West not to pressure Ukraine to implement the peace deal. “The fulfillment of the Minsk agreement means the country’s destruction,” he said (AP, 1/31/22). Danilov claimed that even when the agreement was signed eight years ago,  “it was already clear for all rational people that it’s impossible to implement.”

Lieven notes that the depth of Russian commitment has yet to be fully tested, but Putin has supported the Minsk accords, refraining from officially recognizing the Donbas republics until last week.

The New York Times (2/8/22) explainer on the Minsk accords blamed their failure on a disagreement between Ukraine and Russia over their implementation. This is inadequate to explain the failure of the agreements, however, given that Russia cannot affect Ukrainian parliamentary procedure. The Times quietly acknowledged that the law meant to define special status in the Donbas had been “shelved” by the Ukranians,  indicating that the country had stopped trying to solve the issue in favor of a stalemate.

There was no mention of the comments from a top Ukrainian official openly denouncing the peace accords. Nor was it acknowledged that the US could have used its influence to push Ukraine to solve the issue, but refrained from doing so.

Ukrainian missile crisis

One under-discussed aspect of this crisis is the role of US missiles stationed in NATO countries. Many media outlets have claimed that Putin is Hitler-like (Washington Post, 2/24/22; Boston Globe, 2/24/22), hellbent on reconquering old Soviet states to “recreat[e] the Russian empire with himself as the Tsar,” as Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbot told Politico (2/25/22).

Pundits try to psychoanalyze Putin, asking “What is motivating him?” and answering by citing his televised speech on February 21 that recounted the history of Ukraine’s relationship with Russia.

This speech has been widely characterized as a call to reestablish the Soviet empire and a challenge to Ukraine’s right to exist as a sovereign nation. Corporate media ignore other public statements Putin has made in recent months. For example, at an expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry Board, Putin elaborated on what he considered to be the main military threat from US/NATO expansion to Ukraine:

It is extremely alarming that elements of the US global defense system are being deployed near Russia. The Mk 41 launchers, which are located in Romania and are to be deployed in Poland, are adapted for launching the Tomahawk strike missiles. If this infrastructure continues to move forward, and if US and NATO missile systems are deployed in Ukraine, their flight time to Moscow will be only 7–10 minutes, or even five minutes for hypersonic systems. This is a huge challenge for us, for our security.

The United States does not possess hypersonic weapons yet, but we know when they will have it…. They will supply hypersonic weapons to Ukraine and then use them as cover…to arm extremists from a neighbouring state and incite them against certain regions of the Russian Federation, such as Crimea, when they think circumstances are favorable.

Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge? This is the problem: We simply have no room to retreat.

Having these missiles so close to Russia—weapons that Russia (and China) see as part of a plan to give the United States the capacity to launch a nuclear first-strike without retaliation—seriously challenges the cold war deterrent of Mutually Assured Destruction, and more closely resembles a gun pointed at the Russian head for the remainder of the nuclear age. Would this be acceptable to any country?

Media refuse to present this crucial question to their audiences, instead couching Putin’s motives in purely aggressive terms.

Refusal to de-escalate

By December 2021, US intelligence agencies were sounding the alarm that Russia was amassing troops at the Ukrainian border and planning to attack. Yet Putin was very clear about a path to deescalation: He called on the West to halt NATO expansion, negotiate Ukrainian neutrality in the East/West rivalry, remove US nuclear weapons from non proliferating countries, and remove missiles, troops and bases near Russia. These are demands the US would surely have made were it in Russia’s position.

Unfortunately, the US refused to negotiate on Russia’s core concerns. The US offered some serious steps towards a larger arms control arrangement (Antiwar.com, 2/2/22)—something the Russians acknowledged and appreciated—but ignored issues of NATO’s military activity in Ukraine, and the deployment of nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe (Antiwar.com, 2/17/22).

On NATO expansion, the State Department continued to insist that they would not compromise NATO’s open door policy—in other words, it asserted the right to expand NATO and to ignore Russia’s red line.

While the US has signaled that it would approve of an informal agreement to keep Ukraine from joining the alliance for a period of time, this clearly was not going to be enough for Russia, which still remembers the last broken agreement.

Instead of addressing Russian concerns about Ukraine’s NATO relationship, the US instead chose to pour hundreds of millions of dollars of weapons into Ukraine, exacerbating Putin’s expressed concerns. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy didn’t help matters by suggesting that Ukraine might begin a nuclear weapons program at the height of the tensions.

After Putin announced his recognition of the breakaway republics, Secretary of State Antony Blinken canceled talks with Putin, and began the process of implementing sanctions on Russia—all before Russian soldiers had set foot into Ukraine.

Had the US been genuinely interested in avoiding war, it would have taken every opportunity to de-escalate the situation. Instead, it did the opposite nearly every step of the way.

In its explainer piece, the Washington Post (2/28/22) downplayed the significance of the US’s rejection of Russia’s core concerns, writing: “Russia has said that it wants guarantees Ukraine will be barred from joining NATO—a non-starter for the Western alliance, which maintains an open-door policy.” NATO’s open door policy is simply accepted as an immutable policy that Putin just needs to deal with. This very assumption, so key to the Ukraine crisis, goes unchallenged in the US media ecosystem.

‘The strategic case for risking war’

It’s impossible to say for sure why the Biden administration took an approach that increased the likelihood of war, but one Wall Street Journal piece from last month may offer some insight.

The Journal (12/22/21) published an op-ed from John Deni, a researcher at the Atlantic Council, a think tank funded by the US and allied governments that serves as NATO’s de facto brain trust. The piece was provocatively headlined “The Strategic Case for Risking War in Ukraine.” Deni’s argument was that the West should refuse to negotiate with Russia, because either potential outcome would be beneficial to US interests.

If Putin backed down without a deal, it would be a major embarrassment. He would lose face and stature, domestically and on the world stage.

But Putin going to war would also be good for the US, the Journal op-ed argued. Firstly,  it would give NATO more legitimacy by “forg[ing] an even stronger anti-Russian consensus across Europe.” Secondly, a major attack would trigger “another round of more debilitating economic sanctions,” weakening the Russian economy and its ability to compete with the US for global influence. Thirdly, an invasion is “likely to spawn a guerrilla war” that would “sap the strength and morale of Russia’s military while undercutting Mr. Putin’s domestic popularity and reducing Russia’s soft power globally.”

In short, we have part of the NATO brain trust advocating risking Ukrainian civilians as pawns in the US’s quest to strengthen its position around the world.

‘Something even worse than war’

A New York Times op-ed (2/3/22) by Ivan Krastev of Vienna’s Institute of Human Sciences likewise suggested that a Russian invasion of Ukraine wouldn’t be the worst outcome:

A Russian incursion into Ukraine could, in a perverse way, save the current European order. NATO would have no choice but to respond assertively, bringing in stiff sanctions and acting in decisive unity. By hardening the conflict, Mr. Putin could cohere his opponents.

The op-ed was headlined “Europe Thinks Putin Is Planning Something Even Worse Than War”—that something being “a new European security architecture that recognizes Russia’s sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space.”

It is impossible to know for sure whether the Biden administration shared this sense that there would be an upside to a Russian invasion, but the incentives are clear, and much of what these op-eds predicted is coming to pass.

None of this is to say that Putin’s invasion is justified—FAIR resolutely condemns the invasion as illegal and ruinous—but calling it “unprovoked” distracts attention from the US’s own contribution to this disastrous outcome. The US ignored warnings from both Russian and US officials that a major conflagration could erupt if the US continued its path, and it shouldn’t be surprising that one eventually did.

Now, as the world once again inches toward the brink of nuclear omnicide, it is more important than ever for Western audiences to understand and challenge their own government’s role in dragging us all to this point.

Source: fair.org

Statement of the Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals

The root causes and the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis arise from, and rest on, the U.S.- led NATO’s strategy of military expansion to the East and threatening security of Russia, whom the West has defined as the enemy in its doctrines.

The first victims of NATO’s strategy of eastward expansion were Serbian people and Serbia.
Their sanctions, demonization and isolation applied during the 1990s against Serbia and the Serbs are presently re-applied against Russia and the Russian people.

The centers of power which have, back in the day, prevented the implementation of the Peace Plan in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and presently demand revision of the Dayton Accords and UNSC Resolution 1244, are now preventing the implementation of the Minsk Peace Agreement in Ukraine, rejecting negotiations on equal security, and firmly pushing for further expansion and ultimately for military encirclement of Russia.

Serbia and Russia, the Serbian and Russian people are centuries-old friends, allies and strategic partners.
Russia provides invaluable support to Serbia in her preserving own sovereignty and territorial integrity and also in efforts for peacefully resolving the issues related to Kosovo and Metohija, all in line with international law, UN Security Council Resolution 1244, and the Serbian Constitution.

As a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, Russia protected Serbia from groundless accusations for alleged genocide, coming from the West. It goes without saying that Serbia must not accuse, or impose any measures and sanctions against such a friend and partner as Russia is, in relenting to pressures coming from those same subjects who bear the greatest responsibility for the gravest violations of the UN Charter and international law in general, for the criminal aggression of NATO in 1999, and for illegal secession of Priština. The harder, more turbulent and volatile the times are, the greater the moral obligation to respect trusted friends and allies is.

Public speculation on whether Russia might be excluded from the United Nations is not well judged. Pursuant to the UN Charter, any initiative would have beforehand to secure consent of the permanent members of the Security Council. Any such attempt in that body would certainly be vetoed Russia, if not China as well. In other words, the UN Security Council would not be able to refer a valid proposal to the General Assembly. Russia has become a permanent member of the UN Security Council by virtue of the act establishing the world organization, as the country that had contributed the most, and had laid the greatest human sacrifice to the altar of the Allies’ victory in World War II and, accordingly, this is the status she cannot be deprived of.

Any contrary course of actions would only make the UN share the fate of
the League of Nations.
Needless to say, all are aware of what would that pave the way for.

Public speculations on the destiny of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 that go so far as to mention a possibility of the People’s Republic of China withdrawing its support for this universally binding legal document, in succumbing to a hypothetical pressure from the West, does not benefit anyone, least of all Serbia. For Serbia, UN SC Resolution 1244 is and should remain an irreplaceable generally binding legal document of enduring importance, until its consistent and full implementation.

Information service of the
Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals

Wolfgang Effenberger

The early morning news on February 24, 2022, about Russian attacks on Ukraine were shocking. War in Europe! Pictures of fierce air attacks, of destroyed houses, bridges and infrastructure were last seen 23 years ago, when the USA and NATO bombed the rest of Yugoslavia for days and nights on end without a UN mandate, following the escalation strategy of General John A. Warden. This doctrine, still in effect today, pursues the strategic goal of breaking an adversary's will to resist as quickly as possible. Priority attacks on vital infrastructure and population serve this purpose. This turns current international law, which prohibits attacking non-combatants and destroying power plants, refineries, bridges and hospitals, on its head. NATO's inhumane use of 30 tons of uranium munitions at the time permanently poisoned the living environment. And the attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade gave Beijing the message to stay away from Europe.
While NATO bombed the broadcasting facilities of Serbian television and the industrial center of Nis, the representatives of the member states met in Washington on April 23 on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of NATO.
After three former Eastern bloc countries were admitted with media attention,(1) U.S. President Clinton presented the new NATO strategy: In it, the crisis intervention role is permanently anchored, if necessary without a UN mandate.(2)
On March 23, 1999 - just hours before the order to attack Yugoslavia - U.S. President Bill Clinton made the background to this war clear to union representatives: "If we're going to have strong economic relationships that include our ability to sell around the world, Europe has to be a key. And if we want people to share our burdens of leadership, with all the problems that are bound to come up, Europe has to be our partner. Now, that's the importance of this Kosovo story."(3)
Unambiguously, former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt stated at the end of the first week of the war: " Bullied by the U.S., we have disregarded international law and the United Nations Charter."(4) Then he looked into the future: "the mostly domestically motivated ruthlessness with which Washington enforces its current interests ... will increasingly get on the nerves of many Europeans."(5)

Only after the signing of UN Resolution 1244, which established Kosovo's affiliation with Serbia, did the bombing cease. Despite this resolution, Kosovo was unilaterally declared independent by the U.S. - where it immediately established Camp Bondsteel, the largest U.S. base in the world after 1945. The importance of this base, located in the center of Europe, is obvious. In the summer of 2001, during a visit to soldiers stationed at Camp Bondsteel, U.S. President Bush spoke clearly about U.S. imperial goals disguised as a mission of values: "We seek a world of tolerance and freedom. From Kosovo to Kashmir, from the Middle East to Northern Ireland, freedom and tolerance is the defined goal for our world. And your service sets an example of this for the entire world."(6)

At that time, however, the rest of Yugoslavia posed no threat to NATO and certainly not to the United States. Socialist Serbia, which had ties to China, was merely standing in the way of NATO's planned eastward expansion. For this geopolitical goal, the "value West" accepted a destroyed environment and nearly 2,500 deaths.
No sanctions were imposed against the USA and its allies after the war of aggression against the rest of Yugoslavia, which was illegal under international law. The now blatantly unilateral interpretation of law, treaties and here above all international law by the "values-West" is recognized, rejected and also opposed by the majority of the world's population. It makes sad that the peace commandment is trampled underfoot in order to implement imperial goals.

The coup in Ukraine orchestrated by the West in February 2014 was followed by the referendum in Crimea, in which the vast majority of the inhabitants voted for annexation to the Russian Federation. This was denied to the breakaway republics in the Donbass, Luhansk and Donetsk. A fierce civil war immediately broke out there between Ukrainian government troops and the "rebel republics." A civil war of which the Western media provided no images, and if they did, then only propaganda images from Kiev. In late February 2021, Ukrainian President Selensky, with Western blessing, drafted the decree to "de-occupy Crimea."  The number of civilians killed in the Ukrainian civil war since 2014 is estimated at 9,000 by Darya Morozova, the human rights representative of the Donetsk People's Republic, some of whom she counted as civilians included members of the People's Militia. The UN's official estimate of civil war casualties is 13,000, including 5,000 civilians.(7)

At the end of January 2022, the SPD party leadership recognized that every conversation must now be held "to seek a diplomatic way out of the crisis and to prevent war."(8)
What ways out were being sought to avert war in the middle of Europe? With the concluding statement "The line of the SPD is very clear - the escalation is coming from Russia"(9) no peace signal was sent, on the contrary. At the same time, the USA and NATO forced the deployment in Eastern Europe.
When did the escalation really start? Here we would have to go back to the U.S. war plan DROPSHOT of December 19, 1949, which envisioned the destruction of the Soviet Union in 1957. The current beginning may well be in the failure of the U.S. and NATO to honor their pledge not to expand NATO eastward and the U.S. push since 2008 to admit Ukraine into NATO. Russia's claim that NATO's eastward enlargement violates Western commitments made after the fall of the Berlin Wall is now bolstered by a remarkable file discovery from the British National Archives.(10) A March 6, 1991, meeting in Bonn of the political directors of the foreign ministries of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany addressed the security issues of Eastern European states.
Bonn's representative, Jürgen Chrobog, stated at the time, according to the memo, "We made it clear in the Two Plus Four negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe. We therefore cannot offer NATO membership to Poland and the others."
The British, French and Americans also rejected NATO membership for the Eastern Europeans. U.S. Representative Raymond Seitz said, "We have made it clear to the Soviet Union - at Two Plus Four as well as other talks - that we will not take advantage of Soviet troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe."(11) However, under Prague-born U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, NATO policy change was successfully initiated beginning in 1997. To date, 14 primarily Eastern European countries have joined NATO.(12)
The fact that Barack Obama referred to Russia as a "regional power" in 2009 can be seen as a veritable (and presumably deliberate) slight. Starting in 2013, Ukraine was then removed from Russia's economic zone with U.S. and EU support. When Ukrainian President Yanukovych refused to be the first to sign the political-military part of the EU Association Agreement, the Western-orchestrated coup occurred. While Yanukovych's Western-oriented successor, the oligarch Poroshenko, brought Ukraine closer to the EU, the eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Lugansk wanted to keep their ties to Russia and detached their territories from Ukraine. From 2014 to the present, more than 20 unsuccessful cease-fire agreements have been reached between the Ukrainian central government and separatists. With the Minsk Agreement of 12 Feb 2015 ( Minsk II ), RU, UKR, France and Germany concluded an agreement on de-escalation, also a law on the special status of Donetsk and Lugansk was to be adopted. In January 2018, when Kyiv issued a reintegration law for Lugansk and Donetsk, the then-president of the self-proclaimed and internationally unrecognized Donetsk People's Republic, Alexander Zakharchenko, declared it irrelevant. Since then, the West has done nothing to find a mutually acceptable solution. Given the history of developments since 1990, this should have been possible: in 1990 and thereafter, the Soviet Union withdrew its troops from all non-Soviet states, and in 1999, during the Kosovo war, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic became the first former Eastern bloc countries to join NATO. In 2001 and thereafter, Putin made three speeches suggesting a free trade area between the EU and Russia and greater economic ties between Germany and Russia:
"In 2001 in a Reichstag speech delivered in German in Berlin. In 2007 at the Munich Security Conference and in 2010 at an economic forum in Berlin. In 2007, Putin declared at the Munich Security Conference that further NATO expansion eastward into the former territory of the Soviet Union would mean "crossing a red line."(13) After the coup in Kiev, the Kremlin had to reckon not only with an economic but also with a strong U.S. military component in Ukraine that was perceived as threatening to Russia.
In view of the sanctions now threatened and introduced by Germany, the EU and the U.S., Russia will further expand its strategic partnership with China. The U.S. wants to secure its hegemonic power and bind Europe more closely to it. It is only against this background that the economic war over the Nord Stream II gas pipeline, the U.S. economic infiltration in Ukraine and the attempts to integrate Georgia and Ukraine since 2008 are to be understood.
In the process, the U.S. uses its economic levers - boycotts, embargoes, punitive tariffs, foreign asset freezes - to coerce NATO members into allegiance when necessary.(14)
At the end of the third day of the war, actionable and verifiable information is scant. Things are relatively quiet, which does not necessarily bode well.
Russia's troop strength on the border with Ukraine, as determined by the West before the war began, was less than 200,000, a size not necessarily suitable for occupying Europe's second largest territorial country. Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin will make good on what he announced in an address to the Russian people as a "special operation" in the Donbass aimed at "protecting the people who have been mistreated and oppressed by the Kiev government for eight years." To achieve this, Putin says Russia will seek to "demilitarize and denazify" Ukraine. To achieve this goal by means of "punitive action," it is not necessary to occupy all of Ukraine.(15)

Having invested five billion U.S. dollars in Ukraine regime change in 2014, the U.S. now wants to see dividends. Should Putin make good on his plan in Ukraine, and should the U.S. for its part continue to pursue its unipolar policy, an almost unimaginable catastrophe could be in the offing. To exacerbate the situation at such a heated stage - Russia's suspension from the Council of Europe, exclusion from the SWIFT agreement - could push the conflict to the brink of a major war. The situation in February 2022 is quite similar to that in August/September 1939, when Poland was encouraged by Britain to torpedo negotiations with Germany. In the war that immediately followed, GB declared war on Germany but did nothing. Before the war in Ukraine, the U.S. and Britain gave Ukraine a free hand in acting against the breakaway republics. Now the war is here, and both countries let Ukraine fight alone.
The EU is now financing arms deliveries to Ukraine with half a billion euros, and Germany is also sending heavy weapons to the crisis area - so the NATO alliance case does not seem far away.

The developments before World War I and World War II were quite similar. Local conflicts were enough to ignite a major conflagration.  

Such strategies were already known to Macchiavelli (1469-1527), who warned: " Not he who first takes up arms is the instigator of disaster, but he who compels it."

In order to have a future worth living at all, however, we need today more than ever a policy aimed at eliminating the causes of conflict worldwide.(16) The prerequisite for this is a multipolar peace order in which slights, intrigues and secret agreements have no place. This then also includes a media landscape in which freedom of opinion and freedom of the press are respected and restricted only by the criminal code.

Notes

1) "Man rechnete in Washington für die nächsten 15 Jahre mit gewaltigen militärischen Investitionen der drei neuen Nato-Mitgliedsstaaten: 60 bis über 100 Milliarden US-Dollar." - Helmut SCHMIDT in der ZEIT v. 22.4.99
2) In einer feierlicher Sitzung zum 50. Jahrestag der Gründung der NATO unterzeichneten am 28. April 1999 die Staats- und Regierungschefs der NATO-Länder das »Neue Strategische Konzept« der NATO.
3) President Bill Clinton vor der US-Gewerkschaft “American Federation of State, County and Municipal Em-
ployees” (AFSCME): Remarks to AFSCME Biennial Convention, Washington, D.C., 23 March 1999;
http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/New/html/19990323-1110.html
4) Altbundeskanzler Helmut SCHMIDT in der Frankfurter Rundschau vom 3./4. April 1999
5) Altbundeskanzler Helmut SCHMIDT in der ZEIT v. 22.4.99
6) US-Präsident George am 24. Juli 2001 im Camp Bondsteel, unter http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010724-1.html vom 23. Juli 2008
7) https://de.rt.com/europa/129217-krieg-im-donbass-donezker-und-lugansker-volksrepubliken-melden-fast-hundert-tote-jahr-2021/
8) https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article236579961/Klingbeil-zur-Ukraine-Krise-Die-Eskalation-geht-von-Russland-aus.html
9) https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article236579961/Klingbeil-zur-Ukraine-Krise-Die-Eskalation-geht-von-Russland-aus.html
10) https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nato-osterweiterung-aktenfund-stuetzt-russische-version-a-1613d467-bd72-4f02-8e16-2cd6d3285295
11) https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article236986765/Nato-Osterweiterung-Archivfund-bestaetigt-Sicht-der-Russen.html?source=puerto-reco-2_ABC-V1.B_click_prob_only
12) 1999 wurden Polen, Tschechien und Ungarn aufgenommen, 2004 Bulgarien, Estland, Lettland, Litauen, Rumänien, Slowakei und Slowenien. Albanien und Kroatien kamen 2009 hinzu, 2017 Montenegro und 2020 schließlich Nordmazedonien
13) Aufzeichnung von General a.D. Schulze-Rhonhof vom 14.Februar 2022 (privat)
14) Ebd.
15) https://bachheimer.com/6af1bsimonb1ac-p-2780698
16) Siehe auch Wolfgang Effenberger: Rede anlässlich des Friedensfestivals am 25. Juli 2009 vor dem Brandenburger Tor „Neue Kriege um Rohstoffe“
http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/media/14075/Berlin-Rede-Effenberger-23-07-09.pdf

Wolfgang Effenberger

After the recognition of the breakaway territories in the Donbass by the Russian president,
print media such as the Süddeutsche Zeitung and the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung immediately
announced on their front pages: "Putin is sending troops to Ukraine.
This had to and should probably be perceived as fact, although Putin's decree has yet to be
ratified by the Duma. In the ZDF "Morgenmagazin" on February 23, the chairwoman of the
defense committee in the Bundestag, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP), clearly
rejected a resumption of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, which had been put on hold, on
behalf of her party and definitely ruled out entering into an economic deal with Russian
President Vladimir Putin; she referred to the Russian army, "which has now surrounded
Ukraine with 190,000 troops "1).

A look at the map shows that this statement is more than foolish. Russian troops are still on
Russian territory in eastern Ukraine.
Objective perception seems to have been increasingly lost on German governments in recent
decades. In all illegal wars of the USA in the 21st century, Germany has always been a
warring party, and alternately: sometimes on the side of the rebels, as in Syria or Kosovo,
sometimes on the side of the government, as now in Ukraine - but always in the wake of the
USA. International law and the peace imperative no longer even played a subordinate role. At
the end of February 2018, then German Chancellor Angela Merkel called for an end to the
"massacre" in Syria, saying Assad was killing children and destroying hospitals. Since 2014,
Ukrainian government forces have been firing heavy artillery into breakaway territories (non-
government-controlled areas - NGCA), killing children and hitting schools and hospitals as
well. But there any condemnation remained absent until today. And the media report every
death of a Ukrainian government soldier, but do not address the losses on the other side. This
one-sided view is the sure path to a larger conflict. The daily reports of the Special
Monitoring Mission (OSCE) could contribute to a more balanced assessment of the situation
in eastern Ukraine.2) Artillery duels between the two sides are accurately recorded - for
example, on February 18, an unprovoked fire by Ukrainian forces' artillery. At the same time,
radio traffic interference and deployment of troops were noted on both sides, with Kiev in
particular reinforcing troops. It is still assumed that the frontline troops of the rebels will be
able to withstand any Ukrainian attack. Thus, Russia is also not faced with the need to
intervene immediately.

A greater danger could come from current U.S./NATO activities. The shuttle traffic between
the U.S. base in Ramstein and the Polish Rzeszow near the Ukrainian border is not
decreasing. But the current troop reinforcements and arms deliveries are not an issue for the
media here.
In these emotionally charged days, the New York Times on Feb. 21 carried Thomas L.
Friedman's nuanced commentary, "This is Putin's War. But America and NATO Are Not
Innocent Bystanders," which was intended to help de-escalate the situation.
Friedman described there how on May 2, 1998, immediately after the U.S. Senate ratified
NATO expansion, he called George Kennan - the architect of the U.S.'s successful
containment of the Soviet Union. Kennan had joined the State Department in 1926 and served
as U.S. ambassador to Moscow beginning in 1952. The top Russia expert, then 94 years old,
spoke in a weak voice and was perceived by Friedman as having the presence of mind when
he asked him for his opinion on NATO expansion. In his commentary, Friedman reproduces
Kennan's answer:
“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react
quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was
no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion
would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.
“We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have
neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO
expansion] was simply a lighthearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in
foreign affairs. What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate
debate was. I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying
to attack Western Europe.
“Don’t people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet
Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who
mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.
And Russia’s democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries
we’ve just signed up to defend from Russia. Of course there is going to be a bad
reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told
you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.”(3)

U.S. economist and publicist Paul Craig Roberts has been following Putin's address to the
Russian people. For him, Putin expressed in it his sadness "that negotiations with the West
have taught him complete distrust of Washington"; he, Putin, had tried for eight years "to
pacify the situation in Ukraine in such a way that the breakaway republics remain part of
Ukraine, but had been frustrated by Washington. Therefore, he now has no choice but to
announce Russia's recognition of the two republics. "4)
It is unfortunate that the media did not address Putin's speech. For Paul Craig Roberts, Russia
has created a new world with the recognition. Now that the hegemon (USA) is dead, he says,
Russia and China should begin to disengage from the West. However, they should be careful
that the U.S. is still able to strike with "nuclear weapons while it is in its death throes."
According to Paul Craig Roberts, there is nothing left in the West that is really worth
anything. "Countries have already given away their most important industries to the Chinese
and surrendered the civil liberties of their citizens. As the Covid mandates prove, the West
itself no longer believes in the values it proclaims. People who exercise or attempt to exercise
their constitutional rights to freedom of expression and association are branded as "domestic
terrorists." Their voices are suppressed, they are fired from their jobs, their medical licenses
are revoked, they are arrested and imprisoned. The Western world has turned into a hellhole
of tyranny."(5)

Former U.S. President Donald Trump caused a stir with unusual praise for Russian leader
Vladimir Putin's actions. He described Putin as ingenious, smart and savvy. Moreover, Trump
said that such an escalation of the Ukraine crisis would never have occurred under his
presidency.(6)
Now it is important to initiate de-escalation as soon as possible. However, this will only be
possible if history, or at least developments since 1990, are finally reviewed without
prejudice.

To this end, Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (1858-1947), founder of quantum physics, gives
us some advice: "The greatest danger today are the people who do not want to admit that the
age now dawning is fundamentally different from the past. With the traditional concepts we
will not be able to cope with this situation now. The bankruptcy of the traditional concept of
war, attack and defense is obvious. Without rethinking, there is no way out of the danger."(7)

Notes

1) https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/russland-ukraine-konflikt-im-live-news-
ticker,SxWdozS
2) https://www.osce.org/files/2022-02-18%20Daily%20Report_ENG.pdf?itok=23379
3) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/putin-ukraine-nato.html
4) https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/02/21/breaking-news-feb-21-4pm-us-central-time/
5) https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/02/22/russia-and-china-should-go-their-own-way/
6) https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article237085281/Ukraine-Konflikt-Trump-lobt-Putin-
als-genial-smart-ausgebufft.html
7) Eberhard Punsch: Das neue Zitatenbuchhandbuch, Augsburg 1997, S. 826

Manlio Dinucci

" NATO enlargement in recent decades has been a great success and has also paved the way for a further enlargement of the EU": NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg reiterated this last Saturday at the Munich Security Conference. To fully understand his words, it is necessary to reconstruct this story of "great success" in essential terms.

It began in the same year - 1999 - in which NATO demolished Yugoslavia with the war and, at the Washington summit, announced its intention to "conduct crisis response operations not provided for in Article 5 outside the territory of 'Alliance". Forgetting that it had pledged with Russia not to "expand even an inch to the East", NATO began its expansion to the East. It incorporated the first three countries of the former Warsaw Pact: Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Then, in 2004 it extended to other seven nations: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (formerly part of the USSR); Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia (formerly part of the Warsaw Pact); Slovenia (formerly part of the Yugoslav Federation). In 2009, NATO incorporated Albania (once a member of the Warsaw Pact) and Croatia (formerly part of the Yugoslav Federation); in 2017, Montenegro (formerly part of Yugoslavia); in 2020 North Macedonia (formerly part of Yugoslavia) In twenty years, NATO has expanded from 16 to 30 countries.

In this way, Washington achieves a threefold result. It extends close to Russia, right into the territory of the former USSR, the military Alliance of which it maintains the command levers: the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe is by tradition, always a US general appointed by the President of the United States and the other key commands also belong to the USA. At the same time, Washington binds the Eastern countries not so much to the Alliance, but directly to the United States. Romania and Bulgaria, as soon as it enters, immediately make the important military bases of Constanta and Burgas on the Black Sea available to the United States. The third result obtained by Washington with the expansion of NATO to the East is the strengthening of its influence in Europe. Central-Eastern European countries that joined NATO between 1999 and 2004, seven out of ten joined the European Union between 2004 and 2007: the EU expands to the East and the United States overlapped NATO that expands to the East over Europe. Today 21 of the 27 countries of the European Union belong to NATO under US command. According to NATO rules the North Atlantic Council, the Alliance political body, decides not by the majority but always "unanimously and by mutual agreement", which is in agreement with what was decided in Washington. The participation of the major European powers in these decisions (excluding Italy, which obeys in silence) generally takes place through secret negotiations with Washington on giving and take. This entails a further weakening of the European parliaments, in particular the Italian one, already deprived of real decision-making powers on foreign and military policy.

In this context, Europe today finds itself in an even more dangerous situation than that of the Cold War. Three other countries - Bosnia and Herzegovina (formerly part of Yugoslavia), Georgia, and Ukraine (formerly part of the USSR) - are candidates to join NATO. Jens Stoltenberg, spokesman for the US before NATO, declares that "we keep the door open and, if the Kremlin's goal is to have less NATO on the borders of Russia, it will only get more NATO". In the US-NATO escalation, clearly aimed at detonating a full-scale war in the heart of Europe, nuclear weapons come into the game. In three months, the serial production of the new B61-12 nuclear bombs will begin in the US, which will be deployed under US command in Italy and other European countries, probably also in the East even closer to Russia. In addition to these weapons, the US has in Europe two land bases in Romania and Poland and four warships equipped with Aegis missile systems, capable of launching not only anti-missile missiles but also nuclear-warhead cruise missiles. They are also preparing intermediate-range nuclear missiles to be deployed in Europe against Russia, the invented enemy that can however respond destructively if they attack.

To all this, the economic and social impact of growing military spending is added. At the meeting of Defense Ministers, Stoltenberg triumphantly announced that "this is the seventh consecutive year of increasing European Allied defense spending, which has increased by $ 270 billion since 2014". More public money is stolen from social spending and productive investment, while European countries have yet to recover from the 2020-21 economic lockdown. Italian military spending has exceeded 70 million euros per day, but it is not enough. Prime Minister Mario Draghi has already announced "We must equip ourselves with a more significant defense: it is very clear that we will have to spend much more than we have done so far". Very clear: let's tighten our belts so that NATO can expand.

(il manifesto, February 22, 2022)

Wolfgang Effenberger

After the G7 meeting organized on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock made an urgent appeal to Russia, warning Putin not to attack Ukraine.
"A renewed violation of Ukraine's sovereignty would very quickly have massive repercussions for Russia - economically, financially and politically - strategically and also individually for all those who bear personal responsibility for this crisis."(1)
Baerbock received flanking support from EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: "If Vladimir Putin starts a war, we will respond with the most powerful lever we have: Economic and financial sanctions, because the economy is Russia's weak point." That could mean Russia's exclusion from the international banking communications network (Swift). This would effectively cut Russia off from international financial markets.(2) The conflict being played out on Ukraine's back is primarily about Russia's economic destruction. The elimination of Nordstream 2 is only a partial goal.
Russian demands for security guarantees from the U.S. and NATO have been on the table since mid-December 2021. Since then, the talks, which have been held at all levels and have been unsuccessful for Russia, have not ceased. Putin is being stalled on the issue and at the same time subjected to further verbal attacks and defamation.
Paul Craig Roberts, American economist and publicist and former high-ranking U.S. politician, wonders if Putin and Lavrov will ever realize "that there is no way at all to successfully negotiate with Washington on Russia's security concerns."(3) According to Roberts the reasons are obvious. For one, the U.S. military and security complex, which has an annual budget of $1,000 billion, needs an enemy to justify that expenditure.

The second reason Roberts sees in the influence of U.S. foreign policy under Zionist neoconservatives who hate Russia for historical reasons. When Putin announced the end of the U.S. "unipolar world" at the 2007 Munich Security Conference, he had finally made himself an enemy of the neoconservatives. Under defense policy expert Paul Wolfowitz, they had drafted a doctrine named after him that advocated preemptive military action to safeguard U.S. unilateralism, to suppress in advance any future potential threat to U.S. hegemony.(4) The overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected government and the installation of a neo-Nazi regime subordinate to Washington can also be attributed to the neoconservatives. But the attempt to take over the Russian naval base in the Black Sea in Crimea failed when the population there voted overwhelmingly to join Russia. The Russians in the Donbass would have liked to follow suit, but Putin would not allow it. Thus, since 2014, the Donbass region has been a trouble spot, with people living there dying and suffering. The Western media have concealed from the public that the Kiev government has massed close to 125000 troops on the Grnez Line to the breakaway regions.
A diplomatic solution to the conflict envisaged in the Minsk Agreement of 2015 has always been undermined by Kiev.
Why didn't the West itself raise the possibility of genocidal recognition in the face of Ukraine's destructive behavior?

The blueprint is Kosovo, where the then German Chancellor Kohl was the second to recognize sovereignty under international law, thus making the US Bondsteel camp in Kosovo possible in the long term.
For the arsonists, however, such a trouble spot is ideally suited to further fuel the conflict.

On 21.2.2022 at 20:38 the breaking news ran on the Tagesschau that Putin in a TV address announced the recognition of the independence of the separatist republics in eastern Ukraine by his country and signed a decree to that effect. He said he would ask the Russian parliament to approve it.(5)
This could put an end to years of suffering for the people in the breakaway Donbass territories, as Ukrainian government forces will then no longer be able to attack them as they have in the past without risking a major war and thus the destruction of Ukraine.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Li expressed a few hours after Putin's surprise coup that the continuing escalation of tensions was related to the failure of the Ukrainian government to implement the Minsk agreements.
Baerbock arrogantly made clear that there were red lines in talks with Russia: "The basis of our coexistence, international law, our European treaties, they are not negotiable."(6)

Who has been breaking international law here in Europe for years? The coup orchestrated by the West in Kiev was a violation of international law, and the war of aggression against the rest of Yugoslavia in violation of international law was a war crime. Who today remembers how the "Western community of values" lied this war into existence? On March 15, 1999, in Rambouillet, the Serbs did not refuse to sign the draft treaty prepared by the Balkan Contact Group. They merely refused to sign a quickly added and non-negotiable annex, Part B, Article 8 of which ultimatively demanded: "NATO personnel, together with their vehicles, aircraft, and equipment, should be able to move freely and unimpeded, and without access restrictions, throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including its airspace and territorial waters." On top of that, NATO should enjoy immunity in all legal proceedings, whether civil, administrative, or criminal." 


The annex was concealed from the cabinet and parliament (and thus from the public) by German Foreign Minister Fischer. The then Finance Minister Lafontaine only learned about it much later from the press(7), as did the defense policy spokeswoman of the Greens, Angelika Beer, who then expressed: "If I had known, I would not have agreed to the war effort." Unfortunately, to this day the Greens are neither willing nor able to come to terms with their active support at the time for this war of aggression that violated international law.

Rudolf Augstein judged at that time: "The USA had set military conditions in Rambouillet that no Serb with a school education could have signed."(8)
In similarly war-hectic days as now witnessed during the Munich Security Conference, the U.S. Congress passed the "Silk Road Strategy Act" on March 19, 1999, in which America underlines its interests from the Mediterranean to Central Asia.
Former German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher wrote in the preface to Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard": "If America wants to retain its position of world power in the future, it must turn all its attention to this area ["Eurasia"]. This is where 74 percent of the world's population lives, where most of the world's natural resources, including energy reserves, are located, and where 60 percent of the world's gross national product is generated. It is therefore in the area from Lisbon to Vladivostok that America's future destiny will be decided."(9)

Five days later, NATO opened the war against "Remnant Yugoslavia" with its air strikes. Preparations for this had been in full swing since the summer of 1998, although at that time the situation there was still stable. 

Notwithstanding the daily air strikes in Remnant Yugoslavia, NATO members met in Washington on April 23 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Western "defense alliance." For the NATO to be expanded and the coming tasks in the 21st century, U.S. President Clinton presented the new strategic concept: Away from the pure defense alliance and toward crisis management in the Euro-Atlantic area, whereby NATO could act in the future "in a limited framework" without a UN mandate. Unambiguously, former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt stated at the end of the first week of the war: " Bullied by the U.S., we have disregarded international law and the United Nations Charter."(10) And U.S. political scientist and war researcher Professor Daniel Kolko wrote in the Berlin Tagesspiegel after the war in Yugoslavia: "For the U.S., it was about demonstrating military power and expanding its supremacy in NATO."(11) The war, forced with a lie, replaced international law with the "right of the powerful". Former NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander General (ret.) Gerd Schmückle summed up NATO's new intervention goals: "Ultimately, U.S. interests decide where to intervene. Everything revolves around economics. Where is there oil, where are the future sources of oil?"(12)

UN Resolution 1244 of June 10, 1999, provided the basis in international law for the establishment of the Interim Administration Mission. This established Kosovo's territorial affiliation with Serbia. Notwithstanding this, the West pressed ahead with Kosovo's independence and made its case before the International Court of Justice in The Hague on April 17, 2009. Even before the fifteen judges in The Hague could consider the independence request, U.S. Vice President Biden underscored the country's independence as irreversible during a visit to Kosovo in May 2009. It is hard to imagine a clearer disregard for a supreme court.(13)

Behind the usual platitudes of freedom and democracy were once again tangible economic and geopolitical interests. These were bluntly explained at the end of April 2000 at a U.S. State Department conference on the Balkans and NATO enlargement to the East in Bratislava. In his function as Vice-President of the OSCE Assembly, the CDU Member of the Bundestag Willy Wimmer was also invited, who was so alarmed that immediately after the conference he informed the acting SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schröder in a letter(14) about the true background of the Yugoslav war and the future geostrategic intentions of the U.S. - an extremely unusual event. Under pt. 7 and pt. 8 is stated there about the strategic intentions of the USA conveyed at a high-level conference: 

"In the forthcoming NATO enlargement, the spatial situation between the Baltic Sea and Anatolia must be restored as it was in the heyday of Roman expansion. To this end, Poland must be surrounded to the north and south by democratic states as neighbors, Romania and Bulgaria must ensure the land connection to Turkey, Serbia (probably for the purpose of ensuring a U.S. military presence) must be permanently excluded from European development."(15)

This plan has been consistently implemented ever since. For example, the July 21, 2021 U.S.-Germany Joint Statement in Support of Ukraine strongly expresses support for the Three Seas Initiative (Baltic Sea-Black Sea-Adriatic Sea) and its efforts to strengthen infrastructure connectivity and energy security in Central and Eastern Europe.(16)
According to Christopher Clark, NATO put much more pressure on the Serbs in the spring of 1999 than Austria-Hungary did in July 1914. He asks, "Was this mainly because Russia was out of the picture as a major power?"(17) The wars and civil wars of the present (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Egypt, etc.) show that the trail of blood left by the strategists of the First World War extends to the present day and will not dry up until the driving forces that led Europe into the First World War are uncovered and the conflicts that have still not been resolved lead to a sustainable peace solution.

In the SPD's parliamentary group meeting at the end of January 2022, SPD co-leader Lars Klingbeil made a very clear statement to the Tagesschau about the Ukraine conflict: "The escalation is coming from Russia."(18) This statement applies not only to the SPD, but to the entire government. How can Annalena Baerbock call on Putin to engage in serious negotiations under these circumstances?(19) The leadership of the German republic seems to have dangerous deficits in historical knowledge or is not even aware of these deficits. Is it just stupidity and arrogance or do the ignorant politicians simply succumb to the siren songs of their transatlantic whisperers?

Notes

1) https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2022-02/russland-wladimir-putin-annalena-baerbock-ostukraine?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com
2) https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/vonderleyen-russland-sanktionen-101.html
3) https://uncutnews.ch/die-nato-ist-kein-verteidigungsbuendnis-mehr-sondern-ein-instrument-der-aggression/
4) Die Wolfowitz-Doktrin ist ein inoffizieller Name für die ursprüngliche Version der Defence Planning Guidance für die Geschäftsjahre 1994–99
5) https://www.tagesschau.de/eilmeldung/eilmeldung-6231.html
6) https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2022-02/russland-wladimir-putin-annalena-baerbock-ostukraine?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com
7) Lafontaine, Oskar: Das Herz schlägt links, München 1999, S. 243
8) Ebd.
9) Brzezinski, Zbigniew: Die einzige Weltmacht Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft, Frankfurt a.M. 2001, S. 10f.
10) Schmidt, Helmut, Frankfurter Rundschau, 3./4. April 1999
11) Kolko, Daniel: Tagesspiegel, 8. Mai 1999
12) Die Woche vom 1.4.1999
13) Wolfgang Effenberger: Schwarzbuch EU & NATO Warum die Welt keinen Frieden findet, Höhr-Grenzhausen 2020, S. 308
14) Präsident Bill Clinton vor der US-Gewerkschaft American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employes (AFSCME): “Remarks to AFSCME Biennial Conventions, Washington, D.C. 23. März 1999.
15) Abdruck in Effenberger, Wolfgang/Wimmer, Willy: Wiederkehr der Hasardeure – Schattenstrategen, Kriegstreiber, stille Profiteure 1914 und heute, Höhr-Grenzhausen 2014, S. 547; siehe auch Willy Wimmer: Die Akte Moskau, Höhr-Grenzhausen 2016.
16) https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/newsroom/gemeinsame-erklaerung-usa-und-deutschland/2472074
17) Kilb, Andreas: „Alle diese Staaten waren Bösewichte“, 29. September 2013, Kilb im Gespräch mit Christopher Clark in „Aktuell Feulleton“ der FAZ.
18) https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/spd-klingbeil-russland-103.html
19) https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2022-02/russland-wladimir-putin-annalena-baerbock-ostukraine?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

Wolfgang Effenberger

The 58th Munich Security Conference (MSC, described by the German Ministry of Defense as the most important informal security policy meeting in the world) will be held from Feb. 18 to 20 at the Bayerischer Hof Hotel on Promenadenplatz in Munich's Old Town, and will be attended primarily by representatives of Western political celebrities. The MSC is not an official government event. It is hosted by the Munich Security Conference Foundation, a non-profit limited liability company. A large police force has to ensure the safety of the guests and cordons off the area between Marienplatz, Frauenkirche and Odeonsplatz. Demonstrations are inevitable, especially when one considers that only a few kilometers away from Munich, the Air Force Officers' School, located on the barracks grounds in Fürstenfeld, could accommodate, supervise and secure the participants in the best possible way. The costs for the event could be considerably reduced in this way, too.
No, for the rendezvous of political celebrities - U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Secretary of State Blinken, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Ukraine President Volodymyr Selenskyj and representatives of the German government Scholz, Baerbock and Lambrecht - in the Isar metropolis, neither costs nor efforts are spared.
As early as the night of February 17-18, Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht presented her perspective on the topic of "Innovation at Frontlines" at this year's pre-event, Innovation Night, which was introduced in 2018. As today's military conflicts also take place in the digital space, in the future, digital innovation capabilities would determine victory and defeat on the still analog battlefields, she said.(1)
The focus these days is admittedly on the Ukraine crisis and NATO's tensions with Russia. Volodymyr Selenskyj has announced himself for Saturday (Feb. 19) to talk about "Ukraine and the European Security Architecture."(2)
The European Security Architecture was already strapped into a firm framework in Brussels on Feb. 16, 2022. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's conversation with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin before the start of the NATO Atlantic Council meeting at the organization's headquarters in Brussels on February 16, 2022, prompted the U.S. military magazine Stars and Stripes to write: "U.S. and NATO see Russia as a persistent threat to Europe and will deploy more combat forces in response."
Plans are said to be underway, for example, to form allied battle groups in central and southeastern Europe to respond to the "new normal" of a persistent Russian threat to the continent. Stoltenberg did not see de-escalation, in part because Russian forces would be increased around Ukraine. In a joint statement, Stoltenberg and Austin pointed out that Russia's actions posed a "serious threat to Euro-Atlantic security." And Stoltenberg made clear, "Russia does not decide who becomes a member of NATO."(3)

The Munich Security Conference has been held annually in Munich since 1963. Between 1963-1992 as the Internationale Wehrkundebegegnung / Münchner Wehrkundetagung, then renamed the Munich Conference on Security Policy, and since 2009 it has operated as the Munich Security Conference.
At the conference from January 31 to February 2, 2014 – during the regime change in Ukraine orchestrated by the West - the then German President Joachim Gauck, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen spoke out in quick succession in favor of Germany becoming involved in the world "earlier, more decisively and more substantially. They had chosen the Munich Security Conference as a forum to send a signal to the international community: The Federal Republic is ready for more responsibility.(4) Starting on February 18, 2014, events in Ukraine escalated, claiming more than 80 lives.(5) After the agreed settlement of the conflict through the efforts of the foreign ministers of France, Poland and Germany - here Steinmeier "shone" with his diplomatic coup(6) - the elected president Yanukovych fled precipitously the same night.

Many see the MSC as a forum supporting the transatlantic agenda for a unipolar world. This, of course, brings opponents of any policy that appears imperial to the streets. In 2017, for example, Eugen Drewermann and Lisa Fitz, in stirring appeals for peace, called for policies that serve peace and opposed the intentions of a conference whose diplomacy is based on mutual threats and war.
Opponents of SIKO see it as a propaganda forum to justify NATO, its billions in arms spending, and its war operations in violation of international law, built on lies and sold to the population as "humanitarian interventions." The demands in 2017 were: An end to the war in Syria, an end to military mobilization against Russia, and an end to wars and regime change operations for more power and supremacy. Western values - freedom, democracy and human rights - are only the cover to achieve more control over raw materials and to secure markets for themselves. Against this background, the demonstrators demand a different, a more peaceful world. Their appeal: we want to be social, sustainable and peaceful. FOR THAT let us stand up! (7)Thus, the call for protest against the Munich "Security Conference" 2022 bears the headline: Stop the war course of the NATO countries(8)

A similar view is held by Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer "who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction."
In his seminal February 11, 2020 article, "The Ultimate End of NATO,"(9) he writes that Russia's goal is not to destroy Ukraine. Rather, he says, the goal is to expose NATO's impotence. He also says that the U.S. position has less to do with European security than with the U.S. attempt to capture the European market for itself.
Ritter predicts that in the coming months NATO will be confronted with the reality "that Russia is not attacking anyone and that the current muscle play is not only unnecessary but, worse, unsustainable." In contrast to the unilateral rules that serve only the interests of the United States and small blocs of allied nations, Russia and China seek a "rights-based international order" based on the United Nations Charter."(10)
This Charter is worth recalling here. In Chapter I, "Purposes and Principles," Article 1 sets forth the purposes of the United Nations,(11)

1. to maintain international peace and security and, to this end, to take effective collective measures to prevent and eliminate threats to the peace, to suppress acts of aggression and other breaches of the peace, and to clean up or settle international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace by peaceful means in accordance with the principles of justice and international law;
2. to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures for the consolidation of international peace;
3. to bring about international cooperation to solve international problems of an economic, social, cultural and humanitarian character and to promote and consolidate respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
4. to be a focal point in which the efforts of nations are coordinated to achieve these common goals.

This seminal Article 1 of the Charter seems to have been nothing more than moot for decades now, when the illegal wars since the dissolution of the Soviet Union are remembered. "If the same "defensive" alliance that bombed its ally Belgrade and participated in the overthrow of the Libyan leader," writes Scott Ritter, "seeks the admission of Ukraine and Georgia as members, such actions, from the Russian perspective, can only be viewed as aggressive, offensive-minded measures that are part of a broader anti-Russia campaign."(12)
Russia's claim that NATO's eastward expansion violates Western commitments made after the fall of the Berlin Wall is now supported by a remarkable file discovery from the British National Archives. (13) A meeting of the political directors of the foreign ministries of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany in Bonn on March 6, 1991, addressed the security issues of East European states.
Bonn's representative, Jürgen Chrobog, stated at that time, according to the memo, "We made it clear in the Two Plus Four negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe. We therefore cannot offer NATO membership to Poland and the others."
The British, French and Americans also rejected NATO membership for the Eastern Europeans. U.S. Representative Raymond Seitz said, "We have made it clear to the Soviet Union - at Two Plus Four as well as other talks - that we will take no advantage of Soviet troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe."(14)
However, soon after, the Americans corrected their policy.
 
This Western policy helped to alienate Putin and Germans. On September 25, 2001, Russian President Vladimir Putin had extended his hand in the Bundestag and won the hearts of Germans with his brilliant speech. Today, the relationship is on ice. Why did the West turn down the offered friendship back then and squander the opportunity for peaceful coexistence? Was it the transatlantic agenda that preferred to drive and still wants to drive a wedge between Western Europe and Russia?(15)
If the world does not come to its senses, an almost unimaginable scenario could come true for Europe. The famous German writer Thomas Mann had recognized in his American exile the tendency of the USA "to treat Europe as an economic colony, a military base, a glacis in the future nuclear crusade against Russia, as a piece of the earth which may be antiquarian interesting and worth touring, but about whose complete ruin one will give a damn when the struggle for world domination is on."(16)

Notes

1)https://www.bmvg.de/de/muenchner-sicherheitskonferenz-2022
2)https://www.merkur.de/politik/siko-muenchen-scholz-baerbock-kamala-harris-blinken-ukraine-wolodymyr-selenskyj-91356285.html
3)https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2022-02-16/nato-russia-stoltenberg-europe-ukraine-5042504.html?utm_source=Stars+and+Stripes+Emails&utm_campaign=36e1da19ac-Newsletter+-+Weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0ab8697a7f-36e1da19ac-296504235
4)https://www.bmvg.de/de/themen/informelles-sicherheitspolitisches-treffen-seit-1963-21472
5)Basler Zeitung vom 23. Februar 2014
6)https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article125094196/Der-diplomatische-Coup-des-Frank-Walter-Steinmeier.html
7)Immer wieder anhörenswert:
Eugen Drewermann: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esSPb0FeITM
Lisa Fitz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esSPb0FeITMhttps://sicherheitskonferenz.de/Lisa-Fitz-SIKO-18.2.2017-Stachus
8)https://www.attac-netzwerk.de/ag-globalisierung-und-krieg/aufrufe/siko
9)https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/11/the-ultimate-end-of-nato/
10)Ebd.
11)https://unric.org/de/charta/
12)https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/11/the-ultimate-end-of-nato/
13) https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nato-osterweiterung-aktenfund-stuetzt-russische-version-a-1613d467-bd72-4f02-8e16-2cd6d3285295
14) https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article236986765/Nato-Osterweiterung-Archivfund-bestaetigt-Sicht-der-Russen.html?source=puerto-reco-2_ABC-V1.B_click_prob_only
15) https://www.mdr.de/geschichte/putin-und-die-deutschen-100.
16) htmlThomas Mann: Deutsche Hörer! Europäische Hörer! Darmstadt 1980, Rückse

Wolfgang Effenberger

The 58th Munich Security Conference, which was dominated by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, came to a close on Sunday, Feb. 20, 2022. At the conclusion of the three-day deliberations, outgoing leader Wolfgang Ischinger noted, "I have the impression that this weekend sends a message of transatlantic unity and resolve."(1) He then expressed regret that Europe should fear a new war. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson warned the BBC at the conference of a war on the scale of World War II, saying "it could really be the biggest war in Europe since 1945."(2)
Just in time for the start of the Munich Security Conference, the escalation screw in Ukraine was turned up. The theory that the escalation on the contact line is a mere information operation on the part of Russia and the rebel republics is not at all supported by the OSCE report.(3)
With the war-fueling headline "Putin's henchmen shell Ukrainian kindergarten"(4) the BILD newspaper pours oil on the fire.

Since every war so far has been started with a lie, the media should ask themselves where such reports come from, who verified them, and who benefits from them. In 1990, the media adopted without verification the report that Iraqi soldiers, during the invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, the beginning of the Second Gulf War, had torn Kuwaiti premature babies from their incubators and thrown them onto the cold stone floor, where they died. This gave U.S. President George H. Bush the UN authorization to wage war against Iraq.
Only after the US-led military intervention to liberate Kuwait did the story turn out to be an invention of the American PR agency Hill & Knowlton. They had been paid by the exiled Kuwaiti government to support a reconquest of Kuwait by means of public relations.
Since mid-January 2022, according to the U.S. government, there have been warnings of a so-called false flag attack ("false flag operation") on the part of Putin. Russia, they said, wanted to create a pretext for an invasion of Ukraine: "We have information indicating that Russia has already established a group of operatives to carry out a false-flag operation in eastern Ukraine ... that could start between mid-January and mid-February."(5)
So far, however, the U.S. has shown itself to be a true master at using "false flag" operations and lies.
The 1964 Vietnam War, for instance, was justified by the "Tonkin Incident" off the coast of North Vietnam, an ostensible North Vietnamese torpedo attack on the U.S. destroyer Meddox on August 4, 1964. It has long been proven that there was no torpedo attack at that time.(6)
The Vietnam War claimed up to 6 million lives (of which about 60,000 were U.S.).

The 2003 Iraq War was justified by the U.S. government on the grounds of "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" and an "Iraqi connection to Al Qaeda terrorists." On February 5, 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Powell presented alleged evidence of Iraq's NBC weapons to the UN Security Council, all of which turned out to be fabricated by mid-2004. And the July 2004 report of the 9/11 Commission refuted the alleged link to al Qaeda.  And the list of contrived reasons for war is not exhaustive.(7)
On February 20, 2022, BILD ran the headline: "Buy when the guns are thundering!"(8) High time for war profiteers.

On April 2, 1917, U.S. Senator George W. Norris, in his rebuttal speech, rejected Wilson's reasons for entering the war against Germany and - quoting from a customer letter of the "New York Stock Exchange" - pointed out the interests of Wall Street: "Canada and Japan are at war and prospering more than ever. On the outbreak of immediate hostilities, stocks would react swiftly, clearly and heatedly with a gratifying look. The old-fashioned bull market would enjoy it as it did at the outbreak of war with Spain in 1898. By contrast, the onset of peace would adjust commodity prices downward and most likely inhibit enterprise."(9)
Reflecting on Wilson's declaration of war on April 6, 1917, the "Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums" made a decisive reference to the duplicity Wilson had engaged in, when "from the beginning of the war he permitted, approved, perhaps even encouraged, the American factories to supply our enemies with ammunition, arms, and all manner of war equipment. This was done by no truly neutral state except America. Already by this support of our enemies the United States ... has shown itself for nearly three years, in spite of its alleged neutrality, to be an opposing power. Not we, then, but they are the authors of this war."(10)

In 1934, when fears of a new war were running rampant in the U.S. and the development of the "Rainbow War Plans" was underway, a committee of inquiry ("The Special Committee on Investigation of the Munitions Industry") under the chairmanship of Senator Gerald P. Nye began work in the U.S. Congress on the reasons for the entry into the war in 1917.

After a careful two-year investigation, the so-called Nye Committee was able to show convincingly that bankers and munitions industrialists, in addition to price-fixing, had exerted strong influence on U.S. foreign policy before and during the war, thus "tricking" the country into war.(11)

The net profits of some arms manufacturers showed exorbitant increases:

Net profits in comparison in %: 1911/1914 to 1915/1918

At Du Pont, net profits increased by almost 1000 percent during the war! Incidentally, in the 2008 U.S. election campaign, Morgan's name appeared among Obama's biggest donors - just behind Goldman Sachs and ahead of Citigroup.(12)

In 1935, the American artist Mabel Dwight created a monument to the profiteers of war and crises with her lithograph "The Merchants of Death".

"The merchants of death are tough and long-lived ... their sole interest is self-interest, their sole god is profit. ... As politicians, their interest is directed toward a strong ruling class and the pooling of privileges ... What they rarely realize, however, is that Death is their leader. He loves them because he knows that sooner or later they will line his pockets. He knows that they hatch wars and revolutions ... their stubbornness and their time-honored stupidity exceed any understandable measure. We are talking here about beings who are decidedly perceptive, yet incurably short-sighted. In this country, they hate the ideal of democracy, but they are happy with the loose reins and the freedom it gives them."(13)

Following the regime change orchestrated by the West in Kiev in February 2014, the demons of 1914 resurfaced in the fall of 2014: The strategy paper "TRADOC 525-3-1" Win in a Complex World 2020-2040" assigned the armed forces the task of eliminating the threat posed by Russia and China. It does not focus on direct conquest of individual states, but on a targeted dual strategy of destabilization and influence via nongovernmental organizations and intelligence agencies. In other words, first the creation of chaos, then the establishment of the desired structures. The four escalation stages of the destabilization script were already described in detail in the predecessor paper "525-5" of 1994 and can be illustrated by the example of Ukraine: Turmoil - Crisis - Conflict - War.
On December 4, the U.S. Congress passed H. Res. 758 by an overwhelming majority (only 10 votes against). On the same day, Congressional legend Ron Paul commented on it on his homepage with the article "Reckless Congress 'Declares War' on Russia."(14) He wrote:
"Today in the U.S. House of Representatives, in my opinion, one of the most evil pieces of legislation was passed. This resolution "strongly condemns the actions of the Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin as a policy of aggression against neighboring states aimed at political and economic dominance."(15) At the end of the long series of mostly unproven or questionable accusations come 22 demands designed to force Congress and the President to act. Among other things, the president is supposed to
- U.S. allies and partners in Europe and the other states of the  
  world to impose targeted sanctions against the Russian Federation
  and its leadership, as well as to demand the withdrawal of Russian troops and their
  equipment from Ukrainian territory,
- in coordination with Congress, assess the status
  and readiness of U.S. forces and the forces of the other NATO
  countries, as well as take seriously the kollektive defense obligation
  that arises from the mutual assistance clause (Article 5).

As was the case a hundred years ago, the main danger in the United States is seen in possible cooperation between Germany and Russia, a point made surprisingly clearly by George Friedman, founder and chairman of the leading private U.S. think tank STRATFOR, on February 4, 2015. The U.S. has no "relationship" with Europe, he said; there are only bilateral relations with individual states. "The main interest of U.S. foreign policy during the last century, during World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, has been the relationship between Germany and Russia.... For a century, the main goal for the United States has been to prevent the unique combination between German capital, German technology and Russian raw material resources, Russian labor."(16)

In 2017, participants at the Munich Security Conference (MSC) called for the accelerated transformation of the EU into a wartime alliance. According to a recent study by the MSC, management consultants McKinsey, and the elite Hertie School of Governance the European confederation should be able to carry out a "mission" comparable to the 2011 military operation against Libya at any time. It calls for drastic increases in the defense budgets of EU member states and investment in modern war equipment. The goal is to unify European defense standards and further expand government research funding. In June 2017, the U.S. Army War College stated in its one-year study that the world had entered a completely new phase of transformation in which U.S. power was waning, the world order was decaying and the authority of governments everywhere was crumbling. This now needed to be countered.
In early November 2017, NATO called for greater EU involvement in efforts to strengthen deterrence against Russia. Demands included better roads for tank transports. On December 11, 2017, the foreign and defense ministers of 25 European member states signed the
EU Defense Initiative for Permanent Structured Cooperation. An important component is the improvement of infrastructure for the redeployment of U.S. and NATO forces from Paris, Rotterdam, Bremerhaven and Hamburg toward Kiev. To prepare for a possible emergency, the EU then called for better roads, more stable bridges and more sustainable rail links at the end of March 2018.(17) As of February 2022, these infrastructure measures are now well underway.

The current reports give rise to fears that a war-like situation is already prevailing. Why war? Is it, as in all previous wars, about hard economic interests? Is Russia to be eliminated as an important energy supplier so that Germany then has to buy the dirty gas from the USA? Who would profit from a war in Europe? A few will increase wealth and power and millions will lose everything. Have we forgotten that stable relations between Germany and Russia also provided stability in Europe? Otto von Bismarck had internalized that. But today's transatlanticists in the German government seem to be primarily stooges of the U.S. financial lobby, approvingly accepting the widespread destruction of Europe.

Notes

1) https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/br24live-9-25-uhr-muenchner-sicherheitskonferenz-geht-zu-ende,SxuxbQr
2) https://www.gmx.net/magazine/politik/boris-johnson-fuerchtet-groessten-krieg-europa-1945-36622268
3) Daily Report 38/22 vom 18. Februar 2022: die Mikrophone und Kameras der „Special Monitoring Mission“ SMM haben den Einschlag der Geschosse im Kindergarten nicht registriert.
4) https://www.bild.de/video/clip/video/angriff-in-der-ost-ukraine-kindergarten-beschossen-79187400.bild.html
5) https://rp-online.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-usa-unterstellen-russland-false-flag-sabotage-plaene_aid-65324579
6) Die Pentagon-Papiere von 1971 und die Memoiren des damaligen US-Verteidigungsministers McNamara zeigen, dass die US-Regierung die Tonkin-Vorfälle bewusst falsch darstellte, um ihren seit 1963 geplanten direkten Kriegseintritt durchzusetzen. US-Staatssekretär George Ball gab später zu, dass die US-Schiffe im Golf von Tonkin einen Kriegsgrund provozieren sollten und dass die sofortigen „Vergeltungsschläge” seit Monaten vorbereitet waren.
7) https://dei-lenk.lu/2019/06/17/jeder-krieg-beginnt-mit-einer-luge/
8) https://www.bild.de/bild-plus/geld/mein-geld/politik-inland/stimmt-diese-boersen-regel-kaufen-wenn-die-kanonen-donnern-79208822,view=conversionToLogin.bild.html
9) Senator Norris Opposes U.S. Entry into the War. In: Congressional Record, 65th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. LV, pt. I, pp. 212-13
10) AZJ Nr. 15 vom 13. April 1917, S. 171
11) Report of the Special Committee on Investigation of the Munitions Industry (The Nye Report), U.S. Congress, Senate, 74th Congress, 2nd session, February 24, 1936,3-13.
12) https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
13) Mabel Dwight: A Catalogue Raisonné of the Lithograhs, Smithosonians Institution Press, 1997
14) http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/december/04/reckless-congress-declares-war-on-russia/
Ronald Ernest „Ron“ Paul (*1935) ist US-amerikanischer Arzt und Politiker, Mitglied der Republikanischen Partei und war zwischen 1976 und 2013 (mit Unterbrechungen) Abgeordneter im Repräsentantenhaus der Vereinigten Staaten. Er war bei der US-Präsidentschaftswahl 1988 Kandidat der Libertarian Party und Bewerber um die republikanische Kandidatur für die Präsidentschaftswahl 2008 und 2012.
15) https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/758/titles
16) Wolfgang Effenberger: Auszug aus Aus "Europas Verhängnis – Die Herren des Geldes greifen zur Weltmacht" unter http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=25000&css=print
17) https://www.idowa.de/inhalt.vorbereitung-fuer-moeglichen-ernstfall-eu-fordert-strassen-fuer-panzer-und-truppen.5d2e61d3-89f8-4873-b7be-ad065cd5c4b7.html

Willy Wimmer told RT he personally witnessed the West vowing that NATO
would not expand to the east

Despite their denials, Western leaders did make a promise to the USSR that NATO would not expand to Central and Eastern Europe when Moscow agreed to Germany’s reunification, Willy Wimmer, a former vice president of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), has claimed in an interview with RT on Saturday.

The veteran politician, who served as parliamentary secretary to Germany’s defense minister between 1985 and 1992, said that he personally witnessed this promise when he “sent Chancellor Helmut Kohl the statement on the Bundeswehr in NATO and NATO in Europe, which was completely incorporated into the treaties on reunification.”

Berlin’s decision at that time “not to station NATO troops on the territory of the former East Germany and to stop NATO near the Oder” was part of this promise, Wimmer added.

The bloc has long denied such a promise had ever been made, insisting it has always had an 'open door policy.' However, a document recently published by Germany’s Der Spiegel weekly purportedly shows that the pledge was made, supporting Moscow's claims the commitments were later broken.

The minutes of a March 6, 1991 meeting in Bonn between the political directors of the foreign ministries of the US, UK, France, and Germany on German reunification appear to show that the Western nations made it “clear” to the still-existing Soviet Union that NATO would not expand further to the east.

Wimmer believes that the promises made by the Western leaders in the early 1990s were eventually dashed by the US ambitions formulated in the infamous 1992 ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine’.

The ‘doctrine’ was in fact a Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–1999 fiscal years that was leaked to the New York Times at that time and sparked a wave of criticism even in the US itself. The document outlined the policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military actions designed to suppress potential threats and prevent any supposedly authoritarian states from becoming superpowers. The official text of the guidance was then changed following the uproar but many tenets of the ‘doctrine’ still found their way into the former US President George W. Bush’s foreign policy.

Since that time, the US and its allies have been on the “wrong track” as they have been virtually doing everything to create a fairly “justified” impression in Moscow that the Western nations seek to “kick Russia out of Europe, to build a new wall between the Baltic and the Black Sea” and eventually to “destroy” Russia instead of cooperating with it, Wimmer pointed out.

The root of all the current security problems in Europe lies within America’s policy of continuously antagonizing Russia, according to Wimmer. “All the misery we are dealing with started with the United States conducting the policy aimed at kicking Russia out of Europe for the last 20 or almost 30 years,” he said.

As long as the US continues to “do everything to achieve this goal” both through NATO and bilateral agreements, Europe’s security problems can hardly be resolved, Wimmer warned, adding that it was Washington that should fundamentally change its ways.

The former OSCE vice president also echoed Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, describing the present state of relations between Russia and the West as a conversation between “a mute” and a “deaf.” Moscow's top diplomat made similar remarks earlier in February following talks with British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss.

The US and its partners in Europe have been “certainly deaf” for decades since they “drew no conclusions” from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s landmark speech at the Munich Security Conference back in 2007, when he showed quite clearly “where the problems lie on the Euro-Asian continent,” Wimmer said.

At that time, the Russian leader warned that US unilateral hegemonism and “uncontained” use of force in international relations erode the global security system and weaken international law. It was also one of the first times he mentioned NATO’s promise to Russia not to expand to the east.

Source: www.rt.com

Wolfgang Effenberger

After his election as Federal President, Frank-Walter Steinmeier had nothing else to do than to assign the responsibility for the escalation in the Ukraine conflict to Russian President Vladimir Putin in clear words and even let himself be carried away to an appeal to Putin to "Loosen the noose around Ukraine's neck"(1). To great applause from the Federal Assembly, he advised Putin not to make the mistake of underestimating the strength of democracy - clarity, deterrence and determination.
With his Teutonic demeanor in his first speech as re-elected president, Steinmeier irresponsibly fueled the U.S.-Russian conflict.
The German Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung (NOZ) headlined on February 14 "The right president at the right time" and Ralf Schuler went even further in his BILD commentary "This announcement had a kick!" with his demand "This speech must be followed by action!"(2).
From a former SPD politician dyed in the transatlantic wool, such deeds are well within the realm of possibility.
Steinmeier was State Secretary in the Federal Chancellery and Commissioner for the Intelligence Services in 1998/1999. From 1999 to 2005, he was head of the Chancellor's Office under Schröder and foreign minister from 2005 to 2009 (Merkel Cabinet I). After losing as the SPD's candidate for chancellor in the 2009 election, he served as chairman of the SPD's parliamentary group in the Bundestag until 2013 and thus also became leader of the opposition. His second term as foreign minister lasted from 2013 to 2017 (Merkel Cabinet III), followed by election as German president at Merkel's suggestion. Steinmeier, in an exposed position, has supported all U.S. wars in violation of international law without contradiction and unfortunately seems to have forgotten that the reunification in 1990 was mainly due to Russia. In the so-called 2+4 Treaty of September 12, 1990, the Federal Republic then solemnly pledged "that only peace will emanate from German soil" and that "Germany will never use any of its weapons except in accordance with its Constitution and the Charter of the United Nations."

This promise has been broken three times so far – with each time Steinmeier being involved:
- 1999 in the air war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which violated international law,
- 2001, in the course of the attack on Afghanistan 27 days after 9/11, which was contrary to international law, and
- in 2003, when the Bundeswehr supported the "crime under international law" of the U.S. and its allies against Iraq and its people "with all its efforts" on the instructions of the then-acting Minister of Defense, Dr. Peter Struck (SPD)(3).

And in February 2014, we witnessed the orchestrated coup in Ukraine, which cost the U.S. five billion U.S. dollars. German Foreign Minister Steinmeier was also involved in the EU and NATO support of the US at that time. It was he who "persuaded" ousted President Yanukovych to "peacefully hand over power. The U.S. had "pre-planned everything that today has bone of contention potential in and around Ukraine." In March 2014, during his repeated visits to Kiev, Steinmeier again called the referendum a breach of international law.(4) Yet the Crimean residents, in accordance with international law, had only exercised their right to self-determination.

Ex-president Yanukovych became an enemy of the West when he refused to sign the association agreement with the EU. This, too, is only partly true. This treaty consists of two parts, the economic and the political-military part. Yanukovych was initially supposed to sign only the second part (close cooperation in foreign policy). With the Association Agreement, the EU is trying to bind neighboring states more closely to itself without opening up EU membership to them.(5) His successor, the oligarch Poroshenko, who is more favorable to the West, signed the political part in March 2014 and the economic part on June 27, 2014.
Since then, tensions have not abated and the West has done nothing to alleviate the situation of the suffering people of the two separatist republics of Lugansk and Donetsk. They are subjected to constant attacks by Ukrainian government forces, Blackwater mercenaries, and the right-wing Azov battalion(6), and their only hope rests with Russia. How long will Moscow be able to stand by and watch? Could a false-flag operation blamed on Russia trigger the strangulating sanctions here?
Meanwhile, a military escalation of the Ukraine conflict looms.
On October 13, 2021, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland met in Moscow with Putin's foreign policy advisor Yuri Ushakov and Dmitry Kozak, in charge of the Ukraine crisis and other CIS affairs.(7) What was the purpose of Nuland's visit to Moscow? She was Deputy Foreign Minister for European and Eurasian Affairs from 2013 to 2017, and thus in charge of the Ukraine crisis, and is considered a sworn enemy of Russia. The precipitous flight of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in August 2021 and the Kremlin's victory in the Duma elections in September 2021 may have reinforced the Biden administration's aggressive tendencies.

For Willy Wimmer, "Ukraine is only the vehicle for the implementation of purely American interests against Russia." Along with Ukraine, the EU is paying the price (Nuland "F... EU(8)). Victoria Nuland is said to have offered the Kremlin in October 2021: "Russia swings to the American line in return for billions of dollars in investment."(9) This does not seem to have gone down well, however, because just a few days later the CIA chief flew to meet with President Putin.
Since then, a threatened Russian invasion of Ukraine has been staged, leading to the highest tensions between Washington and Moscow since the Cold War. Under this pretext, the U.S. and NATO are sending more war materiel to Russia's border, while the government in Kiev is fighting the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics instead of seeking a peaceful solution - after all, they are the former countrymen.

On February 4, the opening day of the Winter Olympics, the U.S. military flew its reinforcements from Ramstein via Görlitz to Rzeszow-Jasionka in Poland, close to the Ukrainian border.  
At the same time, NATO's Neptune Strike 22 maneuver, involving more than 140 ships and 10,000 troops, was taking place in the Mediterranean.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin subsequently decided to leave the aircraft carrier "USS Harry Truman" in the Mediterranean to "reassure" Europeans in light of the conflict with Russia.
Above all, reconnaissance drones will be allowed to monitor the crisis area from the aircraft carrier. In addition, the ship could also move quickly into the Black Sea.
Any connection to the Ukraine crisis is denied, but interestingly, Neptune Strike 22 is not on a list of military exercises planned for 2022 published by NATO in December 2021.

On February 9, 2021, in a tumultuous parliamentary session, Slovak deputies voted in favor of a military agreement with the U.S.: Among other things, Slovakia will place the two military airports in Sliac and Kuchyna fully under the control of U.S. forces for the next ten years. In the end, 79 out of 140 parliamentarians present voted in favor of the so-called "Defence Cooperation Agreement" (DCA), while two-thirds of the population is against it, fearing the loss of sovereignty, the stationing of nuclear weapons on its own territory and the danger of being drawn into a possible armed conflict between neighboring Ukraine and Russia.(10)
For months, but especially since February 9, 2022, the frequency of Germany's rearward war hub has also increased.
On February 11, U.S. transport planes were spotted in the Görlitz area coming out of the U.S. Ramstein base and heading for Rzeszow in southeastern Poland, according to the flightradar24 website. A few days earlier, the U.S. had moved F-16 fighter jets to Łask, Poland.(11)
In Saxony, the population was informed that US Army military convoys were moving 500 vehicles towards Eastern Europe mainly at night for the "Saber Strike 2022" exercise. The military convoys are expected to return in the second half of March.(12)
Is anything major planned for early March? We don't know.
In this context, the sudden cancellation of the Inspector General of the German Armed Forces, General Eberhard Zorn, who had already agreed to be a speaker and guest of honor at this year's Salvator evening of the Oldenburg Traditionsgemeinschaft Jagdbombergeschwader 43 in early March, seems strange. The Salvatorabend, which has been taking place since 1965, is a permanent fixture in the interaction between the military and civil society in Oldenburg.
At the end of September 2020, Zorn had pointed out in an article in the FAZ that
Germany is the hub for all troop transports across the continent: "We participate significantly in the central deterrent instrument, the NATO spearhead, which we will lead again in 2023. Our Army brigades lead multinational formations in support of Lithuania. And our navy is active in all NATO task forces in the Mediterranean, North Sea and Baltic Sea. ... Our location in the middle of the European NATO area makes us a hub for allied troop movements and a rear area of operations, but also a potential target for attack. We are still within range of conventional and nuclear weapons."(13) After Zorn's cancellation, the entire leadership of the 1st Armored Division also withdrew its participation in the Salvator evening. As a result, the organizers canceled the evening. The Northwest newspaper then reported that the Corona pandemic would not permit such an event.(14)

On February 10, U.S. President Joe Biden called on American citizens in Ukraine to leave the country as soon as possible after invoking the threat of "world war" and warning that "things between the U.S. and Russia could quickly go crazy" and quickly get out of hand. (15)
Ron Paul, longtime congressman and former presidential candidate, warned as early as January 18, 2022, in his stirring article that Washington's bipartisan "Russia bashers" are determined to start a war. (16)

Today's "Russia bashers" are likely to emerge from the intellectual background of those who waged the war of mobile capital (North) against immobile capital (South) in the U.S. Civil War. At the very beginning of the Civil War, Lieutenant General Winfried Scott proposed a strategic approach involving blockade and devastation of the South to end the Civil War. This operation went down in history as the Anaconda Plan.
In 2016, Poland conducted a maneuver with the participation of the USA and NATO to defend against an attack from Russia. This maneuver was named Anaconda and aroused associations in Moscow.

Western howls of war are hung on the claim that Putin intends to invade Ukraine. Why should he do so? Former U.S. foreign intelligence officer and member of an association of former U.S. intelligence and intelligence exploitation professionals (VIP), Raymond Mcgovern, considers a Russian invasion of Ukraine about as likely as the much-heralded arrival of the ominous "Godot" in Beckett's play Waiting for Godot.(17)The former intelligence man thinks Putin is not so unwise as to provide(18) the U.S. with the pretext for sanctions and war.

Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Selenskyj expressed irritation at the alarming statements from Washington. " If you or anyone else have additional information about a 100 percent invasion on the 16th (of February), please give it to us,"(19) he said smugly.

Undoubtedly, there are forces in the US and UK that see war as the solution to their problems. These circles will not be opposed by the top of German politics - President Steinmeier, Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. On the contrary! They are beating the war drum in an irresponsible manner: a fatal situation for Germany and for peace in Europe.

 

BILD on Sunday, 13.2.2022, the day of the election of the Federal President

The war against Russia, which the USA has been striving for since 1945(20), is none of Germany's business, just as the wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria have been. It is always only about geopolitical interests and access to raw materials for US corporations. Everything else serves only the obfuscation!

A falling world empire is unpredictable. Today we are dealing with even more powerful interest groups than at the beginning of the 20th century, when the Rhodes-Milner group - respectively a small conspiratorial circle of British politicians - intrigued behind the backs of cabinet and parliament and took the unsuspecting members by surprise with destructive world conquest strategies.
In 1953, Thomas Mann addressed the Europeans with his fears: in American exile, he had recognized the inclination of the U.S. administration "to treat Europe as an economic colony, a military base, a glacis in the future atomic crusade against Russia, as a piece of the earth that may be antiquarian and worth traveling to, but whose complete ruin will be the devil's care when the struggle for world domination is on."(21)
The unpredictable policies of the Biden administration are now forcing Russia and China to strengthen their alliance.
In the joint statement at the start of the 2022 Winter Olympics, Presidents Xi Jin-ping and Vladimir Putin emphasized that "Russia and China oppose attempts by external forces to undermine security and stability in their bordering regions" and "the further expansion of NATO."(22)

Finally, it is worth recalling Willy Brandt, who in 1976 emphasized:
"Only an offensive for assured peace can guarantee the future of mankind."(23)
And for this, one would only need to invoke the Preamble of the United Nations:
"We, the peoples of the United Nations - are determined,
to save future generations from the scourge of war, which has twice in our lifetime brought untold suffering to mankind,
to reaffirm our faith in the fundamental rights of man, in the dignity and worth of the human person,
and for these purposes
to exercise forbearance and to live together in peace as good neighbors,
to join our forces to preserve international peace and security."(24)

Notes

1) https://web.de/magazine/politik/ukraine-krise/steinmeier-appelliert-putin-loesen-schlinge-hals-ukraine-36601742
2)file:///Users/wolfgang/Documents/Kommentar%20zur%20Steinmeier-Rede:%20Jetzt%20müssen%20Taten%20folgen!%20-%20Politik%20-%20Bild.de.webarchive
3)Merkel, Reinhard: Krieg. Was Amerika aufs Spiel setzt. Ein Präventivkrieg mag der Logik imperialer Macht entsprechen. Aber er untergräbt das Rechtsbewusstsein der Menschheit, in: Ambos, Kai/Arnold, Jörg (Hrsg.): Der Irak-Krieg und das Völkerrecht, Berlin 2004, S. 28
4)https://www.dw.com/de/steinmeier-stärkt-kiew-den-rücken/a-17514449
5)https://www.lpb-bw.de/ukraine-eu-nato
6)https://www.voltairenet.org/article215490.html
7) A war and peace visti to Moscow
https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/10/19/a-war-and-peace-visit-to-moscow/
8)https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article124612220/Fuck-the-EU-bringt-US-Diplomatin-in-Erklaerungsnot.html
9)https://parstoday.com/de/news/world-i65550-der_ukrainische_kreidekreis
10)https://kurier.at/politik/ausland/slowakei-stimmte-trotz-tumulte-in-parlament-fuer-militaerabkommen-mit-usa/401900296
11)https://www.saechsische.de/amis-ueber-goerlitz-5623145.html
12)https://www.saechsische.de/us-militaer-faehrt-durch-sachsen-5625281.html
13)https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/generalinspekteur-zorn-fuer-praesente-bundeswehr-im-alltag-16977307.html
14)https://www.nwzonline.de/plus-oldenburg-stadt/oldenburg-salvatorabend-erneut-abgesagt_a_51,6,36337546.html#
15) https://uncutnews.ch/biden-warnt-vor-weltkrieg-waehrend-truss-sagt-rostow-und-woronesch-seien-nicht-russisch/
16)https://original.antiwar.com/paul/2022/01/17/washingtons-bi-partisan-russia-bashers-are-determined-to-start-a-war/
17)https://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2022/01/21/godot-likely-to-arrive-before-russia-invades-ukraine/
18)https://twitter.com/raymcgovern/status/1466444326062497795
19)https://web.de/magazine/politik/ukraine-krise/krisengespraeche-ukraine-telefonate-putin-durchbruch-36600694
20)Oktober 1945 Plan TOTALITY (Atombomben auf 20 sowjetische Industriestädte), Dezember 1949 Kriegsplan DROPSHOT für das Jahr 1957 (vereitelt durch SPUTNIK), etc.
21)Thomas Mann: Deutsche Hörer! Europäische Hörer! Darmstadt 1986, Klappentext rück
22)“Russia & China Joint Statement on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development”, Voltaire Network, 4 February 2022.
23) Antrittsrede als Präsident der sozialistischen Internationale 1976
24) https://unric.org/de/charta/