The Third Patriotic War

May 07, 2022

Source

A St George’s Day Contribution by Batiushka

Introduction: War

I am not a technical-military man, but I have very strong military connections and a keen interest in military history, both Russian and Western, and also in geopolitics, having lectured on it. I lived in Soviet Russia in the 1970s, experienced its weaknesses, its strengths and also its hollowness, understanding that it would eventually fall, for even then nobody believed in Communism any more. All continued by inertia. Collapse was inevitable. I also know contemporary Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics and Moldova very well. In fact, I was in Kiev only last October, being shown the SBU/CIA Secret Police building in the centre and being told to hush my voice as we walked past. No-one wanted to visit the torture-chambers in the basement.

The special operation to free the Russian Donbass from Fascist oppression which began on 24 February 2022 meant a war between the Russian Federation and the Kiev regime, which under Western pressure would refuse to back down. This would inevitably mean a war between Russia and NATO, even if the actual battleground would still be limited to the Ukraine. I firmly believe that the Russian government knew all this and foresaw the consequences, that the West would intervene with all the economic, political, military and technological might of the US/NATO military complex. This knowledge was why the Donbass had had to wait for liberation for eight long and grim years. Russia had had to get ready for the inevitable very carefully.

The Preparation

Let us recall how Soviet Russia fell through treason, ending up dissolving itself on 25 December 1991. In October 1993, 4,000 US Marines (I know one of them) were flown to a base outside Moscow. This was just in case the popular rising against ‘democracy’ and the drunkard Western puppet and traitor Yeltsin went Russia’s way and against the neocons and their privatisers’ ‘shock therapy’. The repression of the October bid for freedom left 5,000 Russian dead. The US support had been there, though it did not have to be used, as there were enough Russian traitors to do the dirty deed themselves.

Russian weakness and internal treachery was why the Russian government betrayed Serbia in the 1990s and Libya in 2011 – it was far too weak to stand up to the West. After the Crimea democratically returned to Russia after 60 years (1954-2014) with the internationally-observed referendum in 2014, the West still applied illegal sanctions to Russia. Then Moscow knew that any action to free the Ukraine from the Western junta in Kiev would have to be prepared very carefully, for the sanctions would only be multiplied. What preparations had to be made?

Firstly, there was the diplomatic and trade front. Allies had to be brought onside, in Eurasia with China, Iran, India, Turkey (Russia rescuing Erdogan from the US assassination attempt at the last moment in July 2016), Hungary, then, from Venezuela to Brazil, Latin America and then, from Egypt to South Africa, Africa. As regards the Western world, especially the EU, there was a chance to present the Russian point of view through RT, as at that time Western censorship was not yet total.

Secondly, there was the modernisation of the Russian Armed Forces to be undertaken, with new, non-nuclear weapons, hypersonic missiles, drones, electronic technology, some of which would be tested out in Syria.

Thirdly, there was the policy of import substitution to be implemented in order to make Russia independent in case of further illegal Western sanctions.

Why Did It Start on 24 February 2022?

There were four triggers which sparked off the special operation on 24 February.

Firstly, the Zelensky regime wanted the Ukraine to become a NATO member. The weak post-Communist Russian Federation had already made that mistake many times, allowing Eastern Europe, notably the Baltics, Poland and Romania, to join that aggressive protection racket. In that way the post-War buffer states of Eastern Europe, providing a demilitarised zone for Russia, ended. After all, if you have been invaded from the West very regularly for 800 years, leaving 27 million of your citizens dead in the most recent invasion, would you not also want a demilitarised buffer zone to protect you? Post-War offensive NATO was the only reason why the defensive Warsaw Pact had to be set up.

Secondly, with missiles on American bases in Poland and Romania and NATO troops smugly parading at the Estonian border with Russia, the Ukraine then threatened to obtain nuclear arms. Did Zelensky, reading his American script as a true actor, really expect Russia not to react to this?

Thirdly, the US, not without the help of its local pronconsul, the cocaine-addled Hunter Biden, had set up some thirty biolabs in the Ukraine. Their target? To find genetically-concocted viruses to infect Russians. Would Russia not defend itself?

Fourthly, though possibly this may not have been discovered by Russia until a day or two after the special operation began, though possibly they knew perfectly well beforehand, the NATO-manipulated, instructed and armed Kiev Army had a plan to invade the Russian Donbass and genocide its people. Had they succeeded, it is doubtful they would have stopped at the Russian border. Truss, the supremely stupid British Foreign Secretary, let slip that NATO already had Russian Rostov and Voronezh in its sights.

After eight years of attempts to negotiate, which Russia used to buy time to prepare for the War in case of Western idiocy, it was only because there was no alternative that it sent in some troops in an initially limited military operation.

A Fight for Survival

This is now a war of attrition. Russia has to destroy all Western/NATO arms and troops that get into the Ukraine from Poland or elsewhere as soon as possible, quicker than they can be sent. And this must go on until the West caves in, because so much Western war material will have been destroyed at huge financial loss to itself.

Russia is also relying on the self-imposed economic problems that the West faces. The West, and not just the EU, is already suffering economically. There could easily be popular uprisings as a result of inflation and the incredible cost of energy. This will hit very hard next autumn and winter. And the embargos on Russian grain and fertilisers have not hit yet. Wait till food costs go up by 100% in Western countries, instead of just going up by 10% as now: then you will have rioting in the streets and looting of supermarkets. As for the Ukrainian currency, it is worthless, propped up by the IMF run by the US, which in 2014 stole the $15 billion of Ukrainian gold reserves in expectation. Otherwise, the Ukraine would long ago have defaulted.

The stakes are huge for all. China stands behind Russia because Russia is like a shield for it. If Russia falls, then China is next and it knows that, which is why it supports Russia. The White Peril will next head towards China, making the British-imposed mass suicide of the so-called ‘Opium Wars’ look like a picnic. There will be no taking back of Taiwan in the near future, instead there will be Harvard economists and merchant bankers taking power and grasping billions in Beijing, as in Russia after 1991. And then, amid civil wars, millions and millions of Chinese will take the path of suicide, exactly as happened in 1990s Russia. Make no mistake, this is a battle for survival of the world’s seven billion against the one billion.

This is why today Russia remains firm, with 80% of the population behind President Putin, unlike in the Western world where it is rare to find a leader who has more than 30% of support. Why? It is simple: President Putin loves his country, he is a patriot: Western leaders are not patriots, they are venal mercenaries, no more so than the US puppet governments in Eastern Europe. The only Russians against President Putin are the traitors, recruited by the CIA, and there are still quite a few in Moscow and elsewhere, but we will not here name names.

True, many of the fifth column of traitors in Moscow have already left or are leaving, Tel Aviv being a popular destination for them. For Russia this is not some localised conflict on its borders, as it still appears to most Western people, lulled into delusions by their Goebbels propaganda ministries (‘media’). For Russia this is just as much a fight for survival as World War Two. This is the Third Great Patriotic War. Let me explain.

For those who do not know, the 1812 invasion of Russia by Napoleon and his multinational barbarian hordes is known as the First Patriotic War. The 1941 invasion by Hitler and his multinational barbarian hordes is known as the Second Patriotic War. It is our view that just as the 1941-1945 defensive War was called the Second Patriotic War, the 2022- ? defensive War will be known as the Third Patriotic War. Warsaw and Bucharest, Berlin and Paris, pay attention.

When Did It All Begin?

When did it all begin? Actually, it was not on 24 February 2022. Some, grudgingly, will admit that it was the US-run regime change of 2014 with its $5 billion price-tag for the hapless US taxpayer. Grudgingly, some might admit that it goes back even further to November 1989, the Fall of the Wall. Some might suggest two generations before that, in September 1939, when Stalin took the poison-chalice of the western Ukraine, Galicia, from Poland and had to fight a CIA-supplied war there against Fascist partisans until 1958.

Some might suggest exactly 100 years ago in 1922, when the brain-syphilitic Lenin transferred from Russia the southern and eastern half of the present Ukraine to the Ukraine, as he wanted the pro-Communist industrial proletariat of the south and east to counterbalance the real Ukrainian agricultural north and west. But we could also go back to 1914, the invasion of the Russian Empire by Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey. This is exactly 100 years before the 2014 US-orchestrated colour-revolution in Kiev, with its Lithuanian snipers on the roof of the American Embassy in Kiev murdering Ukrainian policemen and then the US blaming ‘repression’ on the democratically-elected pro-Russian government.

Conclusion: A Fight to the End

Russia must win this War against NATO. However, the last thing Russia wants is a nuclear war, however much some fools in the West talk that up. And however tempting as targets the 1,000 or so US bases around the world may be, Russia certainly does not want the war to spread outside the current Ukrainian territory. If Russia does not win, the Russian Federation will be humiliated and dismantled and become just another group of colonies for Western asset-strippers and slavers. Then the British dream for its 1917 coup d’etat, turned into a nightmare because the stupid dream permitted Bolshevism to come to power, will become real.

After that, China will fall next and then the rest of the still free, if for the moment impoverished and exploited, world will fall just like dominos into neo-colonial Western hands. And that will be the end of the world under a US Global Dictatorship, euphemistically known as ‘the Unipolar World’. We are not ready for that. We prefer to fight. As President Putin has said, a world without Russia is not one we wish to live in. As we have said before, this is our ONLY chance to work towards a Union of Sovereign (NOT Soviet) Social (NOT Socialist) Republics and an Alliance of countries which favour Prosperity and Justice, not Poverty and Injustice.

Russian Orthodox St George’s Day 2022

Empire of Lies Eager to Receive Mr. Sarmat’s Business Card

April 29, 2022

Source

The only antidote to propaganda dementia is served by sparse voices of reason, which happen to be Russian, thus silenced and/or dismissed.

By Pepe Escobar, posted with the author’s permission and widely cross-posted

Especially since the onset of GWOT (Global War on Terror) at the start of the millennium, no one ever lost money betting against the toxic combo of hubris, arrogance and ignorance serially deployed by the Empire of Chaos and Lies.

What passes for “analysis” in the vast intellectual no-fly zone known as U.S. Think Tankland includes wishful thinking babble such as Beijing “believing” that Moscow would play a supporting role in the Chinese century just to see Russia, now, in the geopolitical driver’s seat.

This is a fitting example not only of outright Russophobic/Sinophobic paranoia about the emergence of peer competitors in Eurasia – the primeval Anglo-American nightmare – but also crass ignorance about the finer points of the complex Russia-China comprehensive strategic partnership.

As Operation Z methodically hits Phase 2, the Americans – with a vengeance – have also embarked on their symmetrical Phase 2, which de facto translates as an outright escalation towards Totalen Krieg, from shades of hybrid to incandescent, everything of course by proxy. Notorious Raytheon weapons peddler reconverted into Pentagon head, Lloyd Austin, gave away the game in Kiev:

“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”

So this is it: the Empire wants to annihilate Russia. Cue to War Inc.’s frenzy of limitless weapon cargos descending on Ukraine, the overwhelming majority on the road to be duly eviscerated by Russian precision strikes. The Americans are sharing intel 24/7 with Kiev not only on Donbass and Crimea but also Russian territory. Totalen Krieg proceeds in parallel to the engineered controlled demolition of the EU’s economy, with the European Commission merrily acting as a sort of P.R. arm of NATO.

Amidst the propaganda dementia cum acute cognitive dissonance overdrive across the whole NATOstan sphere, the only antidote is served by sparse voices of reason, which happen to be Russian, thus silenced and/or dismissed. The West ignores them at their own collective peril.

Patrushev goes Triple-X unplugged

Let’s start with President Putin’s speech to the Council of Legislators in St. Petersburg celebrating the Day of Russian Parliamentarism.

Putin demonstrated how a hardly new “geopolitical weapon” relying on “Russophobia and neo-Nazis”, coupled with efforts of “economic strangulation”, not only failed to smother Russia, but impregnated in the collective unconscious the feeling this an existential conflict: a “Second Great Patriotic War”.

With off the charts hysteria across the spectrum, a message for an Empire that still refuses to listen, and doesn’t even understand the meaning of “indivisibility of security”, had to be inevitable:

“I would like to emphasize once again that if someone intends to interfere in the events taking place from the outside and creates threats of a strategic nature unacceptable to Russia, they should know that our retaliatory strikes will be lightning fast. We have all the tools for this. Such as no one can boast of now. And we won’t brag. We will use them if necessary. And I want everyone to know about it – we have made all the decisions on this matter.”

Translation: non-stop provocations may lead Mr. Kinzhal, Mr. Zircon and Mr. Sarmat to be forced to present their business cards in select Western latitudes, even without an official invitation.

Arguably for the first time since the start of Operation Z, Putin made a distinction between military operations in Donbass and the rest of Ukraine. This directly relates to the integration in progress of Kherson, Zaporozhye and Kharkov, and implies the Russian Armed Forces will keep going and going, establishing sovereignty not only in the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics but also over Kherson, Zaporozhye, and further on down the road from the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea, all the way to establishing full control of Nikolaev and Odessa.

The formula is crystal clear: “Russia cannot allow the creation of anti-Russian territories around the country.”

Now let’s move to an extremely detailed interview by Secretary of the Security Council Nikolai Patrushev to Rossiyskaya Gazeta, where Patrushev sort of went triple-X unplugged.

The key take away may be here: “The collapse of the American-centric world is a reality in which one must live and build an optimal line of behavior.” Russia’s “optimal line of behavior” – much to the wrath of the universalist and unilateralist hegemon – features “sovereignty, cultural and spiritual identity and historical memory.”

Patrushev shows how “tragic scenarios of world crises, both in past years and today, are imposed by Washington in its desire to consolidate its hegemony, resisting the collapse of the unipolar world.” The U.S. goes no holds barred “to ensure that other centers of the multipolar world do not even dare to raise their heads, and our country not only dared, but publicly declared that it would not play by the imposed rules.”

Patrushev could not but stress how War Inc. is literally making a killing in Ukraine: “The American and European military-industrial complex is jubilant, because thanks to the crisis in Ukraine, it has no respite from order. It is not surprising that, unlike Russia, which is interested in the speedy completion of a special military operation and minimizing losses on all sides, the West is determined to delay it at least to the last Ukrainian.”

And that mirrors the psyche of American elites: “You are talking about a country whose elite is not able to appreciate other people’s lives. Americans are used to walking on scorched earth. Since World War II, entire cities have been razed to the ground by bombing, including nuclear bombing. They flooded the Vietnamese jungle with poison, bombed the Serbs with radioactive munitions, burned Iraqis alive with white phosphorus, helped terrorists poison Syrians with chlorine (…) As history shows, NATO has also never been a defensive alliance, only an offensive one.”

Previously, in an interview with the delightfully named The Great Game show on Russian TV, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had once again detailed how the Americans “no longer insist on the implementation of international law, but on respect for the ‘rules-based world order’. These ‘rules’ are not deciphered in any way. They say that now there are few rules. For us, they don’t exist at all. There is international law. We respect it, as does the UN Charter. The key provision, the main principle is the sovereign equality of states. The U.S. flagrantly violates its obligations under the UN Charter when it promotes its ‘rules’”.

Lavrov had to stress, once again, that the current incandescent situation may be compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis: “In those years, there was a channel of communication that both leaders trusted. Now there is no such channel. No one is trying to create it.”

The Empire of Lies, in its current state, does not do diplomacy.

The pace of the game in the new chessboard

In a subtle reference to the work of Sergei Glazyev, as the Minister in Charge of Integration and Macroeconomics of the Eurasia Economic Union explained in our recent interview, Patrushev hit the heart of the current geoeconomic game, with Russia now actively moving towards a gold standard: “Experts are working on a project proposed by the scientific community to create a two-circuit monetary and financial system. In particular, it is proposed to determine the value of the ruble, which should be secured by both gold and a group of goods that are currency values, to put the ruble exchange rate in line with real purchasing power parity.”

That was inevitable after the outright theft of over $300 billion in Russian foreign reserves. It may have taken a few days for Moscow to be fully certified it was facing Totalen Krieg. The corollary is that the collective West has lost any power to influence Russian decisions. The pace of the game in the new chessboard is being set by Russia.

Earlier in the week, in his meeting with the UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres, Putin went as far as stating that he’d be more than willing to negotiate – with only a few conditions: Ukrainian neutrality and autonomy status for Donbass. Yet now everyone knows it’s too late. For a Washington in Totalen Krieg mode negotiation is anathema – and that has been the case since the aftermath of the Russia-Ukraine meeting in Istanbul in late March.

So far, on Operation Z, the Russian Armed forces have used only 12% of its soldiers,10% of its fighter jets, 7% of its tanks, 5% of its missiles, and 4% of its artillery. The pain dial is set to go substantially up – and with the total liberation of Mariupol and the resolution one way or another of the Donbass cauldron there is nothing the hysteria/propaganda/weaponizing combo deployed by the collective West can do to alter facts on the ground.

That includes desperate gambits such as the one uncovered by SVR – Russian foreign intel, which very rarely makes mistakes. SVR found out that the Empire of Lies/War Inc. axis is pushing not only for a de facto Polish invasion to annex Western Ukraine, under the banner of “historical reunification”, but also for a joint Romanian/Ukrainian invasion of Moldova/Transnistria, with Romanian “peacekeepers” already piling up near the Moldova border.

Washington, as the SVR maintains, has been plotting the Polish gambit for over a month now. It would “lead from behind” (remember Libya?), “encouraging” a “group of countries” to occupy Western Ukraine.

So partition is already on the cards. Were that ever to materialize, it will be fascinating to bet on which locations Mr. Sarmat would be inclined to distribute his business card.

Serbs pressing on with pro-Russian stance

April 18, 2022

Source

By Kiyoshi Hatanaka

Serbian government’s recent vote in favor of ousting the Russian Federation from the UN Human Rights Council reverberated badly with the Serbian public, as did the regime’s servile vote in the General Assembly a few weeks ago to condemn Russia for its operation in Ukraine.

An estimated 20,000 Serbs poured into the streets of Belgrade, assembling symbolically in front of the monument to Czar Nicholas II in the center of the capital, to articulate their dissatisfaction with their country’s official position on these matters. The rally was organized around the slogan “Not in my name,” sending a clear message to the regime, as well as to the people and government of Russia, that in Serbia there is no popular support for any retreat from the country’s traditional solidarity for Russia. Take a look:

https://www.ruptly.tv/en/videos/20220415-040-Serbia-Pro-Russians-continue-rally-after-Belgrade-votes-to-remove-Moscow-from-UNHRC#

And:

The mass rally in Belgrade took place against the backdrop of an insolent anti-Russian tirade by Dragan Sormaz, a highly placed regime functionary and a vice-president of the ruling party. On his Twitter account, Sormaz posted the appalling call for five nuclear bombs to be dropped on Russia for each such bomb Russia hypothetically drops on Ukraine:

Since Sormaz is also considered to be a Western intelligence asset, his intemperate Tweet raises the question of whether he is in on plans to stage a nuclear false flag provocation in Ukraine, as has been the subject of intense rumors. In any event, it is inconceivable that Sormaz would have tweeted such an outrageously offensive statement without approval from the top echelons of the Serbian regime.

The concern of most ordinary Serbs is that Moscow might conflate the policies of their government with their own views on the conflict in the Ukraine. This is the second time in the last few weeks that they have taken to the streets to send a powerful message that when the Serbian government toes the Western line toward Russia, it is doing that in its own name and against the wishes of its people.

To drive the point home, at a press conference called by three leading Serbian academics on Monday April 17, a document rejecting anti-Russian policies signed by over 100 of the country’s top intellectuals and public figures will be made public.

Here is the Chinese view of the Belgrade rally in support of Russia:

Serbia Sitrep – The common man says NO

April 11, 2022

Source

Kiyoshi Hatanaka

Serbia is a country that, as even its President Alexander Vucic has publicly admitted, supports Russia in the Ukrainian conflict by an overwhelming majority of at least 80 %. That is very likely an underestimate. The people of that small Balkan nation feel intuitively that Russia has acted correctly and that it is their only international friend. They know their history and realize that at each critical juncture over the last two centuries Russia, whether imperial, Soviet, or the Russian Federation of today, is their only reliable ally. In August 1914, as Europe’s Germanic powers were plotting the invasion and demise of Serbia, after falsely accusing it of complicity in the Sarajevo assassination of Austria’s heir to the throne, Archduke Ferdinand, it was Russia alone among the great powers which in the global storm that was brewing unequivocally stood up for Serbia. Czar Nicholas II literally risked the stability of his empire (and as subsequently became clear, also his own and his family’s life) in order to oppose the assault on Serbia, which triggered World War I.

In World War II, Serbs remember the key role played by the Soviet Army in driving out Nazi occupiers after a brutal and murderous four-year occupation. During the troubled nineties of the last century, after the collapse and dismemberment of the Soviet Union Russia was too embroiled in recovering its own sovereignty to be able to do much for the Serbs. But Russia’s unwavering subsequent support for and insistence on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which marked the conclusion of the Kosovo conflict by defining Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia again made Russia a key guarantor of Serbia’s statehood and independence. Russia’s position on the Kosovo issue has effectively nullified Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence and ensured that Serbia’s claim to the province which was forcibly occupied as a result of NATO aggression in 1999 remains inviolable and valid from the standpoint of international law. The Serbian nation knows that and deeply appreciate it.

If we fast forward to current events, a sharp discrepancy has emerged between the sentiments of the Serbian people and the policies pursued by their government. The Serbian government appears increasingly to be playing a slimy double-faced game, guided primarily by its own political survival rather than concern for the country’s honor or desire to properly represent the overwhelming sentiment of its citizens in international forums.

That game, which is gradually aligning official Serbia with NATO and the Western powers which the Serbian people despise was recently played out in two landmark votes in the United Nations. On March 3, to the utter dismay of the Serbian public, the government voted in favor of a UN resolution proposed by leading Western countries to condemn the “Russian invasion of Ukraine.” Government spokesmen quickly pointed out that notwithstanding the questionable UN vote Serbia still had no intention of imposing sanctions on Russia, but the damage was done. Russia was nevertheless kind enough to exclude Serbia from the list of “unfriendly countries,” which it published soon after that.

Perhaps encouraged by Moscow’s leniency, on April 6 the Serbian government raised the stakes and continued to test Russia’s patience by casting another hostile vote, this time to suspend Russia from the UN Human Rights Council, again in response to the pressure of Western governments.

A member of the Russian UN delegation commented diplomatically on that occasion that he found the vote of “our Serbian friends” difficult to understand.

The Serbian government is taking the country on a dangerous path by giving in to Western pressure and blackmail. The first vote might have been explained away as a fluke, but the second vote against Russia cannot be described otherwise than as a slap in the face. The legitimate question that arises now that we can clearly see a hostile trend toward Russia emerging in the conduct of the Serbian government, is how far will these provocations go and what further acts unfriendly to Russia are bound to follow?

Qualified Serbian analysts are of the opinion that once the new Serbian post-election government is formed, a set of measures against Russia will inevitably be adopted on orders from the collective West. That may very well include joining Western “sanctions,” though it is not clear exactly in what form because trade with Russia on very favourable terms is a one-way street which benefits only Serbia. Russia is not likely to suffer much by being deprived of Serbian plums, apples, and other agricultural products, but the fragile Serbian economy certainly will.

On a more serious level, there is widespread speculation in political circles in Serbia that the government’s Western overseers will demand that Serbia demonstrate its solidarity with Western countries by also plundering Russian property on its territory. A prime target would be NIS, the mixed ownership energy company which ensures that Serbia receives from Russia the gas and oil it needs at an extraordinarily favourable price. Will Serbia shoot itself in the foot by disrupting its energy relationship with Russia, which is so vitally important to its people and its few remaining viable industries? That remains to be seen, but Germany, UK, and other Western countries have already done it to their own detriment, so something along the same lines can be expected also from the politically insecure and heavily blackmailed Serbian regime.

Official Serbia having recently set two important precedents which mark its subservience to the Western bloc and pliancy in the face of Western pressure, what is next? Obviously, the collective West’s “unfinished business” in Kosovo is still at the top of the agenda. For Kosovo’s secession to be recognized under international law, Serbia must give its consent and sign off on it. The government has been moving steadily in that direction for the last eight years, granting the secessionist regime one attribute of sovereignty after another, but so far stopping short of the ultimate step in fear of the popular reaction. It is stymied also by Russia’s thus far inflexible position as a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council that the only solution it would approve is the one that is within the framework of Resolution 1244, which mandates that Kosovo is part of Serbia. The question can therefore be legitimately put whether the regime is intentionally annoying Russia in the hope that it will be irritated enough to put Serbia on its list of unfriendly countries and drop its insistence on Resolution 1244, which is what effectively prevents the secessionist entity’s legalisation as a sovereign state separate from Serbia? Time will tell, but well-founded suspicions of foul play abound.

The other important issue on the agenda that must soon some up is Serbia’s membership in NATO. It is an issue that perforce will soon have to be put on the table in light of the collective West’s increasingly bellicose attitude toward Russia, which many interpret as deliberately leading in the direction of war. Assuming that war with Russia is being planned, absorbing Serbia into NATO would be a military and political necessity. Not, of course, in the sense that anyone at NATO headquarters seriously expect that Serbian soldiers would willingly shoot at Russians (even the World War II collaborationist regime flatly refused to send a single Serb to the Eastern front and the Germans could do nothing about it), but because, like Hitler when he was preparing Operation Barbarossa, NATO needs to at least neutralize its Balkan flank.

We should be alert therefore to the likelihood that pressure on the Serbian regime to join NATO will gain in momentum and intensity and will not encounter stiff official resistance. An indication of that is that NATO’s chief lobbyist in Belgrade, a woman who shamelessly asserted that depleted uranium remaining after the 1999 bombing was not only harmless but could even have certain health benefits, was recently rewarded for her 5th column activities by being appointed Serbia’s ambassador to Croatia.

It is important to bear in mind, nevertheless, that with the Serbian media being roughly evenly divided, on the one hand, between Western-owned outlets pushing the Empire of Lies version of events in Ukraine, and television and print outlets under the control of the duplicitous regime pushing a slightly watered-down version of the same party line, the Serbian public is largely shut off from reliable information about Ukraine and just about anything else.

In light of that, the spontaneously organized mass demonstrations in Belgrade and other major cities against the government’s March 3 vote condemning the “Russian invasion” are an important milestone. They indicate that the brainwashing process in Serbia at least is far from a resounding success. They are also a repudiation of NATO’s war plans and of the political betrayals of NATO’s local collaborators. Serbian mass protests are a message to the Russian government and the Russian people that Serbia stands with them and that the decisions of the ruling cabal in Belgrade are null and void.

On April 15 there will be another popular gathering in Belgrade, this time to denounce Serbia’s vote to suspend Russia from the UN Human Rights council. Yes, there are now copycat demonstrations in many Western European countries in support of Russia. But it bears pointing out that this time also, as on March 26 1941, when they poured into the streets to denounce their cowardly government’s signing of the Axis pact, the Serbs again are trailblazers in opposition to global tyranny.

Hitler and now the collective West after him correctly categorized Serbs as an incorrigibly troublesome element in the Balkans. May the Serbian people continue to live up to that glorious reputation.

This is the defiant poster that is circulating in Serbian social media these days:

Translation:

After Serbia’s shameful action against Russia in the United Nations, when it voted to expel Russia from the Human Rights Council, I say:

NOT IN MY NAME

That action does not reflect the position of the overwhelming majority of Serbia’s citizens.

Russia and Serbia are projected to become the Empire’s white colonies

April 03, 2022

Source

by Prof. Slobodan Antonić – (Translated by Joran Velikonja)

In this article I will present the various plans that Germany had with the Serbs and Russians after the expected victory in World War II. Why do I fall back to history? We frequently perceive Hitler and Nazism as an aberration in Western history. But Hitler was, in fact, just openly announcing that in Europe he will do what the West has already done elsewhere. As we’ll see, Hitler took the extermination of the Native Americans as a model for the colonization of Slavic lands, Russia in particular.

“It would be best if Serbia just disappeared from the map” —as attested by Hermann Neubacher, that opinion was prevalent within the German leadership in 1941 (see here, p. 89). But we find the same opinion in The Manchester Guardian (as The Guardian was formerly called), in August 1914: “If it were physically possible for Servia to be towed out to sea and sunk there, the air of Europe would at once seem cleaner” (herehere, p. 53).

Actually, the only difference between Hitler and the English was Hitler’s brutally proclaiming to do—and he had done as much as he could—what others in the West were doing slower and more subtly, the things they didn’t yet dare to undertake or weren’t able to accomplish.

* * *

Unlike the Kaiser, who wanted territorial expansion towards the Middle East and a redistribution of African and Asian colonies, Hitler’s primary goal was to colonize Slavic lands, from the Baltic to the Black Sea for starters and then onward to the Urals.

In Mein Kampf he writes that the Kaiser was mistaken in pushing Germany southwards. “When in today’s Europe we speak of new soil and land”, he wrote, “we primarily mean only Russia and the peripheral countries subservient to her. It appears that destiny itself wants to show us the way. […] The giant Empire in the East is ripe for its downfall.” (here; 44th unabridged German edition, p. 742-3; compare here, p. 118)

By the way, Hitler had adopted many concepts from the West. As J. Q. Whitman revealed in Hitlerʼs American Model (2017), race laws in the United States were the legal inspiration for the race laws in the Third Reich. In his book Hitler: The Definitive Biography (2014), John Toland showed how impressed Hitler had been with the system of Indian Reservations, the extermination of the indigenous peoples, the epidemics and starvation policies. According to Toland, when speaking to the German leaders, the Führer frequently “extolled the efficacy of the American extermination of the ‘red savages’ by starvation and in unequal combat” (here, p. 802).

“As a passionate reader of Karl May’s novels”, writes John Pool in his book Hitler and His Secret Partners (1997), “he would frequently refer to the Russians as redskins. He saw a parallel between his own efforts to occupy and colonize Russia and the conquest of the American West” (p. 272). He used to say that in the European East the Germans “had one single purpose: Germanization by peopling with Germans and treating the locals as redskins”. He even encouraged military officers to read Karl May and learn about all kinds of combat with the natives.

How did the Germans imagine their colonization of Russia and Eastern Europe?

The Generalplan Ost (1942) anticipated three types of agricultural estates to accomplish the colonization of Slavic lands between the Baltic and the Black Sea: individual (25-29 hectares; approx. 60-70 acres), intermediate (40-100 ha; approx. 100-250 acres) and large ones (250 ha; approx. 620 acres). The colonization was supposed to be carried out by some 6 to 12 million Germans, settled in areas from which 31 million Slavs would be banished across the Urals. The displacement would include 65 percent of Ukrainians and 75 percent of Belorusians, leaving behind 14 million Slavs, primarily as servants and unskilled workers (here).

The Plan foresaw an initial establishment of three settler colonies: in the Baltic (Memel-Narew Gebiet), in the Leningrad Oblast (Ingermannland) and in Crimea (Gotengau; see map here). Their foundation would have been Germanic farmers-warriors, living on family or collective estates, as in some form of a Military Frontier. Regional centers would have consisted of settler towns, 36 of them, numbering 20,000 inhabitants each, interconnected by a network of highways and railroad lines. The colonies were supposed to spread gradually, until they would merge into a unified whole.

The Slavs would have been exiled from their towns, whereas in the villages they would have been retained as farm hands. Slavic education wouldn’t have gone further than reading and writing (while also switching over to the Latin alphabet; here, p. 122). Hitler even thought that the Slavs should not be taught anything beyond the “knowledge of traffic signs, to be able to stay out of our way” (ibid.).

“Hitler liked to reiterate that the words Russia and Russian should be forbidden. Allowed are only Muscovy and Muscovites. After the victory of the Reich, the Muscovites will be simply driven onto their reservations, like the Indians in the USA” (here, p. 285).

* * *

What would have happened to Serbia?

In his book The German New Order and South-East Europe (in Serbian: Nemački novi poredak i Jugoistočna Evropa), Milan Ristović describes the plans for Serbia. Generally, there were two plans in existence.

According to the first one, submitted to the Ministry of External Affairs in July 1941, two million ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) from Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia were to be amassed in the Danubian German state Prinz Eugen Stadt. [or Staat?] It would have stood sentry over communications along the Danube and, akin to the Military Frontier, barring access to the Lebensraum from the south and east (here, pp. 101-106; 362-363).

Pursuant to that plan, the Serbs would have been exiled from Belgrade, Smederevo and other places along the Danube. The Plan stipulates that the “Serbs have to be driven away from the Danube and out of Belgrade in order to stress their political insignificance and to prevent any new plots against Germany, the order in the Balkans and in Europe — a frequent historical occurrence” (ibid., p. 106).

Belgrade was chosen as the heart of the German Danubian state, as the strategic center of the river basins of the Tisa, Drava, Sava and Morava. It was to become the “fortress of the Reich” in the borderland (Reichsfestung Belgrad), with the specific task of safeguarding two economic resources of key importance for Grossdeutschland: the Djerdap Gorge (Iron Gates) and the mining complex in Bor (ibid., pp. 105-106).

The Djerdap Gorge was essential for navigation control on the Danube and as the place where the Germans intended to build the largest hydropower plant in Europe.

On 25 September 1941 Hitler proudly proclaimed that now the Germans had finally returned to “places which already witnessed the breakthrough of the Germanic-German race: we were standing at the Iron Gates, we had been in Belgrade, we had entered the Russian space” (276). Two weeks later he speaks enthusiastically of the Danube as the “river course of the future” (der Zukunftsstrom). It will connect Germany, via the Black Sea, with the boundless granaries of her future colonies around the Dnieper and Don, then with the oil wells around Baku (the pipeline reached ports on the Black Sea), as well as with coal mines in the Donbas (276) [[1]].

Exhilarated by the conquests of Belarus and the Ukraine, Hitler then presents his vision of the future, in which the Danube is the main traffic artery of the Grossraum (the German economic space): “As big as it may become, the Danube-Main Canal cannot be built sufficiently large; of course, the Danube-Oder Canal should be added to it; thus, we will be getting an economic bloodstream of unheard-of proportions; Europe will be the land of unlimited possibilities” (276).

The Germans also worked out a plan (Grossprojekt “Eisernes Tor”) which anticipated the construction of a hydropower plant at the Iron Gates, “producing as much electricity as one half of all German power plants” (282). From the Iron Gates, electricity would have been transmitted to Graz and Vienna. Also foreseen was the “creation of one of the largest aluminum production facilities in Europe” due to the proximity of Romanian bauxite (Bihor Mountains) (ibid.). The Iron Gates Dam would be built by Russian prisoners and all construction was to be completed by 1947 (282-283).

The other key resource belonging to Serbia, was the Bor Mining Complex. It was the largest copper ore deposit in Europe, making Yugoslavia the top producer of copper on the continent in 1941 (here, p. 103). In 1943 the Germans were extracting up to 50,000 tonnes of ore per month (here, p. 354). Other Serbian ore resources, too, were of interest to the Greater Germanic Reich, such as lead mines (Trepča, Kopaonik, Avala, Ajvalija, Janjevo, Lece, Novo brdo i Rudnik) or antimony (40 % of European production: Krupanj, Zajača, Lisa and Bujanovac; here, p. 105).

So, all that had to be placed under control through the establishment of the Danubian German state, from which, as stated, the Serbs would have been displaced. Reichsminister Krosigk announced in 1942 the possibility of a new “Migration Period” (Völkerwanderung), with mass displacement—as he explicitly specified—of the Czechs, Poles and Serbs (here, p. 91).

* * *

But Hitler himself was not thrilled with the idea of a Prinz Eugen Stadt [or Staat?]. He planned to recruit the required six to twelve million German colonists of the European East by including those same two million Danube Swabians (111-113; 363). He did not, in fact, consider the area of the Danube basin in the Balkans as part of the German “living space” (Lebensraum), but rather as merely a piece of the Germanic “economic sphere” (Wirtschaftsraum; 172-173).

Hitler actually perceived the Balkans as a “junkyard of small states” (Kleinstaatgerümpel), which only the Germans can rearrange and civilize (50-51). After the Reichʼs victory those staes, too, would be placed into a special vassal relationship of stepwise arranged semi-sovereign and pseudo-sovereign statelets, as was planned in Berlin (ibid.).

Europe outside the Reich was regarded as the German Grossraum (larger habitat), which—after the victory—would see the establishment of a “hierarchy of peoples/nations” (Rangordnung der Völker/der Nationen). Even Italians were aware that within that order only the Germans would be at the top. As early as 13 October 1941 Mussolini was saying that Italy, too, would be reduced to a colony and might be forced to cede to the Reich parts of her territory, such as Trieste (334).

The Balkan peoples, deemed anyway poorly suitable for assimilation (nichtumvolkbar; 83), would be at the bottom of the European hierarchy, whereas the Serbs, as the “sworn enemies of order” (361), would find themselves on the bottom rung—provided, of course, that they were not re-educated in the meantime (362) [[2]].

That’s why the Serbs were treated as one of those peoples, along with the Russians and Poles, who “would have to remain under German dominion in the long run” (65). Unlike the vassal states, such as Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania or Bulgaria, which still had certain elements of independence, Serbia and Greece (the latter also perceived as a “problematic” country; 70), were occupied territories, where the administration was directly installed by the occupying power (360). Serbia was put under a particularly strict occupation regime (62,184 people were executed by firing squads; here, 116,264), while the Serbs across the border on the Drina were even worse off, having been mercilessly turned over to the Croatian genocide.

Still, even the “truncated Serbia” (Rumpfserbien; 285) probably would have become part of the European order in the end. But what would have been her fate?

The Germans didn’t really see the future European Völkerordnung as an order of states (Denken in Staaten), but rather as a system of commercial colonies (74-75; 161). The countries outside the Reich, especially those at the edge of the Grossraum, would be “advised” to “refrain” from developing their own “manufacturing of automobiles, electrical devices, locomotives, engines for transportation and industry, precision mechanics, chemicals, dyes…”, which would be under the exclusive authority of Germany. Others would have to stick to agriculture, mining and the coarsest processing of raw materials, “which do not require a particularly qualified workforce” (187). In order to absorb the agricultural labor surplus, industry would have to be developed in the Balkans, too, but it would be primarily linked with the exploitation of natural resources and only for the first phase of their processing (188).

As part of the de-industrialization idea, particularly with regard to the defense industry, 268 railway freight cars containing 4,488 pieces of machinery were hauled off to Germany from the Military Engineering Plant in Kragujevac, Serbia, in the course of 1941 alone! In March of 1943, 43 more freight cars were towed away, followed by another 37 in April. In the second half of 1943, 94 additional carriages with machinery were taken from Kragujevac, 96 freight cars with machinery from the Military Engineering Plant in Čačak, 88 freight cars from the factory in Obilić, 140 freight cars from the plant in Ravnjak close to Kruševac, 75 freight cars from the Military Engineering Plant in Lazarevac, 84 carriages from the “Vistad” factory, and so on. “This was the best organized looting of third-party property in recorded history” (here, p. 106).

The plan was to eliminate any competition to the Reich’s economy in all European vassal states, so as to ensure “absolute supremacy of German corporations” (here, p. 200). By way of example, the administration and use of the remaining industrial facilities in Serbia was handed over to the management of 29 major German companies with the entire production intended for the Reich, so that “almost nothing was left for the needs of Serbia and the Serbian public” (here, p. 108). Only the rail-road network enjoyed unlimited investment, but its primary role was to enable a more efficient exploitation of natural resources for the Grossdeutsches Reich (here, p. 188).

In addition to ores, large amounts of grain and lumber from Serbia were also hauled off to Grossdeutschland. As early as 19 June 1941 it was announced that farmers must cede for compulsory purchase all grain except 30 kilograms of wheat or 60 kilograms of corn per household member (here, p. 117). In 1942 Serbia was forced to deliver 320,000 tonnes of wheat, 600,000 tonnes of corn and 90,000 tonnes of oats, rye and barley (118). The “purchase” of all commodities was paid for with the money which Serbia had to remit as contribution for its own occupation (119-120), so that Germany was getting all goods from Serbia literally free of charge.

As a result of the export of lumber (but also due to insurgent activities), Serbia—although densely forested—was left with almost no firewood. In Belgrade they even contemplated “to log the Košutnjak park-forest and Mount Avala, in order to save the urban population from the approaching winter” (123).

But still, despite all that, it was assessed in Germany that, in fact, “the workforce from the South-East (of Europe) is the most valuable export commodity these countries can give us even now, but especially after the war” (here, p. 255). The Balkans was regarded as an “inexhaustible workforce pool” (257), able to provide to the Reich “more than three million workers”, of which number at least 1.5 million would be seasonal labor (up to ten months per year; 255). The war interfered with a more substantial export of manpower to the Reich and yet, from Serbia alone, 80,000 workers went (or were deported) to Germany (268).

Most interesting of all, this entire colonial order in Europe, designed for the unrestrained exploitation of markets, labor and natural resources, was supposed to be masked beneath the narrative of a “common European future” and a Europe “from Sweden to the Balkans” (352). In order to minimize the resistance of the vanquished peoples, it was recommended as early as 1940 to avoid the term “German large-area economy” (Grossraumwirtschaft) and to speak “always and only of Europe” (151). In the propaganda it was emphasized that “Germany does not seek to hold sway over countries”, the only ostensible goal being “an economically whole” Europe in which the peoples would “economically complement” each other (155). This “complementing” became reality after Germany tore down almost all intra-European (zwischeneuropäische) borders (288).

Hitler himself was actually a great European, except that he equated “European” with “pan-German” (31-32). The Germans, by the way, did not view the ongoing war in Europe as merely a war of conquest, but as a form of great economic restructuring. “This is not a war for throne and altar”, as Goebbels kept explaining (31 May 1942)—or rather it is not a war about who will govern over the peoples nor what their religion will be. According to the Reichsminister für Propaganda, this is “a war for raw materials” because we Germans “only want to cash in” (150).

It is clear that in such a system Serbia would have been but a marginal colony, no more than a German depot from which cheap labor, food and raw materials are taken as needed.

* * *

I am sure that the the above text was triggering parallels with contemporary circumstances in the reader’s mind, both in the geostrategic [[3][3] and economic sense. Russia got away (for the time being)—although the West hasn’t given up its pretensions to dismember her as a nation and subdue her as a culture (patterned after the Vatican’s current formula of “consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary”). But today’s Serbia is clearly not too far from the position assigned to her by the Nazi Plan B.

Change of mindset, limited sovereignty, deindustrialization, a readily available source of auxiliary labor, cheap raw materials, a pliant market, unprotected workers, unpaid work of the “natives” (with subsidies to foreign investors)… All those things are of current significance even today and I have written about it all in my texts: To Understand What We AreThe Colonial Establishment in SerbiaColonial PolyarchyThe Subservient IntelligentsiaSerbia — the “Territory” Grappled Over by Germany and Croatia

Now, I would add to this only an insight into the current wave of mass exodus to Germany. The Germans, as they say, currently need 1.4 million workers and our people are in demand because they easily integrate and assimilate. But don’t you have the feeling that in today’s Serbia there appears to exist some hidden Ministry of Emigration and Propaganda to Depart for Germany?

Not only that the National Employment Service recruits workers and sends them to that country, but “employers from Germany and their local agents openly canvass pre-graduation highschoolers right in their classrooms, all with the consent of the education authorities”. By the way, who’s to blame that Serbia has as many as 17 medical school graduates annually for every 100,000 inhabitants whereas poor Germany has only 11.

Another story is the open propaganda to emigrate, cultivated by, say, the daily Danas, in its column charmingly titled “Our People around the World”. It was already pointed out by Zoran Ćirjaković that this column had been “converted into a campaign for turning oneʼs back on Serbia”. The captions from the column speak for themselves: “Leaving Serbia wasnʼt easy, but it was essential”; “Despite all changes, life in Dubai is incomparably better than in Serbia”; “I miss Serbia, but Austria has offered me security”; “Itʼs not our fault, our system is rotten”; “We Serbs know how to get by and to gain respect”; “People from Serbia are accustomed to being more resourceful than ‘normal folks’”; “I bid adieu to this Serbia, but the love for the country still remains”…

“Along with the columns of numerous haters of this country”, notes Ćirjaković, “those shamefully spun testimonies of the escapees paint an image of Serbia as a repugnant, hopeless gas chamber in which no progress is possible”.

Thus the young migrant A. Kosanović, a political scientist, says that “a normal person canʼt bear the amount of horror and barbarism by the people who run things around Serbia” and that therefore “the average Serb has an extraordinary poverty of mind (?!), is in moral crisis and wracked by the tough life”. His colleague M. Pantić even argues that “in Serbia, everything has to be built from scratch (?!), thereʼs nary a meter of room to mend anything” (?!). And a similar campaign is spearheaded by Radio Free Europe (e.g. here).

Danas brags about being the Croatian ambassadorʼs favorite morning reading. Maybe thatʼs one of the reasons this paper will never raise questions such as: why two hundred Croatian companies are doing business in Serbia, whereas the number of Serbian ones in Croatia is — eight? And whether it is really necessary that our children learn from schoolbooks by Croatian publishers, eat Croatian meat products, indulge in Croatian confectioneries, drink Croatian water… — while the opposite, of course, is beyond imagination.

But Danas is surely the favorite paper of the German ambassador, too. On its pages, denkverbot is any topic that could awaken an ever so slight awareness of the colonial status in which Serbia finds itself, but even more so of the possible ways out of that situation (about some of which I have written here and here).

“The greatest success of (neo)colonialism is to convince people that it does not exist”. That’s why the first step towards emancipation is for us to understand the nature of the Atlanticist spirit, then to recognize the strategic interests of the West and to vow to ourselves, but also to each other, that we won’t allow them to be ousted from the Danube (so they could settle here some other, more suitable people); and no, we won’t allow to be treated, or to treat ourselves, as if we were — redskins.

Himmler had suggested, in his time, that the “Serbian people has grown out of rebellions over the centuries” and that with us one has to be forever on guard. Because no matter how defeated he may appear, “a Serb is always a Serb” (here, p. 90).

We only have to remain Serbs. Is that so much of a problem?

  1. [] In other respects, too, the Danube was the main transportation route for bulk cargo (Massengüter) — oil, lumber, grain and ores, not only because back then the traffic network was less well developed, but also on account of the much cheaper fluvial transport as compared to road and railway traffic (here, p. 277; 286). For instance, all the oil from Ploeşti (Romania), the main European oilfield at that time (278), was transported to the Reich upstream the Danube. That’s why Hitler was saying that “to safeguard navigation, the Iron Gates have to be placed under the umbrella of the Wehrmacht and stay under it in perpetuity” (283). 
  2. [] It is a fact that the Germans held Serbs in high regard as warriors and on that account were seeing them as a dangerous disturbance factor of their New Order. Hitler lamented that he tried to win over the Serbs “by promising them Thessalonica” and “demanding nothing of them”, only to burst out that “never before in his life was he as outraged as on March 27”, when it became obvious that “the Serbs were just a gang of conspirators” (89).“The Serbs, as eternal instigators of unrest, have to be cornered and suppressed as much as possible” was the dominant view in the upper echelons of the Reich, as attested by Neubacher (89). When in 1943 he suggested to Hitler to annex Montenegro to Serbia, the latter responded that the “Serbs (historically) have demonstrated their state-building power and far-reaching goals, all the way to the Aegean Sea”, and that “a people with such a political sense of mission” should not be allowed “to become dominant in the Balkans” (90). 
  3. [] “A glance at the map of today’s European Union reveals its striking resemblance with the farthest reach of the German military forces during the First and Second World Wars, especially on the Eastern Fronts. The fact that some Eastern Orthodox countries, such as Bulgaria and Romania, already are in the European Union, doesn’t mean that there is room for other Eastern Orthodox nations, too. Their accession into the EU signifies the fulfilment of the old German strategic goal of exerting control over the Balkans. One also shouldn’t forget that these two countries, Serbia’s neighbors, were German allies in WW II, and Bulgaria even in the Great War”. 

Quo Vadis Europa

March 31, 2022

Source

By Ljubisa Malenica

Thanks to the current conflict in Ukraine, all the masks of so-called “Western values” fell before the eyes of the world public in a very short time. On the theme of Russophobia itself, another full text in its own right can be written. It came to the surface of everyday life throughout the West rather fast. For now, it is enough to notice the haste with which chauvinism towards Russians began to manifest itself in Western countries. It would seem as if Russophobia had been practiced for years. If you spend your life listening how “exceptional” you are, the very logic of this argument leads to the conclusion that others are in one way or another beneath you, only average, and it should come as no surprise to see these outpourings of hatred towards those “average” who dared to bring into question the “exceptional” order.

The ongoing propaganda campaign, demonizing both Russia and Putin, is trying to convince the world and domestic audiences of Russian isolation. It is enough to look at the map of the countries that imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation, and this narrative of isolation falls apart. On the other hand, the same map clearly indicates that those who have introduced sanctions to Moscow are limited to collective West and its satellites. Unfortunately, the war in Ukraine has nothing to do with Ukraine. This is an indirect war of the United States against Russia and represents only the final phase of a long process that began at the time of the disappearance of the Soviet Union. Even in terms of combat itself, Russian troops are not engaging domestically envisioned Ukrainian strategy or tactics. As Scott Ritter[1] pointed out, Ukrainian army has been for eight years trained and equipped by NATO officers and instructors, up to NATO standards. Any unit of Ukrainian military is fully interchangeable within overall NATO battle order with any other unit from any other NATO member country, thus we are left with a silent fact that on the ground in Ukraine we have a war between Russian and NATO strategy, tactics and, to an extent, weapon systems.

During the Cold War, Europe was considered, for several understandable reasons, as the inevitable and most important battleground between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The sword of possible nuclear destruction hung constantly above it. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Fukuyama’s specter of the end of history was introduced into Europe as well. Unipolar moment of the United States swept over countries of Western Europe as well, which firmly believed that they also played a part in the disappearance of the USSR. Finally, the great war in which not a single shot was fired, came to an end. Moscow was defeated, then humiliated and rejected. These same European countries, which by the logic of things should have been the most concerned about increasing insecurity on European soil, watched apathetically as Washington dismantled the security architecture set up during the Cold War.

The mentioned security architecture was developed and set up with the aim of creating as many obstacles as possible on the path of rapid escalation towards the nuclear conflict between the then two nuclear superpowers, Soviet Union and the USA. European countries have benefited the most from these agreements and should have been the most interested in maintaining them. This unpacking of security agreements began during the Bush administration, when the then US president announced in 2002 that Washington would withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Agreement, which limited the number of defense systems that each of the two superpowers could deploy on its territory.[2] The next step was the United States withdrawal from the Mid-Range Nuclear Forces Agreement in 2019, [3] while the final move came also during Trump’s term, the withdrawal from the Open Skies Agreement[4] in 2020, which allowed signatory countries to monitor each other openly so as to reduce possible military tensions. Each of these moves further strained relations between Russia and the western powers while making it clear that the collective West was not interested in negotiations based on mutual understanding and reciprocity.

While all this was happening, Europe did nothing. No major European country has offered real resistance to NATO expansion. There was such resistance certainly, on part of individuals, but at the level of official policy, all European capitals of importance have unquestioningly followed Washington in further pushing the alliance’s positions to the east, towards Russia’s borders. This breakdown of Cold War security mechanisms was given little attention.

Even now that the war has engulfed Ukraine and nearly two million refugees[5] have arrived in Europe, European leaders have barely been able to resist US pressure to stop importing Russian gas and oil.[6] These two energy sources are of key importance for the European Union, which receives 25% of its oil and 40% of its gas from Moscow.[7] Imposing sanctions on the Russian Federation, which could retaliate with reciprocal measures, would be a disaster for European countries. Previous fall, much earlier than the Russian military operation in Ukraine began, representatives of German industry warned the political elite of the negative consequences that high energy prices will have on their operations.[8] In Germany alone, natural gas meets 50% of energy needs within chemical and pharmaceutical industries.[9] Each of the European countries is dependent on Russian energy and some countries are completely dependent on Russian gas. Given the quantities in question, and prices, all statements about some kind of replacement for Russian oil and gas with other energy sources in a short period of time cannot be taken seriously. Even the German Minister of Foreign Affairs, Annalena Baerbock, in a statement for the German Bildt pointed out that “we import a third of our oil from Russia. If imports were stopped immediately, the whole of Germany would stop the next day”.[10]

Weather it likes it or not, Europe is linked to Russia by energy ties, because only Moscow can provide the necessary quantities of energy to maintain the European industrial base, at sufficiently affordable prices. Of course, this was the situation until the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, after which both oil and gas reached record and historical prices. Even faced with this unquestionable reality, the European political elite did not hesitate to impose sanctions on Moscow or to arm Ukrainian forces and Nazis with modern anti-tank weapons. Only when the very survival of the European industry became questionable due to Washington’s intentions to completely stop importing Russian energy, did the European capitals decide to oppose it.[11]

When the conflict in Ukraine is viewed from the perspective of diplomatic and political activities, the European Union rarely appears. The heads of state, such as France and Germany, are somewhat more noticeable, but this is mostly sporadic and impotent action to which superficial attention is paid. Military operation in Ukraine exposed the reality. Just look at the main actors of the drama, the United States and Russia. Even China is more active in the issue of Ukraine as a sovereign political actor than the EU countries, which are almost completely overshadowed by the actions of the United States.

In addition to this humiliating political position, which is far from the recent chest thumping of French and German politicians about the need for more independent action on the world stage, renewed appearance of dark specters from the not-so-distant past might be more serious. The degree of Russophobia that could be seen in all Western countries immediately after the beginning of the Russian military action points to the fact that hatred toward the Russian people is covered by a thin layer of artificial civility. Russian athletes are banned from participating in competitions, Russian-owned restaurants are vandalized, Russian diplomatic missions are exposed to attacks, great works of Russian music and literature classics are rejected and removed, Russian products are discarded and even Russian cats are banned from exhibitions. In every way, there seem to be a push to punish and, in accordance with the popular Western culture of “cancellation”, reject everything that is Russian.

For the United States, with its fear of the Soviet Union in the 1950s and McCarthy’s witch hunts, Russophobia is somewhat understandable. Even during Trump’s tenure, James Clapper, the former director of the National Intelligence Service, made public chauvinistic claims that the Russians were “almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor.” [12] If we accept as a logical explanation that the American position arose on the basis of historical circumstances, then the question arises why identical situations are repeated within most European countries that have been in contact with Russia for much longer than Washington. Why do the nations and elites of given countries voluntarily participate in demonization of Russia if they are already forced by political circumstances to impose economic sanctions on Moscow?

One of the possible explanations is the Americanization of Western Europe, and with it, the transplantation of the ideology of “exceptionalism”. Of course, the countries of the European West will never be as “exceptional” as the United States, but imitating lifestyles and political, military and economic links give them a sense of superiority over others who do not belong to the same prestigious club. This sense of superiority serves as a screen to hide the disappearance and extinction of one’s own cultural and national identity and, accordingly, real sovereignty in foreign and domestic policy. Perhaps that is why French President Emanuel Macron once pointed out that “there is no such thing as French culture”.[13][14]

What exacerbates Europe’s subordination is the fact that the current American elite serves as a subject of ridicule both outside the United States and within it. We are all already familiar with the phrase “Let’s go Brandon” and know what message is actually sent by its use. Neither Secretary of State Blinken nor Vice President Kamala Harris are in a more enviable position. One of the most famous American journalists of today, certainly one of the most watched, Tucker Carlson regularly uses his show on Fox News to document and criticize, in a humorous way, all the incompetence of the American political class currently in power. Whether Joseph Biden is just someone’s puppet or a partially independent actor, his behavior is, to say the least, a humiliation for the United States. He is, by all accounts, incapable of performing the duty placed upon him. After the Russian intervention in Ukraine, the Western media filled the information space for days with questions about whether Vladimir Putin is crazy, incompetent, angry or emotionally unstable. By the way, did you notice how that narrative disappeared almost overnight? Every possible conceivable formulation of the question “is Putin crazy” had been tried, but in the case of Biden, no similar scrutiny could be found, not even in traces. That says plenty about the Western media, and nothing we did not know beforehand.

Being subordinate to such an American administration reflects the sad state of the European Union and European countries in general, especially those in the West. The fact that Serbia together with Bosnia and Herzegovina have not imposed sanctions on Russia or banned flights only makes the political picture of current Europe gloomier. The head of the foreign affairs of the European Union, Joseph Borell, points out that Brussels has reached the limit of its capabilities to impose sanctions on Russia[15] and anything more would seriously damage the Europeans themselves, who are already buying oil and gas at historically record prices. Only now, when possible retaliation towards the most sensitive sectors of European economy and industry is looming, does Europe decide to halt. The lives of Russians and Ukrainians in Ukraine are irrelevant, democracy, sovereignty, human rights, all that is irrelevant, just don’t touch the standard of living and the economic calculus. While the western part of the continent is doing well, everything else is irrelevant. One month into the conflict we can see sanctions have not worked so well for the EU countries. We seem to have made a full circle back to Russophobia and the fact that the current European elites have never seen Russia as part of Europe, which is a mistake in itself, and that the same elites would be happy to sanction Moscow into the ground rather than accept it as an equal interlocutor, if only there were none of that pesky geographical and economic connections and interdependencies.

Undoubtedly, there are those political forces in European countries that look at Russia much more positively. This is almost a characteristic of most opposition parties in Germany and France, but also elsewhere. Thanks to Viktor Orban, Hungary neither allows the transfer of weapons for the Kiev regime through its territory nor participates in the further arming of Ukrainians. In most Slavic countries, even those that are most Russophobic, such as Poland, there are political forces which, without sympathizing with the Russian Federation, understand that Russia exists as part of Europe and that this cannot be changed. Any security architecture in Europe, especially one created for the long run, cannot be imagined without Moscow’s constructive participation. Undoubtedly, there is a Europe that is primarily Europe and only then the West, but as we have witnessed trough out the years, this national and sovereignist Europe is in constant conflict, one which it is losing, with globalist and Atlanticist “Europe” which has very little in common with what is culturally, traditionally and historically Europe. This same Atlanticist Europe is now openly sending modern weapons to Ukrainian troops while imposing sanctions on Moscow, hoping for its defeat and weakening. If we assume the worst possible scenario, which is a complete Russian defeat, the fall of Vladimir Putin and the collapse of the Russian state, the consequences of such a traumatic event would not bypass Europe. Given that Russia has a population of 145 million, a possible wave of refugees alone would be a burden that EU could not cope with, not to mention other aspects of such an event. Warsaw and Krakow are already warning of the impossibility of accepting additional refugees from Ukraine, and are demanding help from the European Union and the UN.[16]

As far back as 2017 and 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin[17][18][19] warned of the existence of programs for the development of biological weapons in Ukraine, and of programs for collecting DNA material from Slavs in both Russia and Ukraine. The foreign media, especially the Western one, dismissed[20] all of this as another example of Putin’s madness. Those Western officials who addressed this issue unanimously rejected the claims as Russian propaganda. It was all a conspiracy theory[21] until the Russian military operation in Ukraine began. Among the first to notice something unusual was Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, [22] an independent journalist from Bulgaria. Namely, she pointed out that all data about eleven American biolaboratories[23] on the territory of Ukraine was deleted from the website of the American Embassy in Kiev. This went unnoticed until March 8, when, during her testimony to the Senate Committee, Deputy Secretary for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland openly acknowledged the existence of biological laboratories on the territory of Ukraine, certainly under supervision from the United States. When Senator Marco Rubio asked if Ukraine possessed chemical or biological weapons, Nuland replied that “Ukraine has biological research facilities, which in fact we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces maybe seeking to gain control of. We are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research material from falling into the hands of Russian troops should they approach”.[24] Thank you Vicky, that was more than clear enough. Immediately following this, US administration began damage control, stating the reasons for the existence of laboratories, such as reducing the risk of chemical and biological weapons leftover from the Soviet period, [25] and harmless study of diseases for the common good.[26] If we accept these explanations, a couple of very clear questions arise.

Given that Washington’s activities in Ukraine on this issue have been going on since 2005, it is logical to ask how much time is actually needed to remove or destroy the chemical and biological weapons of the former USSR. Is seventeen years not enough? On the other hand, if these research facilities are really doing harmless research for the benefit of mankind, then why is Victoria Nuland worried about the possibility of them being taken over by the Russians? The conclusion is quite simple, although there is a chance it is wrong. They are lying, both in regard to the purpose of laboratories and in regard to the nature of materials contained within them.

The most worrying part of the issue related to biological laboratories is the possibility that they conducted research on bioweapons that would target specific national groups, in this case it being Slavic population, Russians and Ukrainians. As we already pointed out, back in 2017, Vladimir Putin mentioned the existence of programs for collection of DNA samples from the Russian population. The US Department of Defense did not refute these allegations, but indirectly confirmed them. In a statement from the 59th Medical Wing of the Center for Advanced Molecular Detection, Captain Beau Downey said the center was conducting research “to identify various biomarkers associated with trauma…this needed two sets of samples and since the first set, containing the initial group of diseases had Russian origin, the control group should also be of Russian origin”.[27][28]

Now let the author, who is a laymen when it comes to microbiology and military, try to unpack this, with warning that the following train of thought could be completely wrong. So, a military medical institution within US is doing research connected to trauma. It is presumed trauma here refers to injury. Fair enough, after all, this type of activities would seem only logical for such an institution. Given we are talking about trauma, we should ask trauma of whom? Civilians or military personnel? There has to be more than enough civilian medical institutions dealing with issues of civilian injuries, so it would seem logical 59th Medical Wing of the Center for Advanced Molecular Detection deals with injuries suffered by soldiers. Again, this seems logical. Soldiers of which country? Logically, United States. Let us now contemplate who the soldiers of the US Army are. According to Pew research from 2017, 57% of military personnel were white,[29] while 43% belonged to other races, as defined by US census. US population, roughly 330 million people, encompasses around 3 million Russians, which is little bit less than 1% of total population. This leads us to conclude that overwhelming majority of white Americans serving in US army belong to German, Anglo-Saxon and other non-Slavic European nations. If our logic has been sound so far, it begs a question why the sample taken for this research was not more diverse in its origin? Why was it not more representative of the real genetical composition of US forces, as described above? If there is research being conducted with emphasis on identification of biomarkers associated with trauma, why focus your attention to rather minor part of your population, and accordingly, your military units? It seems a wasted effort or Captain Downey is obfuscating real intentions. It does pay to bear in mind this identification of trauma biomarkers might not be used solely for healing purposes, this could have offensive value as well. This is all conjecture, given real informations are scarce, however, to the author, a layman, it seems illogical to conduct a research of this type on a minor and, from US military point of view, irrelevant sample, if we are considering only trauma detection and injury remediation.

So for the purposes of their research, American military did indeed collect samples of the Russian genetic code. Igor Kirilov, head of CBRN defense for the Russian Army, points out that in the period from 2020 to 2021, under the auspices of studies with various pathogens, several thousand samples of patient serum (patients were of Slavic origin) were transferred from Ukraine to the United States. The final destination of these samples was the military Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in the US, the largest institution of its kind in the America.[30] Shortly after Victoria Nuland’s statement, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman called on Washington to present details of its military-biological activities to the public, stressing that the United States has 336 laboratories in 30 countries, 26 of which are in Ukraine.[31][32][33] At the same time, just a day after the Russian army began its operation, the official website of the American National Endowment for Democracy, the infamous NED, removed all documentation related to its activities on the territory of Ukraine.[34] We should not lose sight of the fact that NED, according to its own data, has been active in Ukraine since 1989.

After only ten days of Russian progress, we came to a situation where we had to accept, as a fact, that United States have funded laboratory work in Europe with some of the most dangerous pathogens known to man. The laboratory in Odessa[35] is classified as level three biosafety facility, out of four possible levels.[36] Level three biosafety enables work with anthrax and tuberculosis, among other things. It is also necessary to take into account that there is a significant possibility of European countries being acquainted with the entire program, which only further emphasizes the subordination of the European Union to American interests.

The possibility that other Slavic countries deliberately cooperated with Washington on this issue shows an extremely dangerous degree of frivolity, especially when we consider that one of the main characteristics of both viruses and bacteria is mutations aimed at facilitating their spread. It is not impossible to imagine that a virus artificially created to attack Russians after several mutations becomes dangerous for Poles or Czechs, given the common Slavic roots and similar characteristics of the genetic code in all Slavic peoples.

Finally, we will look at the economic consequences of current events, and they are best seen when looking at oil and natural gas prices on the world market. At the time of writing, a barrel of oil sells for $ 110, while a thousand cubic meters of natural gas costs $ 4,705. These are astronomical figures, figures that already have a visible negative impact on European industry. On March 10, the only state-owned steel plant in Germany, Lech-Stahlwerke, was forced to shut down its Bavarian plant due to high energy prices.[37] This factory produced a million tons of steel a year, and consumed as much energy as the city of 300,000 inhabitants.

According to a survey by the Federation of German Industries, high energy prices are jeopardizing the survival of a quarter of all German small and medium-sized enterprises.[38][39] According to available data, 23% of these companies see energy prices as a threat to their own survival, while 21% are considering moving plants abroad. It should be borne in mind that these are data just before the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, which logically leads to the conclusion that the current situation is much worse. This is of particular importance given that more than half of jobs in Germany are created by small and medium-sized enterprises.[40] These same companies generate 37% of the total annual turnover and make up almost 99% of all existing German companies.[41]

Unfortunately for Europe, Germany has been transformed through EU into the economic engine of the entire continent, and any instability within Germany itself can only have a negative impact on the rest of the countries, both inside and outside Europe. At the same time, the European Union is introducing a new package of sanctions against Russia, which includes a ban on export of luxury goods to the Russian Federation and the import of iron and steel from it.[42][43] Russia is one of the five largest exporters of iron and steel globally. Sanctioning Moscow in this regard can only lead to a further rise in metal prices. Russian authorities have already announced additional duties of 15% on the export of 340 products made of steel and other metals, which will be in force from August 1 to December 31 this year. Since we are talking about exports, this will also affect the increase in prices, and from this move, a profit of 160 billion rubles is expected.[44] According to data from 2019, the EU import of semi-finished steel products from Russia and Ukraine accounts for as much as 71% of imports in this category. In other categories of steel products, the Russian Federation, together with Ukraine, appears as one of the major trade partners of the European Union as well.[45]

Russia is also a leading exporter of cereals, especially wheat. Ukraine and the Russian Federation provide as much as a quarter of the world’s wheat export,[46] which is crucial for nutrition of a number of countries, including those in Europe. Given the current events, the chances are extremely low that Ukrainian farmers will sow their fields this year. Without sowing there can be no harvest. Food prices are expected to rise globally.[47] At the same time, Russia is the primary exporter of neon, nickel, copper and precious metals,[48] with neon and palladium standing out due to their key role in production of microchips.[49][50]

There is not even theoretical possibility that Western countries will remain unaffected by their own sanctions. Three weeks after start of the conflict, Washington has already been forced to send a diplomatic mission to Nicolas Maduro with the goal of convincing Venezuela to compensate for oil that Moscow delivered to the United States.[51] Not so long ago Maduro was a dictator and a drug dealer.

While the West is feverishly looking for new ways to sanction Russia for “violating international law”, economic and political processes worthy of attention are taking place on the other side of the Eurasian supercontinent. In early March, the Russian Federation and Pakistan signed a major trade agreement by which Islamabad agreed to import two million tons of wheat and natural gas from Russia.[52] Shortly afterwards, India and Russia decided to finalize a system of mutual trade that would take place in the national currencies of the two countries, thus bypassing the dollar. According to available data, edible oil and fertilizer are of key interest for New Delhi at the moment, but once established, this system can easily be used to trade in other goods as well.[53] At the same time, China and the Eurasian Economic Union are agreeing to create a common and independent international monetary and financial system based on the “new international currency”.[54] This new currency is supposed to take yuan as a reference base and its value would be calculated on the basis of the index of national currencies of the participating countries, as well as commodity prices.[55] In addition to all this, there are signs of negotiations between Saudi Arabia and China regarding possibility that Riyadh would accept the Chinese yuan instead of the dollar as a means of payment for oil bought by Beijing,[56] especially now that dedollarization has become an integral part of developing one’s own sovereignty. For the sake of the record, China buys 25% of total Saudi oil exports.

Despite warnings from major banks on Wall Street, Western sanctions included expulsion of Russian banks from the global SWIFT payment system, but this is proving to be another future problem for Western capitals. A Bloomberg article points out that “booting Russia from the critical global system — which handles 42 million messages a day and serves as a lifeline to some of the world’s biggest financial institutions — could backfire, sending inflation higher, pushing Russia closer to China and shielding financial transactions from scrutiny by the West. It might also encourage the development of a SWIFT alternative that could eventually damage the supremacy of the U.S. dollar.”[57]

This warning has already proven to be correct, considering that Moscow has connected its own system for international financial exchange not only with China, but also with India and all the countries that make up the EAEU. Russia’s System for Transfer of Financial Messages already links more than 400 banks.[58] If we take into account the previously emphasized importance of the Russian Federation as an exporter of several key raw materials, it is logical to expect a further increase in the number of institutions involved in the network. Given that India and China together have close to three billion inhabitants, their participation in this system is crucial and there is no real reason why these two countries would not join it.

Russia itself is already discussing the nationalization[59] of assets of foreign companies that left the country in protest over the conflict in Ukraine, while the director of the Center for Economic Research of the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements, Vasily Koltashov, advocates de facto confiscation of foreign technologies through a law on friendly and hostile states which would allow Russian Federation to cease recognizing US rights to patents.[60] Koltashov believes that “if a country turns out to be on the unfriendly list, then we can start copying its technologies in pharmaceuticals, industry, manufacturing, electronics, medicine. It can be anything – from simple details to chemical compositions.”[61] Western sources also warn of the dangers regarding sanctions in the technological sphere.[62]

Late last year, Iran and Russia finalized agreements to sign a major comprehensive co-operation agreement for a period of twenty years, which is likely to be similar to the agreement reached between Tehran and Beijing.[63] At the same time, on the very day the Russian operation in Ukraine began, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was in Moscow. During this visit, an agreement was reached on the construction of a large gas pipeline “North-South” which would transfer liquefied gas from the southern Pakistani port of Karachi to the northern part of the country.[64] The value of this project, which should be executed by Russian companies, is estimated at two billion dollars. In addition to cooperation with Asian countries, Moscow seems to be expanding cooperation with South American countries as well. During the meeting between Putin and Bolsenaro in February, the Brazilian president pointed out the high degree of interest in cooperation in the field of SMRs, that is, small modular nuclear reactors, especially their role in the development of Brazilian nuclear submarines, and expanding “dialogue on issues such as off-shore hydrocarbon production, hydrogen and nuclear energy…strengthening military cooperation and bilateral exchanges.”[65]

As we can see, a series of constructive moves that should strengthen mostly opponents and competitors of the United States. Meanwhile, in the clown world of EU, the Brussels is preparing to impose sanctions on Poland and Hungary for refusing to comply with European Union dictates regarding LGBT propaganda and other decadent Western “values.” Namely, on March 10, the European Parliament, by a large majority, passed a decision calling on the European Commission to start the procedure of withholding funds from those countries that “do not respect the rule of law”, with special emphasis on Warsaw and Budapest.[66][67]

This can only deepen the Union’s already existing agony, especially given the duration of this crisis, and the existence of several other simultaneous issues that are eroding internal cohesion and functioning. If the EC really implements this decision, question of Poland’s, and possibly Hungary’s, exit from the European Union, would inevitably become actual again. In line with European solidarity, which we could witness in action during the pandemic, Brussels also said it was grateful to states of the Western Balkan for backing EU sanctions against Russia, but noted that there were no plans for compensation funds to mitigate the damage these countries will suffer due to harmonization with the measures of the European Union.[68] Much ado about solidarity.

By all accounts, the European Union is entering a period of economic and political turmoil carried on a false wave of moral superiority over Russia and the Russian people. It is enough to look at the map of the Eurasian supercontinent to see the undoubted place of Europe itself in this great expanse. The whole series of events that led us to the conflict in Ukraine were a kind of test measuring the real independence of European Union, and now we can say that European countries have failed that test. More than fifteen years, since Vladimir Putin’s famous speech in Munich, have been wasted. Neither France nor Germany exerted the necessary pressure, and they were quite capable of doing so, upon Kiev to fulfill the Minsk agreements, all the while arming the Ukrainian army and training units that we can now openly say are nothing but modern versions of Nazi troops from eighty years ago. After their ancestors were classified as “subhumans” by the “Aryan overlords” from the Third Reich, it is sad to see one Slavic people embrace this disgusting ideology with the intention of using it against another Slavic nation.

By no means are all Ukrainians open to Nazism. In fact, it is probably true that a small minority has truly accepted this ideology. However, it is necessary to accept that the part which did embrace Hitler’s ideas did so with the tacit blessing of both United States and European Union. It is depressing to observe how Europe, a space with extremely long traditions of statehood, art, culture, with the richness of its own history and historical experience, becomes even more deeply dependent on Washington. We should not cultivate illusions, in war between Russia and Ukraine, the European Union seems to be the biggest loser. Russia will be hit by sanctions but it can always turn to Asia. Iran has been under US sanctions for decades and continues to function as a state, Cuba and North Korea as well. Given this, it is relatively safe to assume that Russia will likewise survive the sanctions and continue to exist. But what will Europe do? Europe which had a rather clear and obvious choice. Either the continuation of dependence on the Atlantic order or the building of one’s own capacities with the aim of forming one of the hubs of the new multipolar order and the development of Eurasian connectivity. Apparently, Europe has chosen its path, and it could eventually lead to its disappearance. It is enough to look at the overall European birth rates, combined with impact of neoliberal open borders policy, to have a clear picture a possible future in store for Europe.

Given that this article was originally published some ten days ago, it would be prudent to take a quick look at what happened while it was translated. Economy seems to be the area where most of the action is happening right now. Syrian ambassador to Moscow, Riad Hadadd, affirmed Damascus readiness to discuss mutual trade settlements with Russia in respective national currencies.[69] At the same time, Syria eastern neighbor, Iraq, shows intent on increasing cooperation with Russian Federation. Deputy speaker of Iraq legislative body, Shahwan Abdallah said as much during his meeting in Baghdad with Russian ambassador Elbrus Kutrashev.[70] Meanwhile, Russia and Venezuela are developing possibility to use Mir cards in this South American country.[71] Vladimir Putin’s announcement that hostile countries will have to pay for oil and gas in rubles caused shock among the western countries and provided significant boost to ruble recover.[72] Putin also pointed out that gold and bitcoin would be acceptable as well.[73] Despite protestations from European countries, Moscow announced possibility that other exports from the Russian Federation will have to be paid in rubles as well.[74] It would seem that on the 30th March 2022 all westward gas flow, that is from Russia to Germany, through Yamal gas pipeline declined to zero.[75]

Meanwhile, in the background to all of this, Russian Central Bank announced it will continue to buy gold at fixed price of 5.000 rubles for a gram, which was interpreted as a clear step towards creation of gold-backed ruble[76] and which should provide further basis for strengthening of the Russian currency.[77] At the moment of writing, ruble stands at 84,5 for a dollar, almost exactly the same as at the start of the military operation.

On the other side, “leader of the free world” Joe Biden caught with cue cards instructing him on how to answer previously prepared questions. Author believed this was a joke, but apparently it is not.[78] In a rather short time frame a lot of dirty secrets became public regarding Hunter Biden, most notable being his part in financing previously mentioned biolaboratories. After everything, even MSM had to buckle and admit laptop was real and its content rather damning. On 24th March India refused to receive a UK delegation, described as high-powered, after it apparently became known British were intending to pressure and lecture New Delhi on the issue of its position regarding Russian military operation.[79]

On the ground, military situation in terms of territory possession has not changed drastically due to the fact siege of Mariupol has been ongoing for roughly two weeks now and it would seem it is entering its final phase. Latest reports indicate Nazi elements and Ukrainian troops are in possession of ever shrinking urban territory with ammunition and other supplies being nearly depleted. In other areas, intensive Russian air raids and missile strikes were noted against military training grounds, ammo and fuel depots.

Earlier statement of war in Ukraine being about anything but Ukraine seems to be corroborated in general by the developments outside the bounds of the conflict itself. The bigger picture indicates recomposition of forces, especially in the light of recent Chinese, rather indicative, comments regarding Taiwan and Beijing cooperation with Russia. And in all of this, Europe remains divided, under economic and political strain which is only going to increase. Everything happening now could have been avoided, and yet EU and US administration did everything in their power to make this war happen. In their hubris they believed in the “exceptionality” of their position, but apparently forgot that every arrogance has its price.


  1. https://twitter.com/RealScottRitter 
  2. https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/12/13/u.s.-exit-from-anti-ballistic-missile-treaty-has-fueled-new-arms-race-pub-85977 
  3. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-09/news/us-completes-inf-treaty-withdrawal 
  4. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2020-12/news/us-completes-open-skies-treaty-withdrawal 
  5. https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-number-of-refugees-reaches-2-million-un-says/a-61048556 
  6. https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-rejects-calls-for-banning-russian-oil-and-gas/ 
  7. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/08/energy/gas-russia-europe/index.html#:~:text=The%20European%20Union%20depends%20on,President%20Vladimir%20Putin’s%20war%20effort
  8. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/gas-price-hike-may-hit-german-economy-production-cuts-media-reports 
  9. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/energy-crunch-effects-households-and-businesses-and-governments-reaction 
  10. https://www.rt.com/russia/551505-banning-russian-oil-will-grind/ 
  11. https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-putin-oil-gas/ 
  12. https://observer.com/2017/05/james-clapper-russia-xenophobia/ 
  13. http://europeanpost.co/macron-denies-the-existence-of-a-french-culture/ 
  14. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/macron-and-uprooting-france 
  15. https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2022/03/10/2680003/eu-has-reached-limit-of-its-capabilities-to-impose-financial-sanctions-on-russia-borrell-says 
  16. https://notesfrompoland.com/2022/03/11/we-cant-take-any-more-refugees-polish-cities-call-on-government-to-seek-eu-and-un-help/ 
  17. https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-biological-warfare-accusations-raise-eyebrows-lawsuit/28834069.html 
  18. https://www.opindia.com/2022/02/russia-ukraine-invasion-bioweapons-labs-patrushev-putin-wuhan-coronavirus/ 
  19. https://parstoday.com/en/news/world-i67050-us_military_says_collecting_russian_dna_for_research_purposes%E2%80%99 
  20. https://www.newsweek.com/russia-claim-ukraine-making-ethnic-specific-bioweapons-science-fiction-united-states-1687219 
  21. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2017/11/02/how-a-pentagon-research-project-convinced-vladimir-putin-of-a-coming-biowar/ 
  22. https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-admits-funding-biological-laboratories-ukraine-dilyana-gaytandzhieva/279904/ 
  23. https://twitter.com/dgaytandzhieva/status/1497556518278991873?s=20&t=bk7a7jpdDTLk5Zk3LaGAJg 
  24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y39veTO7kF4 
  25. https://www.bbc.com/news/60711705 
  26. https://www.opindia.com/2022/03/usa-admits-biolabs-in-ukraine-says-biological-attack-russias-fault/ 
  27. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2017/11/02/how-a-pentagon-research-project-convinced-vladimir-putin-of-a-coming-biowar/ 
  28. https://www.yjc.news/en/news/15083/us-military-says-collecting-russian-dna-for-%E2%80%98research-purposes%E2%80%99 
  29. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/10/the-changing-profile-of-the-u-s-military/#:~:text=In%202017%2C%2057%25%20of%20U.S.,grown%20steadily%20in%20recent%20decades
  30. https://www.wionews.com/world/found-30-biological-labs-in-ukraine-possibly-for-bioweapons-claim-russian-forces-460189 
  31. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCydUeHAhzQ 
  32. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-7Rg7Nt1Bo 
  33. https://www.opindia.com/2022/03/us-has-336-biolabs-in-30-countries-including-26-in-ukraine-alleges-china/ 
  34. https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/03/07/national-endowment-for-democracy-deletes-records-of-funding-projects-in-ukraine/ 
  35. https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20220311-us-funded-biolabs-in-ukraine-at-the-core-of-ongoing-propaganda-war 
  36. https://consteril.com/biosafety-levels-difference/ 
  37. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/steelmaker-lech-stahlwerke-halts-production-as-power-prices-soar 
  38. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/one-four-german-industry-companies-fear-existence-due-costly-energy-survey 
  39. https://bdi.eu/presse/#/artikel/news/strom-und-gaspreise-drohen-wirtschaft-zu-erdruecken/ 
  40. https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Publikationen/wirtschaftsmotor-mittelstand-zahlen-und-fakten-zu-den-deutschen-kmu.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 
  41. https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Dossier/sme-policy.html#:~:text=The%20success%20of%20German%20business,Approx
  42. https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/market-insights/videos/market-movers-asia/031422-russia-oil-espo-sokol-china-india-japan-korea-sanctions-bunker-marine-fuel-steel-wheat-indonesia-coal 
  43. https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/eu-unveils-fourth-set-sanctions-against-russia-2022-03-11/ 
  44. https://www.metalbulletin.com/Article/3996007/Russia-sets-export-duties-on-340-metal-products-[CORRECTED].html 
  45. https://legacy.trade.gov/steel/countries/pdfs/imports-eu.pdf 
  46. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/17/infographic-russia-ukraine-and-the-global-wheat-supply-interactive 
  47. https://oec.world/en/blog/post/affects-of-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-on-global-food-access 
  48. https://gpovanman.wordpress.com/2022/03/15/slamming-the-door-behind-them/ 
  49. https://theconversation.com/five-essential-commodities-that-will-be-hit-by-war-in-ukraine-177845 
  50. https://www.fierceelectronics.com/electronics/ukraine-war-could-hurt-supplies-neon-palladium-needed-chips 
  51. https://www.ft.com/content/503e557e-947c-4993-8016-69b2135f4432 
  52. https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/pakistan-signs-trade-deal-with-russia-amid-war-how-will-the-imf-react-122030400406_1.html 
  53. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-finalising-alternative-payment-system-to-carry-on-russia-trade-101647174800298.html 
  54. https://kapital.kz/finance/103768/yeaes-i-knr-razrabotayut-proyekt-mezhdunarodnoy-finsistemy.html 
  55. https://thecradle.co/Article/columns/7975 
  56. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202203/1255048.shtml 
  57. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-25/wall-street-counsels-washington-against-kicking-russia-off-swift 
  58. https://thecradle.co/Article/columns/7385 
  59. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/10/russia-plans-to-seize-assets-of-western-companies-exiting-country 
  60. https://www.opednews.com/articles/3/Follow-the-Money–How-Rus-by-Pepe-Escobar-Central-Banks_Chinese-President-Xi-Jinping_Follow-The-Money_Oil-Cost-Of—220301-583.html 
  61. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/03/us-russia-technology-dependence/ 
  62. https://www.russia-briefing.com/news/russia-and-iran-to-sign-20-year-cooperation-deal.html/ 
  63. https://www.ft.com/content/9294890a-593c-442b-bc53-13099d14d36f 
  64. https://brazilian.report/liveblog/2022/02/16/russia-nuclear-talks/ 
  65. https://notesfrompoland.com/2022/03/10/european-parliament-calls-on-eu-to-block-funds-for-rule-of-law-violators/ 
  66. https://hronograf.net/2022/03/10/eu-uvodi-sankcije-poljskoj-i-madjarskoj/ 
  67. https://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/502066/U-EU-ne-planiraju-pomoc-za-balkanske-zemlje-koje-su-podrzale-sankcije-Rusiji 
  68. https://etleboro.org/g/36df9eee5886b3135017a253f7500802en/ambassador-haddad-syria-is-ready-to-discuss-mutual-trade-settlements-with-russia-in-national-currency 
  69. https://tass.com/world/1429731?utm_source=google.com&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com 
  70. https://tass.com/economy/1425851?utm_source=google.com&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com 
  71. https://tass.com/economy/1429217 
  72. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/24/russia-might-take-bitcoin-as-payment-for-oil-and-gas-as-sanctions-rise.html 
  73. https://www.reuters.com/business/find-roubles-if-you-want-russian-oil-grain-or-metals-top-lawmaker-says-2022-03-30/ 
  74. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-gas-flows-europe-remain-steady-2022-03-30/ 
  75. https://tomluongo.me/2022/03/28/got-gold-rubles-russia-just-broke-the-back-of-the-west/ 
  76. https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-built-parallel-payments-system-that-escaped-western-sanctions-11648510735?mod=e2fb 
  77. https://news.yahoo.com/photos-biden-caught-using-cue-012506645.html?guccounter=1 
  78. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/mar/24/rift-over-ukraine-exposed-as-high-powered-uk-delegation-to-india-called-off 

صربيا رأس جبل الجليد الأوروبيّ

الجمعة 18 آذار 2022

ناصر قنديل

لا تزال بالنسبة للرئيس الروسي فلاديمير بوتين، حسرة تفكك الاتحاد السوفياتي كتعبير عن اللحظة السوداء التي تغير فيها وجه العالم نحو السطوة الأميركية المهينة، كمقدمة لمشروع إخضاع روسيا وتفكيكها، ولا يزال النظر لنهاية الحرب الباردة من طرف واحد هو روسيا يقابله اعلان استمرارها من الطرف المقابل وهو أميركا، سعياً لإذلال روسيا وتفتيتها، لكن كلمة السر في المقاربتين الروسية والأميركية لا تزال اسمها بلغراد، التي كانت عاصمة يوغوسلافيا قبل تفتيتها، وهي عاصمة صربيا اليوم.

ينظر الروس للحرب على بلادهم كمحاولة عنصرية لإضعاف وتشتيت السلافيين واجتثاث تأثيرهم في رسم المشهد الأوروبي، والسلاف أو الصقالبة هم أكبر مجموعة عرقية لغوية في أوروبا ينتشرون في روسيا وبيلاروسيا وأوكرانيا وبلغاريا وبولندا ومقدونيا، ويدين أغلبهم بالمسيحية الأرثوذكسية التابعة للكنيسة الروسية، ولذلك يعتبرون، وفي مقدّمتهم يعتبر الرئيس بوتين، أن حرب تقسيم وتدمير يوغوسلافيا في عام 1992، التي تأخذ اسمها من السلافية، كانت حرباً مدبّرة أعطيت طابعاً عرقياً ودفع بها لتتحول الى مدخل لفرض مشروع تفكيك وحدة يوغوسلافيا، وإخضاع صربيا التي بقيت اكبر تجمع سلافي بقي من يوغوسلافيا بعد تفكيكها، ويجري النظر لمساعي الحكم المؤيد للغرب في أوكرانيا بشق الكنيسة الأرثوذكسية، وتأسيس بديل للكنيسة الروسية من جهة، ولمحاصرة السلافيين ذوي الأصول الروسية في شرق وجنوب أوكرانيا، كترجمة للحلقة الثانية من الحرب.

يقرأ الأميركيون والروس في كتاب صربيا علامات النجاح والفشل، وقد يكون من المبكر الحديث عن تغيير وشيك في وضعية صربيا السياسية تجاه وقائع حرب أوكرانيا وتداعياتها، لكن النجاح الأميركي في ادارة الحرب سيترجم مزيداً من الالتحاق المهين لصربيا بالمركز الأوروبي سعياً لاتقاء المزيد من الخسائر، والنجاح الروسي في إدارة الحرب سيعني ظهور صوت صربيا أعلى فأعلى، في انتقاد السياسات الأوروبية، ورفض الالتحاق بركب التبعية الأوروبية لأميركا.

ما صدر عن وزارة الخارجية الصربية على لسان كبير مستشاري الوزارة والناطقين باسمها فلاديمير كلشليانين بداية الغيث السلافي في أوروبا لنصرة النهوض الروسي، فالقول “إن الغرب ومن خلال تصرفاته يساعد في تشكيل نظام عالمي جديد دون هيمنته”، وإن “​الناتو​ يعرف أنه لا يستطيع هزيمة ​روسيا​، وإن عالماً جديداً قد ظهر بالفعل، بقيادة روسيا والصين، وبداية من صربيا”، كذلك الإشارة إلى أن “النظام الجديد سيكون خاليًا من الفاشية والإرهاب و”الثورات الملونة” التي يدعمها الناتو بانتظام وبشكل دوريّ”، وأن “​أوكرانيا​ سقطت ضحية للناتو، تماماً مثل يوغوسلافيا. وبالنفاق  نفسه المتوقع الذي لا حدود له”، كلمات لا يمكن أن تمرّ دون تدقيق ودراسة وتحليل في كل من موسكو واشنطن.

من الآن وصاعداً ستتم مراقبة المشهد في قلب أوروبا، حيث صربيا على حدود رومانيا والمجر وبلغاريا، الدول المعنية بالحرب. ومن بين هذه الدول تقف المجر موقفاً متوازناً من الحرب ومن سياسات حلف الناتو ضد روسيا، وسيدفع موقف صربيا لبدء تشكل ثنائي أوروبي جديد، ومع تحوّل مشروع حياد أوكرانيا الى خيار وحيد للحل، سيفتح التفاوض حوله الطريق لدعوات تعميمه نحو دول أخرى، وكأن مساراً معاكساً لما شهدته أوروبا الشرقية بعد العام 1990 وتفكك الاتحاد السوفياتي، يوشك أن يبدأ، وليست صربيا فيه إلا رأس جبل الجليد.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

Rallies in Serbia in support of Russia

March 05, 2022

Rally in Support of Russia Takes Place in Serbia’s Belgrade

Source

© Sputnik / Фото Руслана Кривобока

BELGRADE (Sputnik) – The activists of several patriotic associations in the Serbian capital of Belgrade are holding a rally in support of Russia, a Sputnik correspondent reported on Friday.

The demonstrators gathered in the evening at the monument to Russia’s Nicholas II, across the street from the residence of Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic in Belgrade’s city center. Members of Obraz, a Serbian far-right political party, bikers from the motorcycle club Night Wolves Serbia, members of patriotic movements and numerous citizens joined the rally.

According to reports, the participants blocked the street of King Milan and unfurled a nearly 20-meter-long Russian tricolor flag. The demonstrators, with a total number exceeding 1,000 people, chanted “Russia, Serbia.”

The anthems of the two countries were played from loudspeakers installed at the monument. The rally is reported to be peaceful, without police interference.

Earlier on Monday, a group of Serbian nationalists held a rally in Montenegro to support Russia and its operation in Ukraine. Nearly 100 people participated in the demonstration in front of an Orthodox church in the central city of Niksic.

The Serbian authorities refused to object to Russia’s operation in Ukraine, with President Vucic saying that Belgrade would not back Western sanctions against Russia. He stressed that imposing sanctions against any state does not suit Serbia’s political and economic interests.

Vucic also claimed that there are no plans to alienate the property of Russian companies in the country amid rising sanctions pressure on Moscow and its economy……

Related Videos

Related News

US is repeating the same mistakes from Afghanistan

March 03, 2022

Source

by Batko Milacic

The United States invested $83 billion in arming the Afghan army. Having lost there, the Americans abandoned all their weapons and they fell into the hands of terrorists, criminal elements, drug dealers, which led to an acceleration of destabilization in the Central Asian region. That’s the price of “planting“ US democracy in Afghanistan.

Built and trained for two decades, Afghan security forces collapsed so quickly and completely — in some cases without a shot fired — that the ultimate beneficiary of the American investment turned out to be the Taliban. They grabbed not only political power but also U.S.-supplied firepower — guns, ammunition, helicopters and more.

The Taliban captured an array of modern military equipment when they overran Afghan forces who failed to defend its territory. Bigger gains followed, including combat aircraft, when the Taliban rolled up provincial capitals and military bases with stunning speed.

Taliban’s accumulation of U.S.-supplied Afghan equipment was enormous. The reversal is an embarrassing consequence of misjudging the viability of Afghan government forces — by the U.S. military as well as intelligence agencies — which in some cases chose to surrender their vehicles and weapons rather than fight.

The U.S. failure to produce a sustainable Afghan army and police force, and the reasons for their collapse, will be studied for years by military analysts. The basic dimensions, however, are clear and are not unlike what happened in Iraq. The forces turned out to be hollow, equipped with superior arms but largely missing the crucial ingredient of combat motivation.

The principle of war stands — moral factors dominate material factors. Morale, discipline, leadership, unit cohesion are more decisive than numbers of forces and equipment. This was shown by the war in Kosovo, where the Serbian army, even if technologically incomparably weaker than NATO, led NATO to give up the original plan.

In Afganistan , Americans provided materiel, but only Afghans could provide the intangible moral factors.

Taliban insurgents, with smaller numbers, less sophisticated weaponry and no air power, proved a superior force. U.S. intelligence agencies largely underestimated the scope of that superiority, and even after President Joe Biden announced in April he was withdrawing all U.S. troops, the intelligence agencies did not foresee a Taliban final offensive that would succeed so spectacularly.

Some elements of the Afghan army did fight hard, including commandos whose heroic efforts are yet to be fully documented. But as a whole the security forces created by the United States and its NATO allies amounted to a “house of cards” whose collapse was driven as much by failures of U.S. civilian leaders as their military partners.

The Afghan force-building exercise was so completely dependent on American largesse that the Pentagon even paid the Afghan troops’ salaries. Too often that money, and untold amounts of fuel, were siphoned off by corrupt officers and government overseers who cooked the books, creating “ghost soldiers” to keep the misspent dollars coming.

Of the approximately $145 billion the U.S. government spent trying to rebuild Afghanistan, about $83 billion went to developing and sustaining its army and police forces, according to the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, a congressionally created watchdog that has tracked the war since 2008. The $145 billion is in addition to $837 billion the United States spent fighting the war, which began with an invasion in October 2001.

The $83 billion invested in Afghan forces over 20 years is nearly double last year’s budget for the entire U.S. Marine Corps and is slightly more than what Washington budgeted last year for food stamp assistance for about 40 million Americans.

And despite all these catastrophic mistakes, Americans are repeating the same story in Europe. The United States pumped Ukraine with weapons and pushed it into war with Russia. In addition, the Kyiv regime, in the throes of its defeat, distributed more than 240,000 small arms into the hands of prison-released gangsters and fanatical mentally ill nationalists. In the near future, Russian troops will defeat the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and at the same time they will squeeze out armed radicals from Ukraine, who will end up in Europe and significantly change the crime situation there, plunge calm European cities into chaos. As always, only Washington, which does not need a calm and well-fed Europe, will win.

Djoković Pays the Price for Not Being a Ball Player

January 28, 2022

By Stephen Karganovic

Source

No pun intended, really. On one level, Serbian tennis player Novak Djoković certainly was prevented unwillingly from playing ball in the Australian Open. But on another, deeper and archetypal level, it was he as a sovereign individual who refused to “play ball” with the movers and shakers of this world. The savage treatment he got was punishment for the choice he deliberately made.

Moving beyond Australian visa technicalities that were thoroughly ventilated in court and ultimately adjudicated to Djoković’s detriment, the core moral issue has got to do not with bureaucratic paperwork but a matter of vastly greater significance. It is an individual’s exemplary defiance of an oppressive system which illegitimately claims unrestrained global reach. It is in that context that the Djoković affair has erupted and his behaviour makes sense.

All that was required of Djoković in order to be able to play tennis without hindrance in the Dominion of Australia was to sacrifice his principles, privacy, and freedom of choice in a very intimate matter, and to opportunistically set aside his convictions. As an archetypal Serb (though far from being in that regard truly representative of the critical mass of his contemporary fellow Serbs) Djoković, on the contrary, just shrugged his shoulders and pronounced a historic “No” which has literally reverberated around the world. But as we know from Edmund Burke, a nation is the fusion of past, present, and future generations. A nation is an entity larger and more inclusive than any single contemporary generation, no matter how heroic or spineless it might happen to be.

It is only in that larger, trans-generational framework, crossing time, space, and successive historical eras, that Novak Djoković’s conduct in the face of Australian chicanery can be properly understood. The essence of his reaction was a refusal to bend. Even as what for him must have been the juiciest of carrots – the possibility of winning another Grand Slam and thus reaching the absolute pinnacle of tennis glory – was not being waived, but literally shoved in his face, the only condition being that he publically comply and accept the jab which he reasonably distrusts, Djoković calmly stood his ground. Yes, he has dabbled in all sorts of awkward things and Serbian churchmen, archimandrite Nikodim Bogosavljevic and Bishop Maksim, have rightly pointed out that Djoković has hardly been an exemplary role model for Orthodox believers, notwithstanding his amply demonstrated respect and support for the Church. But when push came to shove, and Australia pettily deprived him of the opportunity to play his sport on its territory and expelled him under circumstances it foolishly assumed would humiliate him, instead of handing a crushing blow the down-under nastiness just awakened the primal Serb within him. Instead of retreating to a confidential location to sulk, Djoković was happy to fly to Belgrade, to mingle with his people, and the first thing he did was to attend liturgy in the historic Ružica church, after which he flew to his native Montenegro to pray at the renowned Ostrog monastery.

The Djoković saga has reverberated not just with the Serbian public, as should have been expected; it touched also numerous nerves, both defiant and servile, world-wide. Support for the Serbian tennis player has been pouring in from all directions, just as the equally passionate contempt and even hatred aimed at him by zombified Corona cultists, demonstrating once again the correctness of the old adage that misery loves company.

But if Serbian company is what they were hoping for, partisans of Covid misery have been left sorely disappointed. It is with Serbs in mind that Israel-Shamir exclaimed in July 2020 that “the relentless advance of coronavirus terror has been broken … by recalcitrant Serbs. After two days of street battles with dozens of policemen hospitalised, the sturdy protesters won; the authorities surrendered and gave up their plans to lock Belgrade down.” That surrender has still not been reversed.

As Shamir must certainly have known, these acts of defiance, springing up when least expected and most annoying, Djoković’s “No” to Australia being just the latest example, are an inherent feature of Serbian culture and mentality. Countless examples could be cited but just three will suffice. In March 1941, when a cowardly government signed on to the Axis alliance, Serbs poured into the streets expressing an unequivocal mass preference for “being in the grave rather than a slave.” The following day, the army staged a coup leading to a confrontation with Nazi Germany which literally cost hundreds of thousands of Serbian lives. While the anti-Axis commotion in the wake of the coup was still on and before the Nazi invasion on April 6, 1941, a lone individual, retired municipal official from Paraćin by the name of Svetolik Dragačevac, sent off a scathing letter to Berlin, addressed to Adolph Hitler personally, to denounce his bloody tyranny.

The German translation of the letter, from Nazi files, follows:

Meticulous Germans archived the offending letter and did not forget Dragačevac after they occupied Yugoslavia. He was soon thereafter hunted down and sent to Mauthausen concentration camp, where he perished in 1942.

The same spirit of disobedience was again ignited in 1999, at the time of NATO aggression.

In today’s largely compliant world Novak Djoković stands out as an anomaly. But on his home turf, in Serbia, he is an easily recognisable symbol of his nation’s historic soul, although one wishes that many more Serbs today would actively emulate his example rather than merely cheering it.

The Other Side of the Story: Russia’s view on Geopolitics, War and Energy Racketeering

January 21, 2022

by Nash Landesman

The following is an exclusive interview with Russian Duma deputy, Yevgeny Fyodorov, a high-ranking conservative, nationalistic lawmaker in President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia Party. He has been Chairman of the Committee on Economic Policy of the State Duma and a member of the Advisory Council of the President of the Russian Federation. Below we discuss war with Ukraine, principles of sovereignty and geopolitics, the ongoing energy battle, the nuclear option, and the reestablishment of the Soviet sphere, all within the context of US ambition and Russian counter-strategy.

INTRO:

Atop the unipolar priority list lies the looming Russian “threat” of providing European consumers with affordable, dependable heating and cooking gas at stable long-term contract terms amidst the dead of winter. Only America and its’ “allies”/ [subordinates/collaborators] can halt this menace by supplanting cheap Russian gas piped from relatively short distances with much more expensive, technically-complex US liquid natural gas shipped from across the Atlantic, capitalizing on America’s shale revolution while stamping out Russian influence in Europe—killing two birds with one stone. (Although at least twenty-nine multibillion dollar regasification intake terminals have been built across Europe under US pressure to import its supplies, a new Russian pipeline threatens to render them sunk costs).

The Russian pipeline would “pose an existential threat to European energy security,” states one US sanctions bill, implying that the very notion of energy security outside of US/EU auspices is the threat itself. Washington is trying to block this development, using various means that now include the threat of war under any pretext.

Since Soviet times as much as 80% of Europe’s Russian gas imports traversed Ukraine— but lately those flows have since slowed to a trickle, due to Washington’s eight-year proxy war in Donbas, NATO expansion, Kiev’s tendency to syphon Russian gas and not pay its bills, and other factors. It is little wonder Moscow is scrambling to establish alternate routes avoiding third-party generated instability.

This year European gas prices rocketed to record highs, adding fuel to Russian ambitions to circumvent its’ now-hostile neighbor with its’ latest project, the recently- completed $11 billion natural gas pipeline, Nordstream 2, running under the Baltic sea direct to Germany, crucially evading land transit states subject to external control.

Nordstream 2 could be a major geopolitical boon to both Russia and Germany, helping the latter achieve the energy independence it would need to take steps to chart an independent course and/or remove US occupation troops from its territory, still present under the NATO umbrella since WWII.

Despite the pipeline’s recent completion, the European Commission has delayed (indefinitely) the certification required in order for Russia to start pumping gas. Whether Moscow will go ahead and do it anyway remains up in the air.

What is clear is that US counter-strategy is a patchwork of threats, hysterics and racketeering. As Richard Morningstar, former US diplomat and founding director of the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Centre, bluntly put it, “I think Nord Stream 2 is really a bad idea…If you want to kill the [US-based] LNG strategy go ahead with Nord Stream [2]”.

The pipeline also undermines an interrelated, long-developing, radical globalization scheme—an internal EU gas market established under the European Energy Charter that’s designed to dismantle Gazprom by preventing Russia from owning or controlling its downstream energy assets.

Large land transit states like Ukraine help to ensure that Russia obey the rules. But after withdrawing from the aforementioned treaty in 2009, Russia has struck bilateral gas deals with states like Hungary and Belarus, enraging Washington and Brussels. Now Nordstream 2 would symbolize the ultimate affront to the internal energy market architecture as it involves Europe’s most powerful nation, Germany, with no transit states in-between.

(Berlin has been left in the cold ever since caving to pressure to phase-out its nuclear capacity and cease domestic coal production). The pertinent question is: on whose outside supplies will Berlin come to depend? Europe’s future may hang on the answer.

Ex-German chancellor Angela Merkel supported the pipeline, her foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, along with the Austrian Federal Chancellor, Christian Kern, complaining, “The draft bill of the US [sanctions regime] is surprisingly candid about what is actually at stake, namely selling American liquefied natural gas and ending the supply of Russian natural gas to the European market. We cannot accept the threat of illegal extraterritorial sanctions…involving Russia, such as Nord Stream 2, [which] impacts European-American relations in a new and very negative way.”

Detractors, meanwhile, insist that a pipeline avoiding Ukraine would give Russia more leverage over its weaker neighbor, despite the implied detachment, a piece of double-think requiring little to no explanation.

Nevertheless, one hard-headed member of Russia’s Duma explains what’s really going on, from Moscow’s view, and what’s truly at stake in this developing saga.

INTERVIEW:

Q: How does EU policy affect European states’ energy consumption?

Yevgeny Fyodorov

A: The alternative to our natural gas is, of course, importing US LNG, which is much more expensive. The crucial interested parties in our piped gas are Europe and especially Germany. The key question arises from the fact that the EU wants absolute control over the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline. They want to control everything. The principle of competition of nations is involved. Russia is also interested in full control over those gas supplies; it helps Russia to fulfill its obligations. We welcome no third party to play this game as an outside controller over the pipeline.

Hence the Germans’ position: they support Nordstream 2 because it provides for their gas balance and they understand that otherwise they will lack gas. Nord Stream 2 is a kind of “magic wand” for Russia because it helps Germany to get a stable gas supply and sign long-term contracts. Otherwise they will need to keep temperatures in their dwellings very low. If the EU refuses to certify Nordstream 2, Europe will freeze. It would be like shooting its’ own leg.

The position of Europe is this: give us all transport routes and gas fields—but it contradicts the Russian principle of state sovereignty. So Russia won’t agree to it. Our position is simple: we supply gas, you can either take it or not. We aren’t going to sort out your domestic problems.

Q: What are the impediments to gas flowing through the recently-completed Nordstream 2 pipeline?

A: Blocking Nordstream 2 is a result of pressure from the Americans. There we need to understand common sense. What is the Americans’ interest? It is a very basic interest. There is no economic profit in LNG supplied from the US. The interest of the US is that they are generally against German economic independence and independent resouces. Yes, we have American military troops in Germany, Germany is being controlled by the US. In case Germany becomes too independent it will simply throw away American control. This is how history works. Of course, this is why the Americans are against NS2. Not just because of the competition with their LNG, but also because of US Anti-German policy. They dislike that Germany would gain a new level of economic independence; such level which would allow Germany to get rid of American control.

It’s clear that the U.S. wouldn’t like European countries, particularly Germany, to become more powerful. So, the U.S.’s geopolitical interest consists in Germany not being able to solve its problems with gas supply beyond U.S.’s influence, without the influence from Ukraine, Poland etc… As a result Americans opposed Nord Stream 2 from the very beginning. It’s obvious. Because it’s one thing when you control a few countries and manipulate them and it’s absolutely different thing when Germany will get a regular gas supply and will be independent of the US. It’s the position of the US and it’s clear and understandable.

The position of Germany: it needs a reliable gas supply and independence. The position of Russia: to earn money for its gas supply. With every coming year, Germany will become more and more sovereign\independent and one day American troops will be withdrawn from its territory. I’m sure one day Germany will raise the question of withdrawal of American occupation troops from their land. You know, these troops were simply renamed from occupation troops into NATO’s troops. It’s in the interests of German people and at some point Germans will do it. Russia will definitely help them, not in a military way but by creating geopolitical foundation of free nations.

And now another question: the situation in the European Union. European regulations/treaties/charters/energy packages were adopted not by Germany but by the EU and which are greatly influenced by the U.S. They created the so-called energy packages … If EU countries had signed long-term contracts, there wouldn’t have been any price increase. They could have agreed on $300 per cubic meter for many years ahead. But without these contracts the price rocketed to $1000, harming Germany and other European countries.

A: How does the issue of sovereignty come into effect?

What’s the main motivation of any nation? Sovereignty and freedom. And if there are any occupation troop on their land, it’s anything but freedom. That’s why any nation will demand occupation armies to leave their country even if at present they don’t talk about it openly because of the propaganda. Germany is moving in this direction. It’s a normal process. A Unipolar world is neither normal nor legal in the historic context. Either there is one Empire, like the Roman Empire of Alexander the Great, or the world is multi-polar. There is no other option.

Today’s unipolar world is volatile. And Americans understand this. They have two options: either to create a colonial empire (but aren’t powerful enough to do it) or accept\embrace the multi-polar world model. They are guided by the rules of competition among nations according to which everyone is everyone’s enemy. That’s the way people live in the world. All the wars were caused by this. The logic is: you’re the most powerful and the rest are suppressed by you. Everyone is suppressed by you, not only major enemies like Russia, but allies as well. They are allies because American troops are on their territory but not because they love America.

Q: Why does the U.S. still insist on gas transit through Ukraine?

A: Another play is the game with Ukraine, where we still talk about keeping gas supply transiting through it. Nobody (in Russia) refuses to transit via Ukraine. But the talks and wishes are about the substantial profit Ukraine will obtain from transiting our gas over its’ territories. The Americans will continue to insist that Russia must finance its’ own war with Ukraine, until NS2 will start to function; until Russia manages to exclude Ukraine from financing its’ military actions with Russian money [via transit fees amounting to billions of dollars per year].

Frankly speaking there is a particular part of Ukraine that refused to follow the orders of the newly- emerged power in Kiev, who occupied power in 2014. The new undersea pipeline (NS2) shouldn’t involve a third party like what we have to deal with in the case of Ukraine. Our undersea pipeline is more convenient for Europe. It is clear that when the Ukraine pipeline was constructed in the middle of last century there were no underwater pipeline technologies. Now this new technology has emerged thanks to scientific progress.

Q: What are the economic implications of this energy battle?

A: Let’s look at this question from the viewpoint of science, history and geopolitics. What is the American dollar? The American dollar is a world currency. Let’s look at some figures: the American dollar turnover in the world is 40%, the euro turnover is 40% whereas the ruble turnover is only 0.18%. So, the ruble turnover is 400 times lower than that of the dollar or euro. The ruble doesn’t exist on the global scale.

Americans have built their consumption at the expense of the world dollar. Estimates show that Americans consume 4 times more than they produce on their territory. The situation in Russia is quite the opposite. Russia produces 4 times more of the global GDP than it consumes. As a result Russia is a contributor to the world economy while the US is a vermin\parasite. These are merely figures\data, nothing personal. So, the dollar is of great importance to the Americans.

The dollar requires worldwide jurisdiction – Anglo-Saxon law – because currency is worthless if it’s not supported by juridical system. Hence comes the mechanism of the world jurisdiction, the unipolar world as a vertical authority. According to Putin, “one power center means one decision-making center”. What’s Russia’s interest? To restore the ruble, which will allow Russia to immediately control 6% of the world currency turnover. And I’d like to remind you that at present we control only 0.18%. In the long run, taking into account that Russia has 1\3 of the world’s resources, we expect this figure to reach 1\3 of the world turnover. We want to have the right to print out currency.

Q: Do the aforementioned issues implicate a pivot to Asia?

A: There is a policy of reducing dependance of EU countries on Russian gas. We are ready to sell our gas to EU countries. But we see EU legislation creates harm to Europe, eg. Now the natural gas price jumped to $900 per 1000 cubic meters. But those are internal problems; they should be able to set up their legislation so that it will not harm their economy. Concerning Chinese – Russian relations and natural gas supply to China, the supply will continue to grow.

This is about geopolitical and economic profitability. There are certain issues that lead to this. Russia and China have a common goal: to establish sovereignty. I reiterate one figure for economists: in the world economy the USD and the Euro comprise 80% of the world economy. The Russian ruble comprises one twentieth of 1% of global reserves. Hundreds of times less. Naturally that is unfair and illegal. And we will carry on politics which will result in the situation where the Russian ruble will equal Russia’s economy and resource export capability. And China will be our ally.

Q: What is the general position of European states, notwithstanding EU internal market legislation?

A: Who is the enemy of American unipolar world? The enemy of any unipolar world, including the American one, is national thousand-year-old states\countries, like Germany, France, etc… because such countries don’t want to be given orders. France has been independent for more than 1000 years.

They don’t need any bosses in Brussels, let alone in Washington. So the policy of the US is to subdue them. The US has been trying to achieve this goal, firstly, by assisting in EU creation and by Mediterranean wars which led to millions of refugees who break French, German etc… national regimes. That’s the goal. Why did America bomb Libya, Syria? Why were they involved in the coup d’état in Egypt? It’s clear that they wanted to destroy national thousand-year-old states, which leads to economic destruction.

Q: What do you make of the de-Russification laws in Ukraine?

A: It is occupational tool intended to limit and prohibit the Russian language in Ukraine. The character and basic feature of Russian nation is that it is cultural people with big history. And the Russian language is a very important factor in consolidating and uniting multiple smaller nations.

In the territory of Ukraine, as Ukraine itself is not a legal state from the position of International Law. So in Ukraine outside extranational parties. First of all, the US and their allies carry out the politics to stop the process of reestablishment of the joint united Motherland within it’s 1945 borders. In turn the reestablishment process in many parts of the Soviet Union is being carried out by all interested parties.

From this fact emerges the conflict within Ukraine. This conflict could only be resolved by establishment of one single united state of Ukraine and Russia. Otherwise, it will never be resolved and will last forever. Actually, the reunion (of Ukraine and Russia) will definitely happen one day, is my strong belief. All serious leading experts understand that. The situation (between Russia and Ukraine) is still not regulated in accordance with the procedures guiding the liquidation of the Soviet Union. That is most important to understand. To say it in rough words, the situation with Ukraine and Crimea is prolonged and delayed until today. These are the roots of conflicts and arguments with Ukraine about Crimea and Donbass and Lugansk, and with Moldova, Transdniestria, Georgia, Abkhazia, etc…

Q: How does Russia view subversive actions in nearby states like Belarus, for example?

A: As an attempt to intrude by a third party into territory of an internationally recognized state entity, a joint Motherland within 1945 borders. Actually, we will react to intrusion into any other country, not only Belarus. Russia will use shield and defense tools. Defense tools we have include nuclear weapons, to protect and secure our borders and keep them safe and contain safely our nuclear weapons, and using those nuclear weapons. In other words, should America enter the territory of Belarus, our nuclear missiles are targeted at London, Washington, New York and other cities. The US will continue to manipulate Ukraine and Belorussia to oppose Russia. They will utilize the issue of unregulated state borders [see today: Kazakhstan] between these countries as a lever against its’ competitor and opponent, Russia.

Q: Do you feel that America’s missile bases in Eurasia are directed towards Russia?

A: We don’t ignore the reality that the US has installed missile bases throughout Eurasia. And the [US] State Department was saying that they will form new military nuclear bases there, including in Asian countries. Please understand this is very simple story. Russia plans to engage its nuclear weapons not against those countries where it was launched against Russia, but against the mastermind cities where the decisions were made. To be exact, it is Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and other American cities. Please fully understand, in case American nuclear weapons are launched from, eg. Taiwan, or Poland, the response will hit New York or Washington.

Q: Please elaborate on the EU’s long-unfolding internal gas market/energy treaty packages.

A: Sure. European policy was to reject long-term contracts. This policy was to start a competitive war in which, as they said, the price would be reduced as a result of competition. And here lies their error of judgment. Competition works only if there is excess supply.

But taking into consideration the post-Covid economy boost of China and Asia [among other factors], there hasn’t been any excess supply. As a result the EU failed. [higher prices, however, have increased demand for US LNG imports, perhaps implying that Russia’s plan backfired, playing into America’s hands]. Those who signed long-term contracts didn’t suffer at all. Some French companies, for instance, didn’t lose anything. They even benefited from this. So this price increase is the EU’s fault. What Russia wants is just to earn money for its produce. Russia thinks like this: if we don’t sell gas in Europe, we could sell it in China.

Q: What is the situation surrounding US negotiations with Germany regarding Russian energy?

A: Look: Who is more important: the supplier or the consumer who pays money? Surely, it’s the consumer. So, who is the main player in this situation: Germany or Russia? Germany. That’s why the U.S. opposes Nord Stream 2 by negotiating with Germany, not Russia. Germany is the main player here. So, the U.S. exerted pressure on Germany. And Germany, in its turn, tried to compensate by offering to invest in Ukrainian system, hydrogen etc… The negotiations regarding Nord Stream 2 were conducted between Germany and the U.S. but not between America and Russia.

Q: How do offhand events, like the “Russiagate” fraud, the alleged Navalny poisoning, hysteria surrounding Russian troop buildup along the Russian-Ukrainian border, etc… influence public opinion?

A: Russia is constantly blamed and there are two reasons why. Firstly, Russia doesn’t have influence on its own information sphere; it doesn’t have the necessary technology. Even Russia’s social networks, television are American. Mass media in Russia are beyond Russia’s jurisdiction. Russia doesn’t have “weapons” in the information sphere. Besides it’s very convenient to put all the blame on Russia in order to solve one’s own domestic problems. It’s common practice.

Q: Is the EU’s energy Treaty Packages/Charter unfeasible?

A: The EU’s energy packages are based on market excess supply. What I mean is they get gas supply from everywhere, from the U.S., Asia, Norway, and Russia. Europe wants to get the lowest price due to the competition between these suppliers. It only works providing there is excess supply due to different reasons, including transport logistics [plus Russia’s allegedly withholding supply from the market for leverage in Nordstrream 2 negotiations]. So it was a wrong strategy. I have only one question here: was this strategy was wrong because they are fools in Brussels or because they just played along with Americans? I think the latter. The situation got out of control: it led to price increase. Now they don’t know how to handle it.

Q: Will Russia accept the terms and conditions of these energy packages?

A: While drawing up this energy package (and it took years), they didn’t anticipate post-Covid syndrome which changed the situation globally. But Russia’s position is very simple. We support sovereignty. Historically, the concept of sovereignty in the Russian word is a priority. We respect the sovereignty of others. Russian position is simple: here is gas, you can either take it or not. We aren’t going to change your own internal regulations.

Q: How does US and Russian geopolitical strategy differ?

A: We have a different geopolitical strategy. The U.S. strategy is to support dollar turnover in the world. The U.S. domestic economy is dependent on external dollar. Hence 800 (military) bases abroad.

The strategic historical policy of Britain and later America – the so called “gunboat policy, is creating conflict zones and supporting both conflicting parties with the aim of controlling the situation. That’s the U.S. policy. It originates from the American principle of nation building. Russia’s policy is exclusively managing our own business. We are a country of defensive\protective policy. The only exception was the USSR with its Marxist ideology of world revolutions. But it was a temporary exception and it was rejected by Russia.

Q: Do you regard ecological complaints from Poland as a part of the American scheme?

A: Sure. Poland is under U.S. control. If Americans remove this control, it will be gained by Germany. But it’s not in the U.S. interests, so they use Poland and Ukraine. They tried to control Belarus but failed. It’s a clash of strategies. The American strategy is “divide and rule.” Americans want to divide Russia in order to get supplies separately from the Siberia, Ural. But since Russia has nuclear weapons, this plan won’t work out for them.

Q: Would Russia like to restore something like the USSR?

A: The priority here consists in re-establishing legal outcomes, in restoring something that was violated illegally. If a country is divided legally, they have the right to do so. For example, the Czech Republic and Slovakia decided to split. If they did it legally, that’s not a problem. But if it’s illegal, it should be revoked. Do you feel the difference?

As for Yugoslavia one should scrutinize the legitimacy of its division. What are the relations between international and internal\domestic laws? International law doesn’t interfere with domestic laws. A country can be destroyed\divided only by its own laws. If internal Yugoslavian laws were broken while dividing Yugoslavia, then this country should be restored. For the same reason Americans insist on Serbia recognizing Kosovo. Because Americans are well aware that until Serbia recognizes Kosovo’s independence, Serbia and Kosovo can’t be considered legally divided, no matter how many American (military) bases are located in Kosovo.

Without any doubt, the Soviet Union’s dissolution was illegal. By the way, from the viewpoint of law, it wasn’t dissolved because no republic, except for the Baltic States, took the decision to leave the Soviet Union. The republics decided on the state sovereignty but any union consists of sovereign states. So, it doesn’t mean the dissolution of the union.

Q: Who controls Russia’s Central Bank?

A: You must understand how our Central Bank works. The Central Bank is the Depositary of IMF and secures and answers for worldwide USD circulation and includes part of Russian territory. So the Central Bank is part of USD circulation. The Russian Ruble is a derivative of USD and Euro circulations. The Ruble emission is carried out proportionally to part of export deals, as part of USD and Euro income as a result of such operations. So, the Central Bank policy and ruble policy does not reflect the Russian economy at all. It just shows our export potential. So we understand we need reforms to nationalize our currency exchange system and Central Bank. And reforms would create a ruble currency bulk inside Russia in correlation with exports. Similar to what the ECB and Forex are doing. We plan this reform.


Nash Landesnan has written for a number of publications. He can be contacted at NashLandesman1@gmail.com.

Saudi Arabia Involved in Providing Weapons to Al-Qaeda, Daesh in Yemen – International Reports

October 5, 2021

Saudi Arabia Involved in Providing Weapons to Al-Qaeda, Daesh in Yemen - International Reports

By Staff, Agencies

International reports revealed a resounding scandal involving Saudi princes, through private companies affiliated with them, in arms deals that reached from Serbia to the takfiri organization of Daesh [the Arabic acronym for terrorist ‘ISIS/ISIL’ group] in Yemen.

The report indicated that on September 1, 2020, Salman bin Abdulaziz issued a royal order relieving Fahd bin Turki bin Abdulaziz from his position as commander of the coalition forces in Yemen, in an attempt to evade the international scandal and blame Fahd bin Turki and a number of officers.

Among the names in the royal order were four Saudis who work at the Ministry of Defense, including Muhammad bin Abdul Karim Al-Hassan and Youssef bin Rakan bin Hindi Al-Otaibi.

The names of Al-Hassan and Al-Otaibi appeared with an American contractor named William Michael Somerendyke, and another Canadian, born in Tripoli in Lebanon, named Shadi Shaarani in leaked documents obtained by the International Center for Investigative Journalists [ICIJ], and shared in a project called “Pandora Papers.”

The documents indicate that Al-Hassan was registered as a manager of Larkmont Holdings Limited in the “British Virgin Islands” on December 13, 2016, less than one year after the coalition of aggression launched the war on Yemen.

One of the company’s activities was the purchase of weapons from the Serbian “GIM” company, owned by the father of the Serbian Defense Minister, Nebojsa Stefanovic, but a group of these weapons reached the hands of “Daesh” in Yemen.

The documents also indicate that Al-Hassan, when he registered as a director of Larkmont Holdings Limited, registered an address for him, which, upon verification, turned out to be the address of a Saudi military company called “Rinad Al Jazeera LLC”, headquartered in Riyadh. The company’s website was suspended during the investigation period.

A document from Larkmont Holdings Limited issued on March 1, 2017, stated that Al-Hassan was “authorized to represent the company in all ways with the Ministry of Defense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”

Through intermediary companies and American contractors, Saudi Arabia bought Serbian weapons, which later showed that they had reached the hands of Daesh terrorists in Yemen from the Saudi side.

Al-Hassan was not the only Saudi individual who was included in the Saudi King’s decision to investigate suspicions of corruption, and we found that he had established “offshore” companies linked to arms contracts in the Yemen war.

Another name is Yousef bin Rakan bin Hindi Al-Otaibi, who runs Milvards, which is co-managed by Larkmont Holdings Limited, and was incorporated on June 23, 2017, six months after Larkmont was founded. The company’s registration data does not show the identity of its owner.

The purchase of weapons was through intermediary companies and American contractors, and on the Saudi side was the “Larkemont” company and “Renad Al-Jazeera” company, and on the Serbian side was the GIM Company.

Pictures taken from video files published by Daesh from Al-Bayda province showed pictures of Serbian weapons that were among the deals purchased by the Saudi Ministry of Defense from the Serbian “Krusik” factory.

The images showed mortar shells, whose identification marks are clear, through the part number, compared to the purchase contracts signed by Saudi Arabia through the GIM intermediary company with the Serbian “Krusik” factory, where the letters KV indicate that these mortars were manufactured in the Serbian arms factory [K stands for Krusik]. The V stands for Valjevo, the city where the factory is located, and the numbers [04/18] indicate that the mortar is batch 4 produced in 2018.

The documents also revealed that the Saudi Ministry of Defense assigned contractors, whose addresses are in the United Arab Emirates, but whose nationalities were distributed among Romania, America, Saudi Arabia and Bulgaria, to purchase and transport Serbian weapons that it had purchased.

The reports indicated that the United States was the one who supplied Saudi Arabia with white phosphorous, while some of those reports stated that Saudi Arabia had used Serbia to supply it with phosphorous, in anticipation of media criticism aimed at stopping the United States’ supply of internationally prohibited weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Negative impact of NATO on Serbia & Montenegro and on the world

July 12, 2021

Negative impact of NATO on Serbia & Montenegro and on the world

by Batko Milacic – Independent analyst – for The Saker Blog

After Yugoslavia’s (Serbia) President Slobodan Milosevic refused to accept the so-called Rambouillet Agreement in 1999, which in reality was NATO ultimatum that demanded from Serbia and Montenegro to allow NATO troops to occupy the province of Kosovo as well as that NATO can build bases in Serbia, and that all NATO personnel have diplomatic immunity, which means that they could not be held criminally responsible in Serbia and Montenegro, NATO aggression was launched without any authorization from the United Nations. The intervention was called humanitarian under the pretext of stopping the persecution of Albanians. Western media machine led against Serbs constantly negative media campaign. In media presentations by CNN and the BBC, the Serbs were the modern Nazis and Albanians the Jews. After they successfully presented the Serbs as the bad guys, NATO had a free hand to open aggression and excessive force. Western claims about tens of thousands of killed Albanians later turned out to be completely false. The real death toll in Kosovo before NATO aggression was revealed after the war and it was around 2,000 with the majority of the killings committed by the armed terrorist-separatist group, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The KLA, previously classified by Washington as a terrorist organization, was elevated in the run-up to the war as the sole legitimate representative of Kosovo’s Albanian population. The KLA, working in close collaboration with US sponsors, sought to create as much violence and death as possible in order to pave the way to Western intervention.

The war against Serbia and Montenego lasted for 78 days. Hospitals, factories and schools were destroyed, along with bridges, roads and military infrastructure. The airstrikes killed around 2,500 people and wounded another 12,500. The bombing destroyed and damaged 25,000 housing units, 470 km of roads and 595 kilometers of railroad were disabled. 14 airports, 19 hospitals, 20 health centers, 18 kindergartens, 69 schools, 176 cultural monuments and 44 bridges were damaged while 38 were destroyed, according to Serbian estimates.(1) During the bombing, 2, 300 air strikes were carried out on the 995 facilities across the country. NATO launched 1,300 cruise missiles, bombed Serbia and Montenegro with 37,000 “cluster bombs”, using prohibited ammunition with depleted uranium. The decision to bomb Serbia and Montenegro was made for the first time in history, without the approval of the UN Security Council. One of the NATO airstrikes used laser-guided bombs to take out railway bridge in southern Serbia, killing at least 10 people on a passenger train. A deliberate attack on the Serbian TV broadcaster RTS in Belgrade took lives of 16 civilian workers. This was the first case that the media house was declared a legitimate military goal. In one of the most provocative acts of the war, NATO carried out a strike on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three men. Washington claimed that the bombing was an “accident”.(2) The “humanitarian” intervention to halt “ethnic cleansing” has resulted in massive ethnic cleansing. After NATO arrived, 250,000 Serbs were expelled from Kosovo. (3)

Also, the 2004 unrest in Kosovo is the worst ethnic violence case in Kosovo since the end of the 1998–99 conflict. The violence erupted in the partitioned town of Mitrovica, leaving hundreds wounded and at least 14 people dead. The unrest was precipitated by misleading reports in the Kosovo Albanian media which falsely claimed that three Kosovo Albanian boys had drowned after being chased into the Ibar River by a group of Kosovo Serbs. That is why Albanians are embarking on a coordinated action against Serbs, in which they have committed numerous crimes. Given the magnitude of the action, it is clear that this ethnic cleansing was planned and not spontaneous. Here, too, the question must be asked whether it is possible that NATO intelligence services did not have operational information that Albanians were preparing attacks on Serbs, with the aim of ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. The answer is obvious, especially if we keep in mind that NATO forces have peacefully observed the ethnic cleansing of Serbs, even if their primary task in Kosovo is to maintain peace and order.

Years later, International courts in Pristina have prosecuted several people who attacked several Serbian Orthodox churches, handing down jail sentences ranging from 21 months to 16 years. However, these are extremely small numbers of people and with small penalties. The absolute majority of criminals were not punished. A part of the destroyed churches have since been rebuilt by the Government of Serbia and in cooperation with the Serbian Orthodox Church and the UN mission in Kosovo. However, almost none of the exiled Serbs returned to Kosovo. It is important to note that NATO forces have peacefully observed the ethnic cleansing of Serbs, even if their primary task in Kosovo is to maintain peace and order.

It is clear to every objective analyst that NATO carried out aggression in 1999 against Serbia and Montenegro. Everything that happened after 1999 proved that NATO’s primary goal was not the protection of human rights, but the abuse of this idea for classical geopolitical possession of strategic space, in this case, the southern Serbian province of Kosovo. The Serbian army fought heroically in Kosovo and it was not defeated on the battlefield. The withdrawal of the Serbian army from Kosovo was caused by an open threat from the West that it will exert over Serbia humanitarian destruction of the whole country. When the destruction of infrastructure did not gave results, NATO began hitting hospitals, trains full of passengers and throwing away so-called graphite bombs that destroyed the electrical network and left entire cities without electricity. Cluster bombs were thrown in the cities, and bombardment of depleted uranium kills Serbs even today.

NATO forces continued aggression on the rest of Serbia, by other means. Immediately after the bombing the regime change operation was supported, after which embassies of Western countries and international organizations that the West controlled began to “reform Serbia”. Shortly after the arrival of pro-Western authorities in Serbia, in October 2000, “the reform of the Serbian army” began. The majority of proven war officers were retired, while the number of soldiers was so low, to the level, at which the security of the country was seriously threatened. Through its agents of influence, the West played a major role in separating Montenegro from Serbia. High and primary education were, and still are literally destroyed, media has been dominated by foreign corporations. Yet again, two decades later, despite its propaganda and corruption of the elite, NATO is still undesirable among the ordinary people. Montenegro became a member of NATO by political violence, against the will of the citizens. Serbia and Republic of Srpska continue to resist. You can see more about NATO’s activities in the world in an excellent documentary

US support for the project of Greater Albania

US support for the project of Greater Albania

March 24, 2021

By Ljubiša Malenica for the Saker Blog

The Greater Albania project has its roots in the nineteenth century and idea of ​​the Prizren League to unite in one territorial unit all areas that were allegedly originally inhabited by Albanians. The Prizren League itself can be seen as an extension of the Ottoman authorities, since it was founded in 1878, immediately after the end of the war between Russia, Serbia and Montenegro against Turkey.

Given that Turkey was defeated in the war, Istanbul had to look for other methods of protecting its own interests during the peace process. League was equipped with weapons and ammunition by the Porte, members of the organization were individuals well known for their loyalty to the Sultan, and Ottoman authorities took upon themselves the responsibility of paying for congress in Prizren. All these facts support the thesis claiming Prizren League was an organization created as expression of Ottoman interests in the Balkans.[1]

Turkey’s interests have been significantly undermined by the San Stefano Peace Treaty and the Berlin Congress, and, as might be expected, the Prizren League took a negative stance towards both peace conferences. Moreover, during the Berlin Congress, the League sent a memorandum to the major powers asking for recognition of the Albanian national identity, a very illustrative fact in itself, and the realization of autonomy within the Ottoman Empire for all territories that would compose the so-called “Greater Albania”.[2]

Simultaneously with these documents, an additional memorandum was sent to the Berlin Congress, called the Skadar Memorandum, requesting from Great Britain[3] to take upon itself the role of a guarantor for the creation of the Albanian state. Considering the role of London as a self-proclaimed balancer whose main goal was to maintain the status quo in continental Europe, the Albanian choice is not surprising.

In terms of political relations during the period in question, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro have already been allies of Moscow on several occasions. The same could be expected if Greece became independent. The development of the situation at that moment was already, obviously, to the detriment of Istanbul, and any future conflict in the Balkans would mean a further liberation of the territories previously occupied by the Ottomans. The First and Second Balkan Wars are illustrative cases in point. Given that all Slavic countries in the Balkans, at that period, had an interest in preserving the alliance and cultural ties with Russia, the eventual withdrawal of Turkey from the Balkans and the re-establishment of Slavic statehood would create a situation in which most of the Balkan Peninsula would find itself within the Russian sphere of influence.

London could not afford such a development given the understandable, and on many previous occasions expressed, fear of a united continental Europe in whose presence the British Isles would be a negligible force, probably subordinated to cultural and political dictates of the continental center of power.

The realization of Albanian ambitions did not come with the Berlin Congress, but they did not have to wait long for creation of their own state, with the blessing of official London. After the end of the First Balkan War, the Ottoman Empire was completely expelled from the majority of Balkan Peninsula. Despite the fact that the Albanians did not play any role in liberation of the occupied territories from Ottoman rule, London Agreement of 1913 established the independent state of Albania.

In addition to earlier mentioned documents created by the Prizren League, Albanian pretensions towards the territories of the surrounding peoples can be seen in this period through the actions of Ismail Cemali. In the midst of the First Balkan War, Cemali gathers representatives of the Albanians in city of Vlora, where they proceed to adopt the declaration on independence of Albania.

If we take into account that representatives in question came from all parts of the four Ottoman provinces (vilayets), i.e. Kosovo, Skadar, Janjina and Bitola, back then inhabited by Albanians, it can be assumed that Albania, imagined by the present delegates, included the territorial totality of all four mentioned provinces. Claims on lands of others become clear when one realizes that Albanians represented a minority in a significant part of the four provinces. Representatives gathered in Vlora were not elected representatives, so it is unsurprising this declaration of independence was completely ignored by both the Ottoman Empire and the then great powers. The Albanian state established during the London Conference was defined within significantly more modest borders.

During the Second World War, Albania was known as Greater Albania in the period from 1939 until 1943, and had status of an Italian protectorate which incorporated, after the fall of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, parts of Serbia. During their rule, the Italians found a natural ally in the irredentist aspirations of the Albanian elite towards the territories of the neighboring peoples where Albanians lived, regardless of the numerical ratio between them and the domicile population. It is a historical fact that period of Italian occupation was accompanied by a large number of crimes committed by Albanians against the local population in the occupied territories.

After the collapse of Italy and defeat of Germany, the short-lived state project of “Greater Albania” ended like the Independent State of Croatia, but the aspirations remained. After the fall of communist regime in the early 1990s, irredentist claims again occupied a significant part of the political and intellectual thought within Albania.

Considering the influence of United States in the Balkans during the last three decades, there can be no doubt that activities in question, intentionally or not, were in favor of the idea of Greater Albania. Both during the conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, and during war in Kosmet, Washington’s position was obviously in favor of Serbian enemies. The conduct of organizations under the influence or direct leadership of the United States, both during military operations and in peacetime, was undoubtedly directed against Serbian interest in any shape or form. This fact alone was enough to strengthen the position idea of Greater Albania had within Albanian population, given that over time its realization seemed to become more and more probable.

Ethnic cleansing of Serbs from the Federation of BiH and Croatia, carried out with silent blessing from the West, served as a pattern of behavior that Albanians could apply during the Kosovo conflict without fear of criticism or intervention. There was no trepidation Tirana could be bombed by NATO planes due to the ethnic cleansing of Kosmet by the KLA.

Revitalization of the idea of​​ Greater Albania, in its core, is not so much about the American relationship with the Albanians as it is about US perception of the Serbs.

The statement of George Kenney, a former Yugoslavia desk officer at the US state department, is an illustrative example how was Yugoslavia perceived as a state, and by extension, Serbs as a people who were most interested in its preservation. In a 2008 statement to the British Guardian, Kenney pointed out that “In post-cold war Europe no place remained for a large, independent-minded socialist state that resisted globalization”.[4]

In addition to American interests, the role of Germany, which immediately after its unification took a hostile attitude towards Yugoslavia and the Serbs, should not be forgotten. Considering the last one hundred and twenty years of European history, one gets the impression that the desire for domination of the continent by Germany is the main catalyst for a significant part of the misfortune which befell Europe.

In a world characterized by the hegemonic role of the United States, after the disappearance of the Soviet Union, it was inevitable that the ideological features of the victor, in this case capitalism, globalism, free trade, multiculturalism, and democracy, would become a model for transformation of other countries, regardless of their wishes and desires of the domicile population.

The characteristics of the victorious ideology were, of course, largely beneficial to the United States themselves, given that the system was established with the aim of reproducing, into infinity, American, and to a lesser extent West European, global dominance. It is not surprising that all serious forms of opposition to the imposed system were seen as a danger, given that at the same time they represented a departure from the propagandist illusion there were no alternatives to the new state of affairs, that the system represented the best way to regulate social relations and that everyone benefited from it.

The fact that the new system quickly took on the outlines of a neocolonial model of behavior, especially towards Eastern European countries, with pronounced demographic and economic parasitism embodied in legal structures and norms of both the European Union and other world organizations such as the IMF and World Bank, was supposed to remain hidden behind an appropriate smokescreen of consumer culture and a general degradation of cultural standards in behavior and action.

The geopolitical interests of Washington, and of the West in general, in conjunction with their economic interests, were not to be called into question by opposition, especially by a state such as Yugoslavia or a people such as Serbs. Allowing the general narrative of globalization and the norms and quality of the Western model to be questioned by small states and peoples was unthinkable, given that it would simultaneously point to the existence of imbalances and problems within the model itself and would further give the impression that the model itself was subject to change through dialogue and consensus. As we have already mentioned, the very purpose of the model was contrary to this development and force, both in legal and physical terms, remained the only way to protect interests of the original creators of an ideology that until recently was considered irreplaceable.

The easiest way to deal with Yugoslavia and the Serbs was to encourage internal divisions and recruit non-Serb local elites into implementation of American goals. One obvious example was the influence of Warren Zimmerman[5] on the beginning of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Gathering representatives of all three sides in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Portuguese Ambassador to Sarajevo at that time, Jose Cutileiro, and the British Lord Peter Carrington succeeded in creating a plan for the division and decentralization of Bosnia and Herzegovina that was, to an extent, satisfactory for all three sides.

The agreement, also known as the Lisbon Treaty, was signed by representatives of all three sides on March 18, 1992. Ten days later, US Ambassador Warren Zimmerman arrives in Sarajevo where he meets with Alija Izetbegovic. Soon after, Izetbegovic quickly withdraws his signature from the previously reached arrangement. Although there is no documentation, or other direct record, of what was said during this meeting between Zimmerman and Izetbegovic, sequence of events is far from accidental and indicates a high degree of connection between the encounter and the outbreak of war in BiH.

According to unofficial information, during the meeting, Zimmerman gave Izetbegovic a firm assurance that United States were ready to recognize Bosnia and Herzegovina as an independent country. The fact that Washington recognized BiH as an independent state only nine days after the meeting, on April 7, 1992, just as Zimmermann claimed, gives credence to the unofficial information about the nature of the Zimmerman-Izetbegovic meeting. Recognizing independence of a certain state, in itself as a process, is not something that happens spontaneously and quickly, especially due to the situation Bosnia and Herzegovina found itself in at that time. Given that it took the US administration less than ten days to make such a decision, implies that decision had already been made. US only awaited a suitable moment in order to make the decision public.

During a statement for Canadian CTVNews in 2012, former Canadian Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina, James Bissett, gave additional weight to earlier claims regarding Zimmerman’s role in the beginning of the Bosnian civil war. Namely, during the conversation, Bissett pointed out without hesitation that “the trigger was really when the American ambassador persuaded Alija Izetbegovic, the Muslim leader in Bosnia, to renounce his signature and withdraw his signature from an agreement that had been reached earlier, negotiated by the Portuguese foreign minister…That meant that Bosnia could become independent, but there would be three autonomous regions. They all signed that, but my neighbor that lived across the street from me, Warren Zimmerman, the US ambassador convinced Alija Izetbegovic to renounce that agreement and declare unilateral independence, and that the United States would immediately recognize an independent Bosnia…”[6]

Events related to crisis in Kosmet followed a very similar pattern. Albanians in Kosovo served the interests of Washington in the same manner that Muslims did on the ground in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Just as Muslims were promised support and independence of a state which they saw exclusively as their own, so the Albanians were, in essence, offered the opportunity to realize the idea of ​​a Greater Albania.

The August 1993 New York Times article, surprisingly professionally written, conveys the opinion of most US officials, who largely agree that Washington made a mistake in insisting on an independent and multicultural Bosnia and Herzegovina despite domestic leaders agreeing to divide the country. This view of the situation recently reappeared on the scene with the texts of Timothy Less, who proposes supporting the unification of the Republic of Srpska and Serbia as compensation for the recognition of independent Kosovo by Belgrade.[7][8]

Of course, Less looks at things from perspective of interests of the United States and expects Serbs, after American blessing of unification, to approach the United States and turn their backs on Moscow. Whether American diplomacy will accept these suggestion remains to be seen, but the fact that this option is being discussed at all should serve as a lesson to Serbian neighbors that in the last three decades they have not fought against Serbs so much for their own interests as they did for American ones.

As author stated earlier in the text, the Balkan problem of Washington, from the perspective of the United States, comes down to the question of Serbs. An illustration of this can be found in the New York Times article mentioned above. Namely, part of the article is dedicated to the statement of Warren Zimmerman, who, defending the earlier American policy, pointed out that “our view was that we might be able to head off a Serbian power grab by internationalizing the problem…Our hope was the Serbs would hold off if it was clear Bosnia had the recognition of Western countries. It turned out we were wrong.”[9]

Although a short statement, it is very indicative and leads to several important questions. If we take into account the nature of the Lisbon Treaty, which Ambassador Warren torpedoed during his conversation with Izetbegovic, why was the power takeover by the Serbs a problem? Moreover, since the territorial units envisaged by the Carrington-Cutilier plan were based on the national principle, Serbs, by taking power in their areas, would do the same as the other two groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the other hand, why was the internationalization of the problem necessary? The problem was already, in large part, nearing a solution that was accepted by all three parties. Why were Serbs expected, almost by some kind of automatism, to give up their interests and demands in a situation where West recognized Bosnia and Herzegovina declaration of independence?

All these questions make sense and their answers are relatively obvious if we accept position that the moves of American diplomacy were not aimed at defusing the situation or achieving solution to crisis in BiH, but against the interests of Serbs. The language used by Zimmerman implies Serbs are the destabilizing factor and threat to the situation within the country at the time, despite all the facts to the contrary. The American vision of BiH, interpreted through Zimmerman’s statement, implied complete political domination of Sarajevo and the Muslim political leadership, a unitary state structure accompanied, for the sake of US internal propaganda, with labels of multiethnicity and multiculturalism. Serbs, and partly Croats, were expected to give up upon their own interests.

The irony of history is reflected in fact that the Dayton Agreement itself, which achieved peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, was relatively similar to the Lisbon Agreement.

For a better understanding of American policy towards Serbs during the 1990s and after conflict in the former Yugoslavia ended, it is necessary to pay attention to the previously mentioned victorious ideology which, after collapse of the USSR, gained status of a globally applicable template for shaping societies.

Due to the specifics of American history, a thread of racial relations between the inhabitants of the United States always ran through American society. Over time, this led to the development of complexes which were twisted by the political forces in United States, particularly the Democratic Party, into political and social power simultaneously encompassing both white and black population. Within the Hollywood dichotomy of guilt, whites in the US were assigned the role of malfeasants while blacks, along with other minorities, became victims. The former developed a guilt complex while in the latter, victim complex was encouraged. In both cases, the encouragement of these complexes took extreme forms and was from the very beginning completely divorced from historical facts. Resistance to these processes did exist in the United States, and still exists today, but the foundation of the future American society was laid.

Multiculturalism, as one element of the new world order, introduced a whole range of other minorities into the previously outlined social formula, which mostly referred to the American population of European and African descent. New minorities encompassed both minorities based on their nation and groups that became minorities because of a particular characteristic, such as sexual orientation or a specific view of one’s own gender. The artificial multiplication of minorities led to a specific development of the earlier abuser-victim relationship, and soon, in opposition to white “malfeasants”, a mass of “victims” appeared, diverse in their minority status but monolithic in their role of victims.

Globalism, as one of the key elements of American ideology, transferred the insane perception of racial relations within the United States to the global level, predefining “good and bad guys” without taking into account the local context events or their development.

The European left, by its very nature inclined to such ideological ramshackle, and itself without an original idea, accepted this view of history and society, thus providing support to the Americanization of European nations. In his book “Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Towards a Secular Theocracy”, Paul Gottfried points out that “for the Left, especially in Europe, the post-Cold War United States is the enforcer of “antifascist” and multicultural ideas that are triumphing in American society and among its human-rights allies. The long-demonized American capitalist empire no longer upsets the European Left as monolithically as it once did…For the Left, at least until the recent war against terrorism, the United States has become an indispensable partner in promoting its work, against obstinate European nationalists and antiglobalists.”[10]

In the early 1990s, America was seen by leftists as a utopia. The combination of leftist ideas and predatory capitalism, intertwined with the image of an “exceptional nation”, led Washington’s aggressive stance on the global field. Anyone opposed to the cultural and economic aggression in question eventually faced a military aggression.

American leftists, who managed by “long march through institutions” to install their cadres within a large number of important positions both in American society and American political structure, recognized Serbs as historical actors perfectly fitting the constructed stereotype of “bad guys”. As a white nation, the stigma of “white guilt” could be immediately applied to them, only in this case the “oppressed minority” were not the blacks or other minority populations within the United States, but the Muslim population in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosmet. As a nation aware of its history and national identity, and interested in preserving both, Serbs commit the additional sin of reflexive suspicion towards globalism and resistance to the processes associated with this phenomenon.

The desire of Serbian people for existence within a homogeneous nation-state, derived from historical experience which confirmed the unstable and violent tendencies of heterogeneous societies, was interpreted as a rejection of the multicultural framework for social organization and was thus branded as unwelcomed. From the perspective of the American administration, regardless of historical facts and specific circumstances of events in former Yugoslavia, a multicultural society had to be insisted on. If multiculturalism can work in the United States, then it can work in small Balkan countries. However, if there was to exist a place in the world where it is objectively quite clear that multiculturalism is neither possible nor desirable, it would be only a matter of time before someone within the US questioned why were American politicians, on the domestic scene, so insistent on multiculturalism and why does this phenomenon becomes a taboo subject when its more negative characteristics become apparent.

Lessons from disintegration of multicultural “brotherhood and unity” within Yugoslavia have not been learned by the creators of American policy, and events within the United States today are the fruits of those missed historical lessons.

Doug Bandow, a senior fellow of the well known Cato Institute, during his testimony before the congressional committee in March 1999, clearly points out that there are no objective reasons for NATO intervention in Kosmet against Serbs and in favor of Albanians. In a transcript of Bandow’s statement, he explains that “despite the administration’s best intentions, its proposal to bomb Serbia and initiate a long‐​term ground occupation of Kosovo is misguided in the extreme. The administration would attempt to impose an artificial settlement with little chance of genuine acceptance by either side. It would attempt to micromanage a guerrilla conflict, likely spreading nationalistic flames throughout the region. It would involve America in an undeclared war against a nation which has not threatened the U.S. or any U.S. ally. It would encourage permanent European dependence on America to defend European interests with little relevance to America. It would turn humanitarianism on its head, basing intervention on the ethnicity of the victims, allied status of the belligerents, relative strength of the contending political interests, and expansiveness of the media coverage. Most important, it would put U.S. troops at risk without any serious, let alone vital, American interest at stake”.[11]

During his testimony, Bandow pointed out that NATO supporting KLA would only give additional impetus to the advocates of Greater Albania. Probably one of few American analysts from that period, Bandow warned involvement in the Balkans carried a risk of losing a much more important game related to Russia. Bandow emphasized that “Moscow’s future development remains worrisome and uncertain. Yet NATO attacks on and occupation of Yugoslavia, which shares longstanding Slavic ties with Russia, would exacerbate tensions already inflamed by the expansion of NATO”.[12]

Twenty years after the events in Kosmet, we live in a world that Bandow partially predicted. The aggression on Yugoslavia represented one of the turning points in Russian-American relations and influenced the shaping of the world as we know it today.

Support for a unitary Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Greater Albania project is undoubtedly present within American politics, given that planners in Washington recognize these projects as useful for their own interests. This is perhaps the most important reason for support. Serbophobia, as a derivative of Russophobia, exists within the American administration, but the question is to what extent does the phenomenon in question influences the shaping of Washington’s policies towards the Serbian people. Albanian politicians should have learned lessons from the history of Yugoslavia itself in the early 1990s. For a certain time, ex-Yugoslavia suited Americans and they supported its existence. As soon as the American interest changed, the US did not hesitate to take an active part in encouraging its disintegration. Even in the event where Albanian project is realized, it would be a creation with a limited lifespan. Formed with American blessing, Greater Albania would depend on the goodwill of “friends” from Washington and their backing.

In the treatise that made him famous, Niccolo Machiavelli points out that “auxiliary troops—armies borrowed from a more powerful state—are as useless as mercenaries. Although they often fight well, a prince who calls on auxiliaries places himself in a no-win situation. If the auxiliaries fail, he is defenseless, whereas if the auxiliaries are successful, he still owes his victory to the power of another.”[13]

This seems to be a lesson that none of the Serbian neighbors have learned. Today, Bosnia and Herzegovina is an international protectorate and a dysfunctional country. Croatia is a reservoir of labor reduced to the tourist destination of richer European countries, and at the beginning of the 2020, through intervention of the American military commander in political life of “independent” Kosovo, one could perceive real distribution of power on Kosmet. While Croats, Albanians and Muslims in Bosnia spent themselves in wars against “evil” Serbs, Western states imperceptibly placed a noose of economic and political dependence around their necks, all the while helping cultivate their victimhood narrative.

At this moment, the Serbian political leadership can act simultaneously in three directions. The first involves regional action towards countries also threatened by the idea of ​​a Greater Albania. This raises the question whether there is political will among potential allies to take steps against the realization of the Albanian idea in the current conditions where the emergence of a larger Albanian state affects only Serbian interests. The political mood in the countries in question will most likely depend on the escalation of Albanian ambitions and actions.

The second course of action is to reject any recognition of Kosovo as an independent state and to insist on such a position within international institutions. The work of Serbian diplomacy has been somewhat successful in this regard in recent years, but the work of diplomats must be supported by efforts to strengthen Serbian institutions and influence in Kosmet itself.

The third set of activities concerns efforts to undo, within a seemingly increasingly multipolar world order, the Western-imposed status quo in the Balkans, almost entirely ranged against Serbian interests. This would entail an initiative for reconsideration of events which took place during the break-up of former Yugoslavia and to, furthermore, question the final results of those events, such as Kosovo’s self-proclaimed independence or the narrative of alleged Serbian guilt for various war crimes.

The idea and narrative of Greater Albania are a danger to Serbian statehood, but the very idea of Greater Albania bears the seeds of its disappearance. The full realization of Albania’s pretensions entails the creation of a hostile disposition within four neighboring states. The project of the Albanian irredentists was previously realized only in conditions of serious foreign support. As is usually the case with a hegemon that is slowly losing its status, the United States is facing growing challenges around the world, and support for Albanian interests by Washington is not assured. At the moment, it seems that time is working for Belgrade, which should use this opportunity to full extent and cease to react reservedly for the sake of EU membership, an illusion by this point.

  1. http://www.kosovo.net/sk/rastko-kosovo/istorija/knjiga_o_kosovu/bogdanovic-kosovo_2.html 
  2. http://www.rastko.rs/cms/files/books/474e828f5a0ad 
  3. http://www.rastko.rs/cms/files/books/474e828f5a0ad 
  4. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jan/14/itstimetoendserbbashing 
  5. https://nationalinterest.org/print/article/obituary-alija-izetbegovic-1925-2003-2458 
  6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1QL1M8zycE 
  7. http://demostat.rs/en/vesti/analize/timothy-less-re-ordering-the-balkans/763 
  8. https://balkaninsight.com/2020/02/28/bosnias-second-collapse-is-starting-to-look-inevitable/ 
  9. https://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/29/world/us-policymakers-on-bosnia-admit-errors-in-opposing-partition-in-1992.html 
  10. https://books.google.ba/books?id=0XvR-aKybuQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false 
  11. https://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/us-role-kosovo 
  12. https://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/us-role-kosovo 
  13. https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/prince/section6/ 

Serbia Becomes Hub for Russia’s Gas Distribution in the Balkans

By Paul Antonopoulos

Global Research, December 28, 2020

With the TurkStream gas pipeline now running through Serbia, the Balkan country will enjoy numerous benefits when exports begin, such as energy stability, the opportunity to get cheaper gas, and additional tax revenue. On December 25, Serbia successfully tested the TurkStream pipeline project that will connect Russian gas to consumers in Europe, especially in the Balkans. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić revealed that the pipeline will be officially commissioned on December 30.

“The test run was successful. We did not publicize it too much but everything will start on December 30 as I promised. A small ceremony will be organized on that occasion because it is a huge deal for our country,” Vučić said.

The success of the test and Wednesday’s commissioning of the TurkStream brings an end to one of the most important projects in Serbian history. The gas pipeline strengthens the economic and geostrategic position of Serbia in the region as it can now become a hub to distribute Russian gas in the Balkans. The pipeline is 403 kilometers long and stretches from Zaječar on the border with Bulgaria to Horgoš on the border with Hungary.

There are numerous benefits that this gas pipeline will bring to Serbia, but the most important is energy stability. It is a two-way pipeline, meaning that gas can move between Bulgaria and Hungary in both directions. This is important because of energy security and, not only for Serbia, but for the entire Balkans network which can now be expanded.

The entire TurkStream pipeline within Serbian territory has not been built yet, but judging by the pace of the works so far, it will be completed without delay. Another compressor station remains to be completed in Serbia by June 2021.

The gas pressure on the TurkStream route is high enough that gas can pass from Bulgaria to Serbia. In fact, gas from Bulgaria can already be used in Pančevo, to the immediate east of Belgrade, for the needs of the gas power plant, such as generating electricity and heat. The extensive work for the gasification of Serbia, in full capacity, means that the TurkStream will allow Gazprom to export gas to the Republika Srpska, the Serbian-dominated entity that forms a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, thus being able to deliver gas to the entirety of the country and perhaps even onwards to Croatia and Montenegro.

Five more gas power plants are planned to be constructed in Serbia in the near future. They will be built next to the largest industrial centers in Serbia. 4% of the total electricity produced in Serbia will come from Pančevo, in which thermal energy from the refinery and all its plants will be supplied. With the TurkStream at full capacity, it will be possible to build plants near Belgrade, Novi Sad, Niš and Kragujevac. When electricity is produced, thermal energy by-product will be used for large industrial plants, businesses and residential centers.

In addition to energy stability, Serbia will enjoy several other important benefits because of the passage of the TurkStream through its territory. Serbia will have minimum $40 cheaper gas per thousand cubic meters thanks to tax revenues that it will collect due to the transportation of gas through its territory to other countries. The Bulgarians negotiated with Gazprom a 27% lower price because imported gas from Ukraine passes through its territory to other countries. Serbia will be able to strike a similar deal so that Russian gas can reach Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Hungary, through its territory. It is also a benefit as servicing the gas pipeline and accompanying facilities has created job opportunities, and cheaper gas will inevitably lead to greater industrial output in other sectors.

The benefits of the TurkStream in Serbia will soon be realized as the most difficult part of the job was completed, laying pipes at the bottom of the Black Sea. It is for this reason that Russia prioritized finishing the TurkStream first, even though it has a much smaller capacity compared to Nord Stream 2. Nord Stream 2 has been continuously delayed due to Moscow’s anticipation that Washington would not only oppose the project, but pressure involved countries to withdraw and impose sanctions.

But with TurkStream to begin running in Serbia, it has not only consolidated Belgrade’s relations with Moscow, it gives hope to a country that was devastated by a decade-long NATO destruction in the 1990’s. Serbia has not been able to fully recover from the war, but cheap gas and job creation will transform the Balkan country, not only industrially, but also in terms of regional influence as it becomes a crucial energy hub for the entire region.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Will Azerbaijani Gas Compete with Russia in Southern Europe?

The original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Paul Antonopoulos, Global Research, 2020

Before the Bidens ‘Did’ Ukraine, There Was Iraq – and Serbia

Before The Bidens “Did” Ukraine, There Was Iraq… And Serbia – Finanz.dk
Analyst, former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy adviser to the Senate GOP leadership

James George Jatras

October 16, 2020

The United States approaches the November 2020 election with growing apprehension, even dread.

Among the possibilities:

For those who have followed events outside the United States during the past few decades, much of this sounds familiar. We’ve seen it before – inflicted on other countries.

Now It’s Coming Home to the U.S.

As explained by Revolver News, what happens in America next to a great extent may be a form of blowback from a specific event: the U.S.-supported 2014 regime change operation in Ukraine:

‘A “Color Revolution” in this context refers to a specific type of coordinated attack that the United States government has been known to deploy against foreign regimes, particularly in Eastern Europe deemed to be “authoritarian” and hostile to American interests. Rather than using a direct military intervention to effect regime change as in Iraq, Color Revolutions attack a foreign regime by contesting its electoral legitimacy, organizing mass protests and acts of civil disobedience, and leveraging media contacts to ensure favorable coverage to their agenda in the Western press.

‘It would be disturbing enough to note a coordinated effort to use these exact same strategies and tactics domestically to undermine or overthrow President Trump. The ominous nature of what we see unfolding before us only truly hits home when one realizes that the people who specialize in these Color Revolution regime change operations overseas are, literally, the very same people attempting to overthrow Trump by using the very same playbook. Given that the most famous Color Revolution was the [2004] “Orange Revolution” in the Ukraine, and that Black Lives Matter is being used as a key component of the domestic Color Revolution against Trump, we can encapsulate our thesis at Revolver with the simple remark that “Black is the New Orange.”

This hardly should come as a surprise. The same government agencies and their corporate, NGO, and think tank cronies that are now weaponizing Black Lives Matter, Antifa, other Wokesters, and military putsch plotters here at home to remove Trump have turned regime change abroad into an art form. Ukraine was one of their signal successes, featuring a cast of characters later key to the failed “Ukrainegate” impeachment.

Another consequence of regime change: corruption. As the old saying goes, any idiot can turn an aquarium into fish soup, but no one has yet figured out how to reverse the process. Once a country gets broken it tends to stay broken, whether the “breaking” is accomplished by military means (Serbia 1999, Iraq 2003, Libya 2011) or by a color revolution from the streets (Serbia 2000, Georgia 2003, Ukraine 2004-2005 and again in 2014, Kyrgyzstan 2005, Lebanon 2005, Armenia 2018, plus many others of varying degrees of success, and failures in Iran, Russia, Venezuela, China (Hong Kong), and Belarus). With the target nation’s institutions in shambles, the dregs take over – in Libya, for example, even to the point of reintroducing trade in sub-Saharan African slaves, whose black lives evidently don’t matter to anyone at all.

Iraq: Crush, Corrupt, Cash In

Finally, once regime change occurs and corruption is rampant, another shoe drops: foreign vultures descend on the carcass, profiteers who in many cases are the very same people that helped to create the chaos on which they are cashing in. Invariably, these carpetbaggers are well-connected individuals in the aggressor states and organizations positioned on the inside track both for the carve-up of the target country’s resources and (the word “hypocrisy” doesn’t begin to describe it) for funds to implement “reform” and “reconstruction” of the devastated target.

The showcase of this scam, pursuant to Colin Powell’s reported “Pottery Barn Rule” (You break it, you own it) was the money ostensibly spent on rebuilding Iraq, despite assurances from the war’s advocates that it would pay for itself. With the formal costs conservatively set at over $60 billion to $138 billion out of a tab for the war of over two trillion dollars, the lion’s share of it went to U.S. and other vendors, including the notorious $1.4 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton subsidiary KBR, of which then-Vice President Dick Cheney, a major proponent of the war, had been a top executive. (“Rand Paul Says Dick Cheney Pushed for the Iraq War So Halliburton Would Profit.”)

In Ukraine, Biden’s Son Also Rises

The predatory cronyism vignette most pertinent to the Black/Orange regime change op now unfolding before us with the intent of installing Joe Biden in the Oval Office is that of his son, Hunter, and a Ukrainian energy company with a sketchy reputation, Burisma Holdings. (Right at the outset, even some of Hunter’s associates though the gig with Burisma was too “toxic” and broke off ties with him.) Though ignored or dismissed as fake news and a conspiracy theory by Democrats and legacy media (or do I repeat myself?), the facts are well enough known and fit the Iraq pattern to a T: then-Vice President Joe Biden pushed for regime change in Ukraine, which succeeded in February 2014 with the ouster of the constitutionally elected president, Viktor Yanukovych. In April 2014, Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, was brought onto Burisma’s board (along with a fellow named Devon Archer, later convicted of unrelated fraud) at an exorbitant level of compensation that made little sense in light of Hunter’s nonexistent expertise in the energy business – but which made plenty of sense given that his dad was not only Veep but the Obama administration’s point man on policy toward Ukraine, including foreign assistance money. [NOTE: It now has come out that in 2015 Hunter put his dad, the U.S. Vice President, in direct contact with Burisma, news the giant tech firms sought to suppress on social media.]

When a troublesome Ukrainian prosecutor named Viktor Shokin seemed to be taking too much interest in Burisma, Papa Joe came to the rescue, openly threatening the western-dependent politicians installed after Ukraine’s 2014 color revolution with withholding of a billion dollars in U.S. aid until Shokin, whom Joe unironically alleged to be “corrupt,” got the heave-ho. As Tucker Carlson nails it, Shokin’s ouster followed a direct request from Burisma’s Clinton-connected PR firm, Blue Star Strategies, to Hunter to lobby his dad to get Shokin off their back. Joe did just what was asked. He later bragged: “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here [i.e., Kiev] in, I think it was about six hours.’ I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”

But First There Was Serbia

Today many people remember Iraq, some have a clue about Ukraine. But Serbia, which preceded them, is off the radar screen of most Americans. To recap:

As a Senator in the 1990s, Joe Biden was one of the most militant advocates of U.S. military action against Serbs during the breakup of the Yugoslav federation, first in Croatia (1991-95), then in Bosnia (1992-95), and then in Serbia’s province of Kosovo (1998- 1999). (As has been said about others like Hillary Clinton and the late John McCain, Biden evidently has never met a war he didn’t like. Along with Hillary, in 2003 Biden helped to whip Senate Democrat votes for the Bush-Cheney Iraq war.) Channeling his inner John McCain, Biden continually called for the U.S. to bomb, bomb, bomb bomb the Serbs while (in a foreshadowing of the Obama-Biden administration’s support for jihad terrorists in Libya and Syria, which ultimately resulted in the appearance of ISIS) pushed successfully for sending weapons to the Islamist regime in Bosnia and then for the U.S. to arm the Islamo-narco-terrorist group known as the “Kosovo Liberation Army” (KLA).

Joe Biden was the primary sponsor of the March 1999 Kosovo war authorization for military action against Serbia and Montenegro, S. Con. Res. 21. (As a little remembered historical note, Biden’s resolution might be seen as the last nail in the coffin of Congress’s constitutional war power. While S. Con. Res 21 passed the Senate, it failed in the House on a 213-213 tie vote, with Republicans overwhelmingly voting Nay. It didn’t matter. Bill Clinton, reeling from the Lewinsky scandal, went ahead with the bombing campaign anyway.) The ensuing 78-day NATO air operation had little impact on Serbia’s military but devastated the country’s infrastructure and took hundreds of civilian lives. (Even now, more than 20 years later, Serbia suffers from elevated cancer levels attributed to depleted uranium munitions.) But for Jihad Joe even that wasn’t punishment enough for people he collectively demonized as “illiterate degenerates, baby killers, butchers, and rapists.” In May 1999, at the height of the NATO air assault, he called for the introduction of U.S. ground troops (“we should announce there’s going to be American casualties”) followed by “a Japanese-German style occupation.”

Eventually the bombing stopped in June 1999 when then-Serbian strongman Slobodan Milošević acceded to temporary international occupation of Kosovo on the condition that the province would remain part of Serbia, as codified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. It was a promise the U.S. and NATO, not to mention their European Union (EU) concubine, had no intention of keeping. Under the nose of the NATO occupation, ostensibly demobilized KLA thugs were given virtually free rein to terrorize the Serbian population, two-thirds of whom were driven out along with Jews and Roma, the rest sheltering in enclaves where they remain to this day. Orthodox Christian churches and monasteries, many of them centuries old, were particular targets for destruction and desecration. KLA commanders – who were also kingpins in the Kosovo Albanian mafia dealing in sex slaves, drugs, weapons, and even human organs – were handed local administration.

In 2007 Senator Biden praised the new order as a “victory for Muslim democracy” and “a much-needed example of a successful U.S.-Muslim partnership.” A year later, the Bush administration sought to complete the job by ramming through Kosovo’s independence in barefaced violation of UNSCR 1244 and despite strong Russian objections. But instead of resolving anything the result was a frozen conflict that persists today, with about half of the United Nations’ member states recognizing Kosovo and half not. Touting itself as the most pro-American “country” [sic] in the world, the Kosovo pseudo-state became a prime recruiting ground for ISIS.

But hey, business was good! Just as in Iraq, the politically well-connected, including former officials instrumental in the attack on Serbia and occupying Kosovo, flocked to the province fueled by lavish aid subsidies from the U.S. and the EU, which for a while made Kosovo one of the biggest per capita foreign assistance recipient “countries” in the world. One such vulture – sorry, entrepreneur – was former Secretary of State Madeleine we-think-a-half-million-dead-Iraqi-children-is-worth-it Albright, a prominent driver of the Clinton administration’s hostile policy on top of her personal Serb-hatred. Albright sought to cash in to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars on sale of the mobile telephone company PTK, originally a Yugoslav state-owned firm that was “privatized” (i.e., stolen) in 2005 as a joint stock company, but who later dropped her bid when it attracted unwanted publicity. Also in the hunt for Kosovo riches was former NATO Supreme Commander and operational chief of the Kosovo war General Wesley Clark, who reportedly cornered a major share of the occupied province’s coal resources under a sweetheart deal that seems to have vanished from public scrutiny since first reported in 2016.

At the moment there seems to be no smoking gun of a direct Biden family payout, à la Ukraine, but there is a possible trail via Hunter’s Burisma-buddy Devon Archer and Archer’s fellow-defendant John “Yanni” Galanis, who in turn is connected to top Kosovo Albanian politicians. In any case, the Biden clan seems to have paid a lot of attention to Kosovo for not having skin in the game. Joe’s late son and Delaware Attorney General, Beau, worked in Kosovo following the war to train local prosecutors as part of an OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) “rule of law” mission (admittedly a big task in a mafia-run pseudo-state), for which a road was named after him near the massive U.S. base Camp Bondsteel. With Hunter on hand for the naming ceremony, Joe Biden took the opportunity to express his “condolences” to Serbian families who lost loved ones in the NATO air assault – of which he was a primary advocate.

A ‘Shokin’ Demand  

Perhaps the best parallel between Biden’s handiwork in Ukraine and his interest in Kosovo also relates to getting rid of an inconvenient individual. But in this case, the person in question wasn’t a state official like Burisma prosecutor Viktor Shokin but a hierarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

In May 2009 Vice President Biden insisted on visiting one of Kosovo’s most venerable Serbian Orthodox Christian sites, the Visoki Dečani monastery. Ruling Bishop Artemije of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren, which includes Kosovo and Metohija, refused to give his blessing for the visit, in effect telling Biden he was not welcome. Bishop Artemije long had been a bane of Biden and others advocating detachment of Kosovo from Serbia, starting with his first mission to Washington in 1997 as war clouds gathered. In 2004 Bishop Artemije sued the NATO powers in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg following their inaction to protect his flock during an anti-Serbian rampage by Muslim Albanian militants in March of that year. Then, in March 2006, as preparations were underway for a “final solution” to the Kosovo issue, Bishop Artemije launched an intensive multinational lobbying and public relations effort (in which Yours Truly was the lead professional) to try to derail the U.S. policy to which Biden had devoted so much attention. While the Bishop’s campaign was unsuccessful in reversing U.S. policy it was instrumental in delaying it for over a year – to howls of outrage from Biden’s associates in Washington. Thus, for Biden, the monastery visit snub by Bishop Artemije was adding insult to injury.

The end for Bishop Artemije came a few months later, at the beginning of 2010 at the time of two visits to Kosovo by U.S. Admiral Mark P. Fitzgerald, then Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa, and Commander, Allied Joint Force Command (JFC) Naples, (who retired later that year, becoming, unsurprisingly, a consultant “with numerous defense and commercial maritime and aviation contractors”). At that time, an unconfirmed report indicated that a high NATO officer (whether Admiral Fitzgerald or someone else is not specified) stated in the course of one of his local meetings (this is verbatim or a close paraphrase): “What we need here is a more cooperative bishop.” (More details are available here. Since that posting last year the NATO command in Naples seems to have scrubbed the items about Fitzgerald’s 2010 visits from their site.)

Shortly afterwards, Biden’s troublesome priest was forcibly removed by police and exiled from his see, without ecclesiastical trial, by Church authorities in Belgrade under pressure from compliant Serbian politicians installed after the October 2000 color revolution, in turn pressured by NATO. The pretext? Transparently baseless charges of financial wrongdoing. In other words, bogus accusations of “corruption” – like against Ukraine’s Shokin.

One could almost hear Joe Biden chortle: “Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”

But Look at the Bright Side…

Back to the incipient coup facing the United States, there should be no illusion that what’s at stake in the unfolding scenario for the removal of Donald Trump is not just his presidency but the survival of the historic American ethnos of which he is seen as an avatar by both his supporters and detractors. Remember, we’re dealing with predators and scavengers who are happy to burn the old, evil America down as long as they can achieve total power and continue to feather their cushy nests. Short of a blowout Trump victory by a margin too big to hijack, we’re headed for a dystopian state of affairs.

If they do manage to remove Trump, “by any means necessary,” and Joe Biden takes the helm, we can anticipate a bevy of globalist warmonger appointees that make Trump’s team look like disciples of Mahatma Gandhi. Among the names floated like Nicholas BurnsAntony BlinkenMichele FlournoyEvelyn Farkas, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, all were on board with Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria … [NOTE: The Atlantic Council, known as NATO’s semi-official think tank in Washington and which will be instrumental in staffing a future Joe Biden administration, also has been the beneficiary of generous donations from Hunter Biden’s paymaster, Burisma.]

It’s a recipe for wars, regime changes, and color revolutions galore.

But to finish on a positive note, the potential future business opportunities will be endless!

Can and should Russia stop the war in the Caucasus?

October 09, 2020

THE SAKER • OCTOBER 10, 2020 

This war is officially a war between Azerbaijan and the (unrecognized) Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (RNK) aka “Republic of Artsakh” (ROA) which I shall refer to simply as Nagorno Karabakh or “NK”. As is often the case, the reality is much more complicated. For one thing, Erdogan’s Turkey has been deeply involved since Day 1 (and, really, even much before that) while Armenia has been backing NK to the hilt since the breakup of the Soviet Union. It is even worse: Turkey is a member of NATO while Armenia is a member of the CSTO. Thus a war started over a relatively small and remote area could, in theory, trigger an international nuclear war. The good news here is that nobody in NATO or the CSTO wants such a war, especially since technically speaking the NK is not part of Armenia (Armenia has not even recognized this republic so far!) and, therefore, not under the protection of the CSTO. And since there have been no attacks on Turkey proper, at least so far, NATO also has no reason to get involved.

I should mention here that in terms of international law, NK is an integral part of Azerbaijan. Still, almost everybody agrees that there is a difference between NK proper and the kind of security zone the army of NK created around NK (see map)

Can and should Russia stop the war in the Caucasus?

(note: the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic is part of Azerbaijan)

The reality on the ground, however, is very different, so let’s look at the position of each actor in turn, beginning with the party which started the war: Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan has been reforming and rearming its military since the Azeri forces got comprehensively defeated in the 1988-1994 war. Furthermore, for President Aliev this war represents what might well be the best and last chance to defeat the NK and Armenian forces. Most observers agree that should Aliev fail to achieve at least an appearance of victory he will lose power.

Armenia would have been quite happy to keep the status quo and continue to form one country with the NK de facto while remaining two countries de jure. Still, living in the tough and even dangerous “neighborhood” of the Caucasus, the Armenians never forgot that they are surrounded by more or less hostile countries just like they also remained acutely aware of Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman ideology which, sooner or later, would make war inevitable.

Iran, which is often forgotten, is not directly involved in the conflict, at least so far, but has been generally sympathetic to Armenia, primarily because Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman ideology represents a danger for the entire region, including Iran.

Turkey has played a crucial behind the scenes role in the rearmament and reorganization of Azeri forces. Just as was the case in Libya, Turkish attack drones have been used with formidable effectiveness against NK forces, in spite of the fact that the Armenians have some very decent air defenses. As for Erdogan himself, this war is his latest attempt to paint himself as some kind of neo-Ottoman sultan which will reunite all the Turkic people under his rule.

One of the major misconceptions about this conflict is the assumption that Russia has always been, and will always be, on the side of Armenia and the NK, but while this was definitely true for pre-1917 Russia, this is not the case today at all. Why?

Let’s examine the Russian position in this conflict.

First, let’s get the obvious out of the way: Armenia (proper, as opposed to NK) is a member of the CSTO and should anybody (including Azerbaijan and/or Turkey) attack Armenia, Russia would most definitely intervene and stop the attack, either by political or even by military means. Considering what Turkey has done to the Armenian people during the infamous Armenian Genocide of 1914-1923 this makes perfectly good sense: at least now the Armenian people know that Russia will never allow another genocide to take place. And the Turks know that too.

And yet, things are not quite that simple either.

For example, Russia did sell a lot of advanced weapon systems to Azerbaijan (see herefor one good example). In fact, relations between Vladimir Putin and Ilham Aliyev are famously very warm. And while it is true that Azerbaijan left the CSTO in 1999, Russia and Azerbaijan have retained a very good relationship which some even characterize as a partnership or even an alliance.

Furthermore, Azerbaijan has been a much better partner to Russia than Armenia, especially since the Soros-financed “color revolution” of 2018 which put Nikol Pashinian in power. Ever since Pashinian got to power, Armenia has been following the same kind of “multi-vector” policy which saw Belarus’ Lukashenko try to ditch Russia and integrate into the EU/NATO/US area of dominance. The two biggest differences between Belarus and Armenia are a) Belarusians and Russians are the same people and b) Russia cannot afford to lose Belarus whereas Russia has really zero need for Armenia.

On the negative side, not only has Azerbaijan left the CSTO in 1999, but Azerbaijan has also joined the openly anti-Russian GUAM Organization (which is headquartered in Kiev).

Next, there is the Turkey-Erdogan factor as seen from Russia. Simply put, the Russians will never trust any Turk who shares Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman worldview and ideology. Russia has already fought twelve full-scale wars against the Ottomans and she has no desire to let the Turks trigger another one (which they almost did when they shot down a Russian Su-24M over northern Syria). Of course, Russia is much more powerful than Turkey, at least in military terms, but in political terms an open war against Turkey could be disastrous for Russian foreign and internal policy objectives. And, of course, the best way for Russia to avoid such a war in the future is to make absolutely sure that the Turks realize that should they attack they will be suffering a crushing defeat in a very short time. So far, this has worked pretty well, especially after Russia saved Erdogan from the US-backed coup against him.

Some observers have suggested that Russia and Armenia being Christian, the former has some kind of moral obligation towards the latter. I categorically disagree. My main reason to disagree here is that Russians now are acutely aware of the disgusting lack of gratitude of our (supposed) “brothers” and (supposed) “fellow Christians” have shown as soon as Russia was in need.

Most Armenians are not Orthodox Christians, but members of the Armenian Apostolic Church, which are miaphysites/monophysites. They are also not Slavs.

The ONLY slavic or Orthodox people who did show real gratitude for Russia have been the Serbs. All the rest of them have immediately rushed to prostitute themselves before Uncle Shmuel and have competed with each other for the “honor” of deploying US weapons systems targeted at Russia. The truth is that like every superpower, Russia is too big and too powerful to have real “friends” (Serbia being a quite beautiful exception to this rule). The Russian Czar Alexander III famously said that “Russia only has two true allies: her army and her navy”. Well, today the list is longer (now we could add the Aerospace forces, the FSB, etc.), but in terms of external allies or friends, the Serbian people (as opposed to some of the Serbian leaders) are the only ones out there which are true friends of Russia (and that, in spite of the fact that under Elstin and his “democratic oligarchs” Russia shamefully betrayed a long list of countries and political leaders, including Serbia).

Then there is the religious factor which, while crucial in the past, really plays no role whatsoever in this conflict. Oh sure, political leaders on both sides like to portray themselves as religious, but this is just PR. The reality is that both the Azeris and the Armenians place ethnic considerations far above any religious ones, if only because, courtesy of the militant atheism of the former USSR, many, if not most, people in Armenia, Azerbaijan and even Russia nowadays are agnostic secularists with no more than a passing interest for the “spiritual values which shaped their national identity” (or something along these lines).

One major concern for Russia is the movement of Turkish-run Takfiris from Syria to Azerbaijan. The Russians have already confirmed that this has taken place (the French also reported this) and, if true, that would give Russia the right to strike these Takfiris on Azeri soil. So far, this threat is minor, but if it becomes real, we can expect Russian cruise missiles to enter the scene.

Finally, there are major Azeri and Armenian communities in Russia, which means two things: first, Russia cannot allow this conflict to sneak across the borders and infect Russia and, second, there are millions of Russians who will have ties, often strong ones, to both of these countries.

Though they are not currently officially involved, we still need to look, at least superficially, at the Empire’s view of this conflict. To summarize it I would say that the Empire is absolutely delighted with this crisis which is the third one blowing up on Russia’s doorstep (the other two being the Ukraine and Belarus). There is really very little the Empire can do against Russia: the economic blockade and sanctions totally failed, and in purely military terms Russia is far more powerful than the Empire. Simply put: the Empire simply does not have what it takes to take on Russia directly, but setting off conflicts around the Russia periphery is really easy.

For one thing, the internal administrative borders of the USSR bear absolutely no resemblance to the places of residence of the various ethnicities of the former Soviet Union. Looking at them one would be excused for thinking that they were drawn precisely to generate the maximal amount of tension between the many ethnic groups that were cut into separate pieces. There is also no logic in accepting the right of the former Soviet Republics to secede from the Soviet Union, but then denying the same right to those local administrative entities which now would want to separate from a newly created republic which they don’t want to be part of.

Second, many, if not most, of the so-called “countries” and “nations” which suddenly appeared following the collapse of the Soviet Union have no historical reality whatsoever. As a direct result, these newborn “nations” had no historical basis to root themselves in, and no idea what independence really means. Some nations, like the Armenians, have deep roots as far back as antiquity, but their current borders are truly based on nothing at all. Whatever may be the case, it has been extremely easy for Uncle Shmuel to move into these newly independent states, especially since many (or even most) of these states saw Russia as the enemy (courtesy of the predominant ideology of the Empire which was imposed upon the mostly clueless people of the ex-Soviet periphery). The result? Violence, or even war, all around that periphery (which the Russians think of as their “near abroad”).

I think that most Russian people are aware that while there has been a major price to pay for this, the cutting away of the ex-Soviet periphery from Russia has been a blessing in disguise. This is confirmed by innumerable polls which show that the Russian people are generally very suspicious of any plans involving the use of the Russian Armed Forces outside Russia (for example, it took all of Putin’s “street cred” to convince the Russian people that the Russian military intervention in Syria was a good idea).

There is also one more thing which we must always remember: for all the stupid US and western propaganda about Russia and, later, the USSR being the “prison of the people” (small nations survived way better in this “prison” than they did under the “democratic” rule of European colonists worldwide!), the truth is that because of the rabidly russophobic views of Soviet Communists (at least until Stalin – he reversed this trend) the Soviet “peripheral” Republics all lived much better than the “leftover Russia” which the Soviets called the RSFSR. In fact, the Soviet period was a blessing in many ways for all the non-Russian republics of the Soviet Union and only now, under Putin, has this trend finally been reversed. Today Russia is much richer than the countries around her periphery and she has no desire to squander that wealth on a hostile and always ungrateful periphery. The bottom line is this: Russia owes countries such as Armenia or Azerbaijan absolutely nothing and they have no right whatsoever to expect Russia to come to their aid: this won’t happen, at least not unless Russia achieves a measurable positive result from this intervention.

Still, let’s now look at the reasons why Russia might want to intervene.

First, this is, yet again, a case of Erdogan’s megalomania and malevolence resulting in a very dangerous situation for Russia. After all, all the Azeris need to do to secure an overt Turkish intervention is to either attack Armenia proper, which might force a Russian intervention or, alternatively, be so severely beaten by the Armenians that Turkey might have to intervene to avoid a historical loss of face for both Aliev and Erdogan.

Second, it is crucial for Russia to prove that the CSTO matters and is effective in protecting CSTO member states. In other words, if Russia lets Turkey attack Armenia directly the CSTO would lose all credibility, something which Russia cannot allow.

Third, it is crucial for Russia to prove to both Azerbaijan and Armenia that the US is long on hot air and empty promises, but can’t get anything done in the Caucasus. In other words, the solution to this war has to be a Russian one, not a US/NATO/EU one. Once it becomes clear in the Caucasus that, like in the Middle-East, Russia has now become the next “kingmaker” then the entire region will finally return to peace and a slow return to prosperity.

So far the Russians have been extremely careful in their statements. They mostly said that Russian peacekeepers could only be deployed after all the parties to this conflict agree to their deployment. Right now, we are still very far away from this.

Here is what happened so far: the Azeris clearly hoped for a short and triumphant war, but in spite of very real advances in training, equipment, etc the Azeri Blitzkrieg has clearly failed in spite of the fact that the Azeri military is more powerful than the NK+Armenian one. True, the Azeris did have some initial successes, but they all happened in small towns mostly located in the plain. But take a look at this topographic map of the area of operations and see for yourself what the biggest problem for the Azeris is:

Almost all of NK is located in the mountains (hence the prefix “nagorno” which means “mountainous”) and offensive military operations in the mountains are truly a nightmare, even for very well prepared and equipped forces (especially in the winter season, which is fast approaching). There are very few countries out there who could successfully conduct offensive operations in mountains, Russia is one of them, and Azerbaijan clearly is not.

Right now both sides agree on one thing only: only total victory can stop this war. While politically that kind of language makes sense, everybody knows that this war will not end up in some kind of total victory for one side and total defeat of the other side. The simple fact is that the Azeris can’t overrun all of NK while the Armenians (in Armenia proper and in the NK) cannot counter-attack and defeat the Azeri military in the plains.

Right now, and for as long as the Azeris and the Armenians agree that they won’t stop at anything short of a total victory, Russia simply cannot intervene. While she has the military power to force both sides to a total standstill, she has no legal right to do so and please remember that, unlike the US, Russia does respect international law (if only because she has no plans to become the “next US” or some kind of world hegemon in charge of maintaining the peace worldwide). So there are only two possible options for a Russian military intervention:

  1. A direct (and confirmed by hard evidence) attack on the territory of Armenia
  2. Both the Azeris and the Armenians agree that Russia ought to intervene.

I strongly believe that Erdogan and Aliev will do whatever it takes to prevent option one from happening (while they will do everything in their power short of an overt attack on Armenia to prevail). Accidents, however, do happen, so the risk of a quick and dramatic escalation of the conflict will remain until both sides agree to stop.

Right now, neither side has a clear victory and, as sad as I am to write these words, both sides have enough reserves (not only military, but also political and economic) to keep at it for a while longer. However, neither side has what it would take to wage a long and bloody positional war of attrition, especially in the mountain ranges. Thus both sides probably already realize that this one will have to stop, sooner rather than later (according to some Russian experts, we are only talking weeks here).

Furthermore, there are a lot of very dangerous escalations taking place, including artillery and missile strikes on cities and infrastructure objects. If the Armenians are really pushed against a wall, they could both recognize NK and hit the Azeri energy and oil/gas infrastructure with their formidable Iskander tactical ballistic missiles. Should that happen, then we can be almost certain that both the Azeris and the Turks will try to attack Armenia, with dramatic and most dangerous consequences.

This conflict can get much, much more bloody and much more dangerous. It is thus in the interests of the entire region (but not the US) to stop it. Will the Armenian lobby be powerful enough to pressure the US into a more helpful stance? So far, the US is, at least officially, calling all sides for a ceasefire (along with France and Russia), but we all know how much Uncle Shmuel’s word can be trusted. At least there is no public evidence that the US is pushing for war behind the scenes (the absence of such evidence does, of course, not imply the evidence of the absence of such actions!).

At the time of writing this (Oct. 9th) Russia has to wait for the parties to come back to reality and accept a negotiated solution. If and when that happens, there are options out there, including making NK a special region of Azerbaijan which would be placed under the direct protection of Russia and/or the CSTO with Russian forces deployed inside the NK region. It would even be possible to have a Turkish military presence all around the NK (and even some monitors inside!) to reassure the Azeris that Armenian forces have left the region and are staying out. The Azeris already know that they cannot defeat Armenia proper without risking a Russian response and they are probably going to realize that they cannot overrun NK. As for the Armenians, it is all nice and fun to play the “multi-vector” card, but Russia won’t play by these rules anymore. Her message here is simple: if you are Uncle Shmuels’s bitch, then let Uncle Shmuel save you; if you want us to help, then give us a really good reason why: we are listening”.

This seems to me an eminently reasonable position to take and I hope and believe that Russia will stick to it.

PS: the latest news is that Putin invited the Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia to Moscow for “consultations” (not “negotiations”, at least not yet) with Sergei Lavrov as a mediator. Good. Maybe this can save lives since a bad peace will always be better than a good war.

PPS: the latest news (Oct 9th 0110 UTC) is that the Russians have forced Armenia and Azerbaijan to negotiate for over thirteen hours, but at the end of the day, both sides agreed to an immediate ceasefire and for substantive negotiations to begin. Frankly, considering the extreme hostility of the parties towards each other, I consider this outcome almost miraculous. Lavrov truly earned his keep today! Still, we now have to see if Russia can convince both sides to actually abide by this agreement. Here is a machine translation of the first Russian report about this outcome:

Statement by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia

In response to the appeal of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin and in accordance with the agreements of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan I.G. Aliyev and Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia N.V. Pashinyan, the parties agreed on the following steps :

1. A ceasefire is declared from 12:00 pm on October 10, 2020 for humanitarian purposes for the exchange of prisoners of war and other detained persons and bodies of the dead, mediated and in accordance with the criteria of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

2. The specific parameters of the ceasefire regime will be agreed upon additionally.

3. The Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia, with the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, on the basis of the basic principles of the settlement, begin substantive negotiations with the aim of reaching a peaceful settlement as soon as possible.

4. The parties confirm the invariability of the format of the negotiation process.

Serbia SITREP: Kosovo – the endless game

Serbia SITREP: Kosovo – the endless game

September 07, 2020

by Zoran Petrov for The Saker Blog

UPDATE!

Although I tried to predict possible outcomes from White House meeting, the results were more then a surprise! What is obvious from 2 (or 3 days) summit is that stakes of the actual three party meeting were different from those involving Belgrade-Pristina.

Thanks to coming presidential elections in US, Serbia managed to get some concessions that were impossible before (see images from proposed document as well documents signed by Albanians). But there was a price to pay for!

Vucic had rough ride in America mainly because he managed successfully to blackmail US counterparts.

From what is public information, we know that “mutual recognition” was off the proposed agreement. Despite “heroic” battles it is now clear, that “mutual recognition” was just a smoke screen that poor Pristina took it for real! The whole event was for Trump and it served his election campaign. Question of recognition of Jerusalem by the first EU country (Serbia) is important achievement for his evangelist and Jewish voters. Maybe this summit was ignored by major media but it was followed by religious TV and radio shows. The same is for Hezbollah issue.

Vucic paid humiliating price for taking advantage of situation (now famous sitting in the small chair in front of Trump) and blackmailing for changes in an agreement by stopping short of excluding Russia as supplier of gas and China from supplying 5G equipment to Serbia!

Another small revenge was change in text in regard to Jerusalem, by US side that caught Vucic by surprise when Trump announced it on press conference.

What we don´t know is what was real discussion between two delegations, especially between Vucic and Pompeo? What we know for sure, thanks to Vucic lapsus, that there were discussion about who will control sky above Kosovo. After NATO occupation of Kosovo, NATO controlled airspace above Kosovo. That space is divided in upper layer (above 8700 meters) and lower one (up to 8700 meters). In 2014 NATO transferred the authority to control the upper layer to the Hungarian Flight Control. It seems that Serbia was trying to get that control from NATO but obviously talks are not concluded yet. It is of paramount importance to mention that Serbia will, based on this agreement get rail access to deep water port in Albania (Durres -Serbia unsuccessfully tried to purchase port in Bar, Montenegro some years ago). It seems that interesting times are coming!

White House Kosovo meeting: crossing the Atlantic, for this?

White House Kosovo meeting: crossing the Atlantic, for this?

by Eric Vögelin[1] for the Saker blog

The President of Serbia and Avdullah Hoti, the Prime Minister (perhaps it would be more correct to say “self-styled Prime Minister”) of NATO’s 1999 war booty, the occupied Serbian province of Kosovo were hosted for a conference at the White House on 3 and 4 September. The ostensible purpose of the meeting was to iron out their economic relations, as if anything were there to iron out given the devastated condition of both their economies. Putting aside the sensible question of why anybody at the White House would even care about this very local issue enough to devote the good part of two days to it, and bearing in mind that nothing in the Balkans is as it appears at first glance, the real agenda was, of course, quite a bit different. It had to do with putting finishing touches on legitimizing Kosovo as a separate state with international attributes, and economic concerns only served to camouflage that intention.

When the dust settled, the Serbian President had signed what must appear as one of the weirdest documents in the history of international relations. Before making any further editorial comments, here it is:

C:\Users\hp\Desktop\Serbia-Kosovo Agreement 2020 - 1.jpg
C:\Users\hp\Desktop\Serbia-Kosovo Agreement 2020 - 2.jpg

What is so bizarre about it? It is a scrap of paper adorned with the signature of a head of state, but without any heading or logo, or place where it was signed. To add insult to injury, the signatory is identified merely as “President.” President of what, the local Rotary Club or Hunters’ Association? Would a statesman who cares about the dignity of his office or the prestige of his country sign something like this? And what is this, anyway? Is it a diplomatic document or the signatory’s private notes, written out to himself? Interesting questions, worth pondering.

For a contrast, here is President Donald Trump’s letter to his Kosovo Albanian guest, Avdullah Hoti, commemorating the occasion:

C:\Users\hp\Desktop\Trump letter to Hothi.jpg

That looks a lot better and more dignified, doesn’t it?

For an economic agreement between two Balkan entities that few in the West have heard of, care about, or could locate on the map, reached with the involvement of President Trump and members of his staff, the strangely laid out document, it must be said, contains some even stranger provisions.

It says, among other things, that the parties will “diversify their energy supplies.” What does this Aesopian language mean? Are the parties unhappy with their current sources of energy and in need of assistance to secure new ones? Hardly. In light of (a) America’s bitter opposition to North Stream 2, and (b) Secretary of State Pompeo’s recent attempts to “diversify” Belarus’ energy supplies by pushing on it US products that would have to be brought from 10,000 miles away in order to block nearby Russian energy supplies, this phrase can mean only one thing. It is an order to Serbia to abandon any thought of relying on convenient and reasonably priced Russian energy supplies. It also puts an end to Serbia’s role in the Russian European energy distribution scheme, and potentially deprives it of its lucrative position as the South Stream distribution hub. What a great deal for Serbia!

Serbia further accepts to “prohibit the use of 5G equipment supplied by untrusted vendors.” Public health advocates would at this point say “Great, the trip to Washington was not in vain after all, because the scourge of 5G will no longer endanger the health of Serbia’s population, already being decimated by dire cancer generating radioactive consequences of the 1999 NATO bombing.” But the removal of this indisputably noxious Chinese equipment (and that is the whole point of this provision) will not end the scourge but will merely lead to “other mediation efforts in a timely fashion,” e.g. to the substitution of US manufactured deadly 5G networks for those of Huawei.

So the “economic normalization agreement with Kosovo” signed by the president of Serbia’s Hunter’s Association is actually a huge slap to both Russia and China, Serbia’s important geopolitical partners, and incidentally a shot in Serbia’s own foot as well.

Next, there is a provision which Ambassador Richard Grenell, who mediated the talks, might have inserted himself: “Both parties will work with the 69 countries that criminalize homosexuality to push for decriminalization.” What has that got to do with economic relations? And why stop there and not also mandate transgender toilets in Serbian grammar schools?

Serbia is also mandated to transfer its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In parallel fashion, “Kosovo” and Israel will establish diplomatic relations, i.e. Israel recognizes Kosovo. Another great deal for Serbia. By moving its embassy to Jerusalem, Serbia will reward Israel for recognizing the illegal separation of 15% of its territory containing some of its most significant cultural and spiritual sites. That would be analogous to Israel ceding Temple Mount and the Wailing wall to the Arabs and opening embassies in their capitals. And, slap number three, this time to the Arab and Muslim world, for reasons that are impossible to rationally fathom, Serbia obliges itself to “implement measures to restrict Hizballah´s operations and financial activities” on its territory. Whatever position one chooses to take toward “Hizballah” there is nothing for Serbia to restrict because that organization does not conduct any activities on Serbian territory, unless the reference is to “Kosovo” which happens to be a Hizballah stronghold. So why aren´t things called by their real name, and why does a person purporting to represent Serbia consent to being strong-armed into signing such a ludicrous provision, needlessly putting his country in a bad light and courting the contempt of hundreds of millions of Muslims throughout the world?

The next to last point of the Agreement is highly indicative of the political context of the entire affair. It says that in return for “Kosovo” not seeking membership in international organizations for a year, Serbia will “agree to a one-year moratorium on its de-recognition campaign, and will refrain from formally or informally requesting any nation or International Organization not to recognize Kosovo as an independent state.” The formulation is ambiguous but it is framed to support the interpretation that Serbia will refrain from obstructing the recognition of “Kosovo as an independent state” without any time limitations. The sentence is cleverly written by Anglo-Saxon lawyers, including tricky punctuation, to obfuscate that point, but the comma after the word “year” gives the game away. The clause that follows is grammatically separate from the language that precedes it. If President Trump was in a hurry and retyping the whole thing was not an option, any prudent signatory on Serbia’s behalf would have quickly inserted in his own hand after the word refrain the phrase “for the duration of one year,” thus clearly matching the period of “Kosovo’s” commitment to refrain. But as the matter stands, “Kosovo’s” duty to refrain will expire in one year, while Serbia’s obligation to do the same will continue indefinitely after that. Pacta sunt servanda.

Did Serbia’s representative at this meeting have a legal team to assist him? Probably not, because he presumes to be a lawyer himself.

What is the political implication of this provision? It is that the US and EU sponsored process of “Kosovo” legitimation as an “independent state” shall continue unabated, culminating in UN membership, with Serbia renouncing in advance the right to oppose it in any effective way. It is a demonically clever scheme. In the end, Serbia’s de iure recognition of “Kosovo” will become irrelevant because there will no longer be a need to seek its consent or opinion on the subject.

The thought that President Trump arranged this meeting because he needed a foreign policy win before the elections is grossly exaggerated. In his press briefing on 4 September, the same day these discussions were concluded, he did not even mention them or intimate that some spectacular accords which might influence his electoral chances were signed in the Oval Office. That is a clue to the significance he attributes to the visit of his Balkan guests.

For the outlaw “government of Kosovo,” however, this is an important phase in the relentless process of legitimation that is being conducted under the auspices of its US deep state sponsors, whether Trump personally is aware of what is going on or not. For Serbia, the trans-Atlantic trip definitely was not worth it. It was another broad strategic retreat and humiliation. It demonstrates the readiness of Serbia’s leadership to needlessly abase themselves and trade the country’s crown jewels for another lease on their political life, betting on the foreign support they now think they have secured by brown-nosing the global powers-that-be. They better think again, however, and analyse realistically the trajectory of their Montenegrin colleagues.

  1. I thank a reader of my previous article for correctly spelling my surname, with the umlaut. I had used the English transliteration in order not to confuse some readers. 

Two clicks to midnight

Two clicks to midnight

Two clicks to midnight[1]

by Ken Leslie for The Saker Blog

While I was absent from this esteemed blog focusing on other things, an extremely dangerous situation started to develop and I found myself reaching for the keyboard again. If some of my previous writings were a bit alarmist, the tone was motivated by a genuine angst before an unfeeling and unstoppable machine of conquest and destruction the likes of which the world had never seen. And angst it is—anybody with an ounce of common sense can see that the World is hurtling towards some kind of catastrophe. Whether this occurs in a year or five is less relevant. The point is that we are witnessing a process of rapid implosion of the current global system and are not able to see what will replace it. There is no compelling vision of the future—a universal vessel of hope that would transport us across the turbulent waters of fundamental change. This time I am not anxious but resigned. Resignation does not imply learned helplessness—unlike most people around me I am grateful for the ability to be aware of the danger and to articulate what I see as the truth without fear or self-censorship.

Oh, and if the post sounds like a rant, that’s because it is one.

Some academics (ideologues?) such as Steven Pinker have argued that things are much better than they were a 100 years ago—at least in terms of deaths caused by wars and other hard indicators of well-being. Although it pains me to say that Pinker could be correct, this essay is not about “progress” but about the approach of the ultimate regress—the unavoidable and ultimately catastrophic clash between the “West” and the “East”. A couple of months ago I was writing about the danger of NATO hordes closing in on Moscow from the Ukraine, Poland and the Baltics only to realize that unless a miracle happens, in a few months, Russia will be completely surrounded by enemies. The only exceptions—Norway at the extreme North and Azerbaijan at the extreme South are less relevant at the moment but as we have seen recently, these countries too are being subjected to accelerated weaponization—just yesterday, a Russian diplomat was detained in Norway and Azerbaijan is involved in a tense standoff with a (supposed) ally of Russia.

The fracturing and occupation of the post-Soviet space that began in 1991 is almost complete. More or less willingly, the former Warsaw pact and buffer states of Eastern Europe joined the criminal alliance that is NATO and over the last 30 years gradually prepared for the coming war against Russia. When did it all begin? The blueprint for the current mechanism was established by the Nazi Germany which narrowed the distance between itself and the Soviet Union over a few years. Moreover, the political mechanism behind the new Drang (the European Union) was designed in 1944 by Hitler’s economic experts (and put into practice by the founder of the CIA, William Donovan). It should be noted that on his way to the USSR, Hitler had to “pacify” a few countries including Poland, France, Yugoslavia and Greece. This time around, the whole West is united in its enmity towards Russia (economic links notwithstanding) and ALL European countries with the exception of Serbia and Byelorussia have placed themselves willingly in the anti-Russian camp. This is not to say that the majority of people in those countries hate Russia (in many they do) but that the governing cliques and military juntas inside various NATO satrapies are ready to contribute to the “joint effort to bring freedom and democracy” to the “benighted Rus”.

Of these two pariahs, the Serbs, despite their love of Russia are doomed by geography and by the privilege of being the only nation to have a piece of their country (Kosovo and Metohija) taken away, of being bombed by the combined forces of the West for 78 days and having a quarter of a million of their number cruelly expelled from their homeland in Srpska Krajina (currently occupied by Croatia). Exhausted and surrounded by enemies, the Serbs can do little to stop the clock ticking towards the Armageddon. This leaves Byelorussia, the only post-Soviet country that has not flirted with overt Russophobia and whose president showed many signs of real independence of mind vis-à-vis the West. Alexander Lukashenko’s personal bravery is not in question. In the midst of the NATO bombing in 1999, he visited Belgrade and declared himself openly pro-Serb. He signed the accession to the Union State between his country and Russia that same year.[2] He was somebody who wanted to preserve the positive legacy of the Soviet Union and his unwillingness to toe the EU line (pro-German “democracy” at home and anti-Russian posture abroad) earned him the sobriquet of the “last European dictator”.

But then, things started to go wrong, especially after the Nazi takeover of the Ukraine in 2014. Lukashenko might have started to feel isolated and between Western pressure and ossification of his quasi-socialist system (nothing wrong with it in principle), he began to turn against his only genuine ally—Russia. The reasons for this U turn are complex but at this moment also irrelevant. Whatever the cause of the cooling of the relations between Russia and Byelorussia, the consequences are dire and are fast becoming catastrophic. To understand the gravity of the situation, we should be able to see the “Gestalt”—the whole of the current geopolitical situation and its trends. That a global conflict between the West and the East is in the offing there is no doubt. Not only has Russia been targeted since the mid-1990s, but the total war on China and Iran declared by Trump and his Jesuitical agents provocateurs confirms absolutely that we are facing something unprecedented. I need to remind the reader that nothing like this was even remotely possible only 30 years ago. The brazenness and sheer bloodthirst of the new Operation Barbarossa with its global ambitions dwarfs any conquests known to history. What boggles the mind is how successful it has been.

No bromides about how strong Russia is, how well it’s coping (I repeat—coping) with the cruel sanctions by the West will suffice this time. No empty hope that somehow the miserable quisling statelets from the Balkans to the Baltics will experience a Zen-like enlightenment and disobey their Western masters. No false hope that the push towards Russia’s borders can somehow be reversed and no end in sight to the total war waged by the combined “West” (a dire temporary reconciliation of a resurgent Roman Catholicism, neutered Protestantism and newly respectable Zionism). From this point on, there is no going back. The distance between Moscow and the closest point in the Ukraine is 440 km (as crow flies). In the case of Byelorussia, it is 410 km. Although symbolic, this advance would be hugely important for the would-be conquerors as it is for Russia. Starting with Orsha in Byelorussia, the path to Moscow leads through Smolensk, Vyazma and Mozhaysk—towns that experienced so much suffering in WWII because they were on the road to Moscow. But what about the suffering of Byelorussia? It was probably the worst-suffering Soviet republic with an unknown number of people killed or sent of to Germany as slave labour and uncountable number of villages and towns destroyed.

None of this matters in the upside-down Western world view in which black is white and white is black. It is a world in which the close descendants of the worst war criminals in history are now the unofficial rulers of Europe together with their Gallic poodles and Anglo-Saxon frenemies, while the nation which bore the brunt of the cruellest genocide ever is being attacked by those same criminals again—as if two Vernichtungskriege in 30 years weren’t enough.

Many will point out that we are already at war and this would be true. The threat of a nuclear conflict has prompted Western strategists to think of alternative ways of destroying their opponents. We are talking about a broad-spectrum effort which includes political, economic, intelligence, cultural, psychological, religious and military components. By weaving these different strands into a single coordinated strategy, the West is hoping (and succeeding) in getting closer to Moscow every day without igniting a global nuclear war. This time however, it is different. Not only has the West crossed Russia’s geopolitical red lines, it has given notice that it will stop at nothing until Russia is defeated and destroyed. They are skilfully neutralising Russia’s nuclear deterrent by inflicting a thousand cuts from all sides without suffering any harm themselves. Two days ago, a Russian major general was killed by America’s proxies in Syria while delivering food to the people of Idlib. Today, Alexey Navalny is in a coma after an alleged poisoning attempt. The quickening is palpable but no event demonstrates the current danger better than the attempted colour revolution in Byelorussia which is unfolding as we speak.

The genius of the Western destruction-mongers lies not in their ingenuity and creativity but in their understanding of the lower reaches of human nature (in this respect they have no peer). They know how to exploit weaknesses such as greed, envy and ego and especially people’s susceptibility to vices. Moreover, these agents of darkness know that most people are frightened, helpless, largely ignorant and easily swayed and distracted. With this knowledge and an inexhaustible source of money, the West has settled on a winning scheme of “peaceful” conquest which has brought it all the way from the Atlantic coast to the gates of Moscow after 30 years of colour revolutions, coups and open war. I need to stress the importance and success of this “boiling frog” strategy.[3] There is nothing new or surprising in their latest move on Lukashenko—the same combination of underground CIA-funded networks from Poland, Ukraine and the Baltics and incompetent opposition which is transformed into a “plausible democratic alternative” overnight. Nazi-linked symbols, Russophobic vultures such as the buzzard-faced Bernard Henri-Levi circling above the scene, invented ancient roots… It’s all there.

But that is not why I’m writing. Throughout my years as a keen observer of the latest (and last) Drang, I have been fascinated by the patterns of behaviour (on a geopolitical level) which seem to come straight out of a history book to describe the period circa 1940. While the Western juggernaut hurtles through space, the decorum of “partnership” is maintained to the very last moment. Even though a few lonely voices are screaming that the war is inevitable and that Russia must neutralise any further advances by the new Nazis, most people are distracted by COVID, Joe Biden’s dementia and other nonsense. This could be cowardice but could also be wisdom in the face of an inevitable tragedy.

Even the tone of the Russian diplomacy is slowly changing—as it did in the autumn of 1940 following the cooling of German-Soviet relations. The ever measured and moderate Sergei Lavrov (like Vyacheslav Molotov before him) has started describing the international situation in more realistic terms using noticeably harsher language. Nevertheless, unless Russia does something very quickly, it will find itself completely surrounded and unable to defend itself as it did in 1941—hypersonic weapons notwithstanding.

However, the most fascinating aspect of this latest escalation is the fact that another colour revolution could be attempted at all and that Russia is still unable to assert itself in its neighbourhood, if only in order to save itself. “Unable” is perhaps too strong a word. What I mean is that unlike the West which is achieving its geopolitical goals without shedding blood and even without suffering any significant economic damage (no, Russian countersanctions have not crippled Germany or France), the Russians know that any attempts to stop and reverse the Western push will cost them dearly—primarily in terms of further isolation from all Western countries (already, Russian diplomats are being detained and expelled throughout the EU, as if in anticipation of the Byelorussian endgame). [4]The Western planners know that Russia can survive on its own but they also know that it can’t survive for long if deprived of the oxygen of international exchange—the feeling that it belongs to the family of European nations. No Eurasian ideology can ever replace the esteem in which Europe has been held by Russian intellectuals. While I see this pronounced inferiority complex as Russia’s curse, I have to acknowledge it in order to explain president Putin’s attempts to get various EU countries on his side.

It is not so much about economy but about Russia’s eternal yearning to prove itself worthy of “European standards” despite the fact that it was Europe that has been attacking Russia relentlessly and is guilty of crippling it possibly beyond healing. Hope springs eternal. And yet, president Putin must be aware of the dirty double-dealing game the EU is playing (I am giving the villain du jour a miss this time) by leaning on the United States to re-establish its hegemony over the Eurasian, African and Middle-Eastern space while lecturing Putin and Lukashenko on the merits of democracy. There is something deeply hypocritical—not to say Jesuitical—about EUs posture. It is doing everything in its power to isolate and weaken Russia while offering carrots such as Nord stream 2. This is much more pernicious than the open enmity of Trump and his crude supremacism because it offers the deeply unpleasant EU block an opportunity to play a good cop towards Russia at no cost to itself. Compared with the US’s Berserker-like attack on anything and everything, the EU appears “reasonable” and ready for a compromise by comparison—but this is only a dangerous illusion.

While the EU is wholeheartedly supporting the new Maidan (relying on the nazified pockets in the West of Byelorussia and the usual pro-Western suspects), it has the temerity to issue warnings to Putin not to “meddle” and to Lukashenko not to “oppress”. This coming from a president who has been perpetrating mass violence on the peaceful demonstrators in the centre of Paris for over a year. Even worse, Angela Merkel who is initiating a more muscular foreign policy under the guidance of expansionist hawks who are champing at the bit to replace her (Annegret whatever and Ursula I don’t care) dares lecture Russia on interfering in other countries’ affairs—after her illustrious predecessors. the CDU crypto-Nazis Kohl, Kinkel and Genscher destroyed Yugoslavia (only for Russian top partnyor Gerhardt Schröder to finish the job by sending German bombers, spies and military trainers to Serbia in 1999). And yet, all Russia can do is appeal meekly to the EU in the hope that the Ukrainian scenario will not recur. Promises of military help given to Lukashenko are almost worthless in the light of the cumulative EUs response—which would be nothing short of traumatic. The proof of this is the complete support by Germany for the Ukrainian regime notwithstanding its dirty role in overthrowing Yanukovich and undermining the Minsk accords.

So, what am I trying to say? The moment of reckoning has arrived. Despite the heroic battle by President Putin and his comrades to buy time and delay the inevitable, the time for procrastination and appeasement has passed. Russia must choose between a difficult but sustainable future and no future at all. The Western offensive has destroyed all buffers between Russia and its enemies and although this might not mean much militarily, it has a vast symbolic value.[5] If Byelorussia goes, Russia remains geopolitically isolated like never before. Furthermore, its enemies, far from collapsing as many have been predicting, are strong and more united than ever despite various internecine squabbles.[6] This is not to say that Russia is at the death’s door. On the contrary, it is precisely because it is so resilient and forward-looking that its enemies are compelled to ramp up the pressure.

Even if Lukashenko survives the current jeopardy, he will cease to be a relevant political factor in years to come. The weakening of his rule (however clumsy and obsolescent) can mean only one thing—the infiltration of the Byelorussian political life by various pro-Western agents of influence who will find it easy to corrupt and disrupt by dipping into NED’s and USAID’s seemingly inexhaustible coffers. The moment Russia intervenes in the affairs of Minsk in any detectable way, it will be subjected to a barrage of hatred, military threats and punitive measures that have not been seen before. President Putin has an unenviable choice—act sub rosa (like he has been doing in the Donbass) and watch Byelorussia slowly descend into an orgy of anti-Russian madness or intervene openly and risk alienating the EU further, at a time when the fate of the lifeline pipeline crucially depends on EUs goodwill and willingness to antagonise Trump (a perfect good cop, bad cop scenario played by the USA and EU).

All of this is clear to president Putin and his cabinet and I have no doubt that they are burning midnight oil trying to think of the best ways to counter the Western aggression. Yet, history still holds valuable lessons. Stung by what he saw as the betrayal by the British and the French, Joseph Stalin signed a non-aggression treaty with Hitler in order to delay the inevitable. The period of collaboration involved the USSR shipping oil to Germany, oil which would later power German tanks on the road to Stalingrad. Although he did buy enough time to execute some important war preparations, Stalin waited far too long. Months after having received reports of German reconnaissance planes overflying Byelorussia and Ukraine, Stalin refused to believe that Hitler would betray him and ascribed the “anti-German” panic to the agents of Winston Churchill. Yet, this time he was horribly wrong and his error cost the USSR millions of lives and billions in damage. None of the subsequent amazing victories of the Soviet arms would quite wash away the bitter taste of Stalin’s epic blunder of 1941.

The historical lesson I was alluding to is simple yet devilishly hard to implement because it is “two-tailed”. In other words, the possibility of a deadly miscalculation stretches equally in both temporal directions away from the point that represents a timely decision. In other words, given the huge stakes that are involved, making a correct decision is well-nigh impossible. And although the choice can be defended post-hoc, especially if it results in a victory, we can never know if a better decision could not have been made. Like Stalin, Putin is facing the Scylla and Charybdis of time, only I would argue that he is facing an even more difficult decision. For all its weaknesses, the Soviet Union was much larger than its successor state and possessed by far the largest armed forces in the world (to say nothing about the reserves of raw materials and workforce). The factor that probably decided its fate was a relative weakness of the fifth column inside the country and the ability of the security services to neutralise pro-German networks operating inside the country. President Putin has entered the twilight zone in which the smallest mistake can cost him everything. I don’t envy him but pray for his wisdom and Russia’s preparedness.

Of course, circumstances have changed dramatically and today’s warfare bears scant resemblance to the mass movement of army fronts across thousands of kilometres of chernozem and steppe. These days, the crude manoeuvring of armoured columns has been replaced by silent software attacks on a state’s currency system and infrastructure, covert takeovers and sabotage of its assets, denial of open and free intercourse with other countries, replacement of the indigenous values and goals by the foreign dogma and suborning of its institutions to will of the Empire. This new form of warfare requires sophistication and intercontinental co-ordination. Occasionally, we are made aware of the bloopers of the Western intelligence services and their silly attempts to blame Russia for all their ills, but make no mistake! The cumulative effect of their misdeeds has been a complete homogenisation of the European space along the Russophobic lines prescribed by the behind-the-scene bosses. Let me put it this way: If tomorrow the USA and the EU were to declare a war on Russia, do you believe that any of the Slav vassals would openly defy the clarion call? Again, let me give you a couple of examples from history.

When NATO bombed Serbia, not a single country refused to participate in this egregious war crime and the honour of defying the black criminal cabal of Brussels belongs to a few heroic soldiers from Greece, Spain and France. With Iraq it was different in that Germany and France did not feel sufficiently incentivised to participate in what they saw as a neocon-inspired Anglo-Saxon adventure (for which they have been lauded no end). To pre-empt the possibility of future betrayal by its vassals, the US has shifted to a new strategy which seeks to weaken Russia (or China) without having to mobilise military “coalitions of the willing”. The war is being fought in small, almost invisible increments which do not require absolute allegiance to the cause and payment in blood.

The new army consists of spies, computer and finance specialists, thinktank ideologues, NGO “activists”, “security experts” and other assorted ghouls whose victories are not measured in square kilometres of conquered territory or body counts but in fractions of a percent of damage caused to the currency, prestige or freedom of action of the enemy. This leaves a lot of space for “plausible deniability” and the maintenance of the “business as usual” posture while the deadly blows are administered below the waterline. It also bamboozles the ordinary people into thinking that the war could never happen. It can and it will.

Another consequence will be accelerated squeezing and neutralisation of the semi-impotent Serbia and the final Gleichschaltung of the Eastern wing of NATO in preparation for a more muscular phase of the war. This will involve transferring more troops and missiles to the East (but always under the retaliation threshold), closing down of Russia’s embassies and consulates in Europe while pretending to oppose the United States, closing down financing channels and media outlets, making life miserable for Russian citizens and businessmen abroad plus hundreds more nasty tricks. In many ways, the strategy of sustained pressure is more dangerous than open conflict because it sucks out hope from the people of the affected country—the hope that they will be treated as equals by the “cultured” West. A similar tactic has been used against China but China is in a much better economic position to withstand such pressures.

The fall of Lukashenko and “old Byelorussia” can mean only one thing—an intensified total war which Russia will have to face totally isolated. If Russia’s last real ally (yes, that’s what he is) can be removed with such ease, Russia cannot hope to attract and keep long-term allies and neutral partners. This is only partly Russia’s fault. The power aligned against it is unprecedented in history and I am praying that Russia will be able to overcome the forces of evil again.

One piece of good news though—the dissolute Jesuitical warmonger Bannon has been arrested for fraud—finally showing the Chinese the fruits of a “Christian” education.

Notes:

  1. The illustration has been borrowed from the irreplaceable Colonel Cassad (Boris Rozhin) whose blog most of us visit regularly. The link is: https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/6110832.html 
  2. Generally, I agree with the Saker that Byelorussia should not exist as an independent state. Nor should the Ukraine for that matter, apart from the Uniate appendage of Galicia. 
  3. From Wikipedia: “The boiling frog is a fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of sinister threats that arise gradually rather than suddenly.” 
  4. A recent episode has infuriated me no end. After helping Italy to stem the spread of COVID in a gesture of friendship and good will, the Russian air force has had to chase an Italian military aeroplane that was approaching the Russian Black Sea coast. Even if this was an attempt by the Americans to poison the relations between the two nations, it is inexcusable and leaves another stain of dishonour on the standard of the much abused battle standard of Italy. 
  5. Actually, it does mean a lot militarily because it allows for all kinds of fast aggressive moves for which Russia cannot find timely countermeasures. In today’s world of nanosecond processing, 10 km is a huge distance. 
  6. If you think that Brexit and Greek-Turkish tensions prove me wrong, remember that modern European history was a never-ending saga of bloody and destructive wars. 
%d bloggers like this: