Why is NATO Decimating the Balkans

Jared Israel Borba100 at aol.com
Tue Sep 4 10:51:12 MDT 2001


Why is NATO Decimating the Balkans and Trying to Force Milosevic to Surrender?

By Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser [29 August 2001]

Recently the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM)
received an email from some people in St. Petersburg. They were organizing
a protest against globalization and The Hague (un)Tribunal, and in support
of President Milosevic.
Many people in the West don't realize that there is passionate support for
Milosevic across the political spectrum in the former Soviet Union. For
example, the Russian Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic is led by
Alexander Zinoviev, the distinguished author and former Soviet dissident.
At the same time, the Committee is strongly supported by the communists.
Virtually all Russian citizens demand Milosevic be freed. They understand
that in NATO's attempt to destroy Yugoslavia, Macedonia, and then Bulgaria
and Greece, the ultimate target is the former Soviet Union.
NATO needs to crush Milosevic, and to tarnish the legend of Milosevic,
because he stands for resistance to NATO, to neo-colonialism, to
Washington's Imperial rule - to the new slavery brought to us thanks to
this latest would-be Rome.
The following article is based on a letter of greeting we sent the
demonstrators in St. Petersburg. * *
Why is NATO Decimating the Balkans and Trying to Force Milosevic to Surrender?
By Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser
During the past 14 years, Yugoslav loyalists and their leaders, especially
the Serbian people and President Milosevic and his associates, have
achieved the same thing the Serbs achieved in 1941.
It was in March of that year that the Serbs overthrew their pro-German
government. In a rage, Hitler ordered the conquest of Yugoslavia. His
troops got bogged down in the attempt. This delayed Operation Barbarossa,
the invasion of the Soviet Union. Because of the Serbs, the Nazi supermen
were trapped in the fierce Russian winter.
In 1987, the forces around Milosevic defeated pro-NATO elements in the
Serbian government, thus declaring their independence from Washington. From
that time on, Milosevic and the Serbian and other Yugoslav loyalists have
provided a roadblock obstructing NATO's Drive to the East and a beacon to
the former Soviets, to resist.
****************
A 56 Year-Old Strategy
****************
The attack on Yugoslavia and the kidnapping of Milosevic are not random
events. They constitute a new phase of the "anti-Eastern" strategy, which
Washington has pursued for more than five decades.
That strategy had two parts: Part one was the break up of the Soviet Union,
achieved in 1991.
Part Two is the reduction of the Republics of the former Soviet Union (SU)
from nations to devastated territories, small protectorates under the
domination of the U.S. and its junior partners.
Washington has openly pursued this strategy since the end of World War II,
when it created the CIA, in large measure from General Gehlen's network of
Nazi operatives, agents and contacts in Western, Eastern and Southern Europe.
Part One of the strategy went into high gear in 1979. At that time it was
articulated by Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew
Brzezinski. It was the reason for the U.S. proxy war against Afghanistan,
during which Washington and its allies created and nurtured the phenomenon
of Islamist terrorism, which now plagues the former SU, the Balkans,
Algeria, and the rest of the planet.
In the West, it is considered politically correct to ascribe the breakup of
the Soviet Union to an inevitable 'revolution' brought about by internal
decay.
Yet it is well known that most Soviet citizens (perhaps 70%) opposed the
break-up of the Union. How can a 'revolution' that is opposed by most
people be inevitable?
Alexander Zinoviev was a leading Soviet dissident. Here's what he says:
"The fall of communism has been transformed into the fall of Russia. The
Russian catastrophe was deliberately planned in the West. I say this
because I was once involved  in these plans which, under the pretext of
fighting an ideology, in fact prepared the death of Russia.
"Contrary to a widely held view, communism did not collapse for internal
reasons. Its collapse is the greatest possible victory of the West. This
colossal victory has created a planetary power. The end of communism is
also the end of democracy: our era is not only post-communist, it is also
post-democratic ... This is because democracy means pluralism: that
requires the existence of at least two more or less equal powers During the
Cold War there was democracy at world level, a global pluralism within
which capitalism and communism coexisted. Now we live in a world dominated
by a single force, by a single ideology and by a single globalist party The
Western countries are dominant but they are also dominated, because they
are progressively losing their sovereignty to what I call "supra-society".
This planetary supra-society consists of commercial enterprises and
non-commercial organisms whose zones of influence are superior to those of
nations. The Western countries are subjected, like other countries, to the
control of these supranational structures. But the sovereignty of nations
was a constituent part of pluralism and democracy at world level. The
present dominating power is crushing sovereign states. The process of
European integration which is taking place under our eyes is causing the
disappearance of pluralism within this new conglomerate, to the benefit of
a new supranational power." ('Figaro', 24th July 1999)
Washington and Western Europe (NATO) contrived to exhaust the Soviets
economically (e.g., the Afghan war and the arms race) bribed and otherwise
seduced many of its officials, demeaned its ideology, and used other means
to bring about the Soviets' so-called internal collapse.
In the 1980s, knowing that the destruction of the Soviet Union was near,
the U.S. mobilized Germany and England and launched the attack on
Yugoslavia, which went into high gear with the externally-engineered
secession of Slovenia and Croatia in 1991, precisely when the Soviet Union
was being destroyed.
Washington launched this attack because crushing Yugoslavia, and especially
the passionately independent Serbs, is the key to pacifying the Balkans.
And the Balkans is the strategic southern flank of the former Soviet Union.
***********************
Washington Goes for World Conquest
***********************
There were plenty of problems with the former Soviet Union, but these are
grossly distorted by politicians and propagandists in the West. For
example, a year ago, in an article called "Living with Russia," Zbigniew
Brzezinski, a strategist of U.S. Imperial rule, explained the existence of
grave poverty in Russia as follows:
"The painful reality is that the communist experiment has bequeathed to the
Russian people a ruined agriculture, a retarded and in many places
primitive social infrastructure, a backward economy increasingly facing the
risk of progressive de-industrialization, a devastated environment, and a
demographically threatened population."
We have seen the same argument made regarding Bulgaria and indeed all the
former socialist countries. It amounts to heaping insult on injury. Since
the 'fall' of communism, draconian policies, dictated by Washington through
the International Monetary Fund, have methodically laid waste to the
economies and social service-structures of these countries.
In the Soviet Union, apartments, childcare (available 24-hours a day),
medical and dental care, public transportation and vacations were either
free or subsidized so working people could afford them. Higher education
was not just free; students were paid stipends if they maintained good
grades. (This, one might note in passing, was a policy calculated to induce
working class students to go to college and study. In much of the
capitalist world today, measures are in effect which produce the opposite
effect.)
The finest cultural achievements, such as the great Bolshoi Ballet, were
enjoyed by ordinary people. For example, in the case of the Bolshoi,
admission was a pittance and transportation was organized so that working
people could attend.
In Soviet society, differences in wealth existed but they were nothing like
those that exist in the West or that have come to exist in the former
socialist countries.
***********************
Imperial Hypocrisy
***********************
It is under Western guidance that the Soviet Union's great social
protections have been destroyed during the past decade. And now Mr.
Brzezinski, one of the architects of that destruction, has the audacity to
blame it on the system he helped eliminate and preaches the moral
superiority of the system he and his ilk have put in its place, in which
some live like kings while most others suffer without basic necessities,
and the kings preach morality.
(Perhaps the greatest failing of the Soviet Union was its non-democratic
character - non-democratic in the profound sense of not relying on the
political thinking and action of ordinary people. Instead a highly
centralized bureaucracy was the source of all political motion. Imperial
strategists like Mr. Brzezinski recognized this flaw, saw that if they
could penetrate and corrupt this structure they could bring down the Soviet
Union before the people could be mobilized to resist. Which is basically
what happened.)
The Soviet Union had a policy of supporting anti-colonial struggle. After
World War II, partly inspired by the resistance of the Soviet bloc,
colonial and semi-colonial states from Eastern Europe to China gained much
freedom from Western domination. But now that the Soviet Union has been
broken up, and with it the restraining force of Soviet power, Washington
and its European allies are trying to force most of the world's people,
that is those living outside North America and Western Europe, into
neocolonial status, that is, into desperate poverty.
*****************
The Model is Kosovo
*****************
In the Balkans we see Washington's policy at its harshest. In a recent
speech delivered to soldiers at the giant U.S. military base in Kosovo
(called, with pompous arrogance, "Bondsteel") George Bush Jr. described
Kosovo as the U.S. model for progress in the Balkans.
This progress has meant rule by the gangster-fascists of the KLA; it has
meant that politically unreliable people - ethnic Serbs, "Gypsies," Slavic
Muslims and anti-fascist Albanians - are demonized in the media even as
they are driven from the province, while those who dare to remain in Kosovo
live in constant terror, their homes reduced to prisons. This is all
documented.
What Washington has done to the Serbian province of Kosovo it is now trying
to do to Macedonia and the rest of Serbia. If Washington is successful in
Kosovo-izing Serbia, Macedonia and other Balkans states, it will have
created the stable southern flank it needs to escalate the "low intensity
wars" (Washington's term) that it is already fighting on many fronts
against the former Soviet Union.
Yugoslavia shows what Washington hopes to accomplish in the former Soviet
Union, writ small.
First Yugoslavia was broken up, as the former SU had been broken up. In the
process, Washington re-created precisely the same fascist power blocs that
the Nazi's relied on during World War II, especially clerical-fascists in
Croatia and fanatical Islamists in Bosnia.
Now NATO is using quisling governments installed in Belgrade and Skopje,
and fascist-secessionists, mobilized behind the slogan 'Greater Albania,'
which Washington has encouraged for over a decade, to pulverize the
remains, to neutralize the powerful Yugoslav Army, and to physically
devastate those populations in Serbia, Macedonia and elsewhere which have
historically resisted Imperial domination and whose hearts are drawn to the
East.
If Washington succeeds in "pacifying" the Balkans in this fashion, it will
try to duplicate the process throughout the former Soviet Union: reducing
populations inclined to resist U.S. rule to terrorized slaves ruled by
local fascists (conveniently labeled victims of oppression by the pro-NATO
media) and all of it dominated by the U.S. and its allies, especially
Germany and England.
*****************************
Components of the anti-Russian onslaught are partly in place
*****************************
The critical focus of Washington's attempt to recolonize the world lies in
the Balkans.
If the new Empire consolidated its power in the Balkans, the former Soviet
Union's southern flank, the attack on Russia would increase a hundred-
fold. There would be direct NATO intervention from the south and from bases
in the Baltic states, from certain former Warsaw pact countries, and
increased attack from a few NATO-controlled former Soviet Republics.
This would be justified by an all-out Western media campaign, posing
imperial conquest as an attempt to curb humanitarian abuses. At the same
time, Washington would escalate various internal attacks, employing:
* Fifth Column forces already in place, organized by George Soros' boys and
by U.S. and European agencies (e.g.;, the National Endowment for Democracy)
throughout the former Soviet Union;
* Western-inspired attacks by fascist Islamists (it is notable that some of
the Chechnya terrorists are now fighting as Albanian rebels in Macedonia);
* Traitorous betrayals by officials corrupted through the military and
economic penetration of the former Soviet Union by Washington and its allies.

What would the "Kosovo-izing" of the former Soviet Union mean for the
world? First, Washington and its allies could engage in the most extreme
plunder of the vast resources of the former Soviet Union. And second, its
position consolidated in the former SU, Washington could proceed full force
against the great Asian nation-states, trying to break up China and India
into numerous small protectorates.
This would be Washington's dream.

Does this policy serve the interests of ordinary people in North America
and Western Europe? Quite the contrary. Unchecked, it poses the gravest
risk of worldwide nuclear war.
The resistance by Milosevic and the Serbian people to NATO's expansion into
the Balkans, their attempt to awaken the great Russian bear, which was
stunned by the breakup of the Soviet Union, is of the greatest importance
to humanity, East and West.
By refusing to cooperate with NATO's Hague unTribunal, President Milosevic
has, in one brave stroke, sent an electrifying call for resistance
throughout the world. As a refugee from NATO's attack on Afghanistan wrote:

"I just saw Milosevic [on TV]. He told this criminal Western kangaroo court
that he doesn't recognize them. So I wish there was a lot more of those
guys, like Milosevic."

The gentleman is correct. We do need tens of thousands of those people like
Milosevic. That is why the unTribunal is doing everything it can to force
Milosevic to drop his defiance and cooperate with their inquisition.
If the Russians and other people of the former Soviet Union can regroup,
achieve unity and create popular movements with a Milosevic-type policy of
national unity based on social justice - a policy that defends the nation
by mobilizing the overwhelming majority of people for social justice - if
the Russian and other Soviet people can do this, they will not only be
protecting themselves, they will once again be protecting the world,
including the people of the U.S.

[Jared Israel is Vice-Chairman, International Committee to Defend Slobodan
Milosevic (ICDSM), Editor, www.icdsm.org and Editor, www.emperors-clothes.com

Nico Varkevisser is Vice Chairman and Media Coordinator, ICDSM Editor,
Targets newspaper, www.targets.org ]


TARGETS - Independent monthly paper on international affairs
Sloterkade 20 - 1058 HE Amsterdam - The Netherlands
Ph.  ++ 31 20 615 1122 - Fax: ++ 31 20 615 1120
See our website: www.targets.org




More information about the Marxism mailing list