Influential Italian weekly Panorama has been recently honored by the CIA: Panorama was
given rights to be the first to publish in European media space and in that
manner spread supposedly secret results of the futurologist predictions of the
CIA's intellectual task force regarding impending, future and possible
break ups of states. The document in question is a "draft", some 200 pages long,
with numerous annexes, graphs and diagrams; its title is Report about the
disintegration of states. Italian weekly presented an abridged version of
the Report, adding that the report is the result of interdisciplinary
research which, without availability of computerized analysis, because of huge
amount of collected data from over six hundred fields, would require at least
ten years of man hours.
The authors of the Report consider four basic reasons for
disintegration of states: ideological-revolutionary and civil wars, ethnic
conflicts, genocide and "politicide", and radical and traumatic changes of
ruling structures. The Report includes a map of world on which all
states are placed in one of four basic categories, according to their future
prospects: uncertain, low, medium and high risk of disintegration. United States
of America, Australia, European Union and Japan are placed among the low risk
countries. Red color, denoting high risk covers all formerly Soviet Muslim
countries, India, Turkey, large part of African countries and almost all of
South America. In Europe, the zone of high risk encompasses Croatia,
Muslim-Croatian Federation, Republic Srpska, Albania and Macedonia, while FR
Yugoslavia, Slovenia and Romania were placed in the medium risk zone.
The author of the abridged version of the Report informed the
readers that this vision of the immediate future of the world was supposed to
remain secret "not only because of the undesirable use of the Report
but also because of the possible harsh political consequences of such a report."
Thus, gullible among us can conclude that Panorama's envoy managed to
penetrate top secret CIA's safes and irresponsibly revealed a big
secret, thus making possible "undesirable utilization" as well as "harsh
political consequences", all in order to warn the public about impending
catastrophes. One doesn't have to be extremely intelligent in order to conclude
that this story is a sham, since anyone with any knowledge about the main mass
media networks in the West knows that there (apart for, for now, the Internet)
such freedom is unimaginable nor possible because of the dependence of the main
news providers on the interests of the plutocratic system.
Besides, the alleged secrecy of the Report is refuted by the
statement of the CIA research director, Daniel O. Esty, given exactly to the
Panorama journalist. In that statement, the leader of CIA task
force points out that the task force has "besides traditional
socio-political and geostrategic factors" discovered "a series of new causes
which could have a decisive role in the development of a crisis or traumatic
disintegration of governments."
INTENTIONS
ANNOUNCED AS PREDICTIONS
|
United
States intelligence is
predicting that federated Yugoslavia
will break apart,
most probably in the next 18 months, and that civil
war in that multinational Balkan country is highly
likely.
The predictions, included in a long National Intelligence
Estimate produced under the auspices of the Central
Intelligence Agency, are unusually firm and sharp for
such a document, a senior Government official said...
According to United States officials who have read
the intelligence document, its two basic findings
are that "the Yugoslav experiment has failed, that
the country will break up" and that "this
is likely to be accompanied by ethnic violence and unrest
which could lead to civil war."
"It did not predict absolutely that there would be
a civil war, but said it was highly likely," one
official noted. He said he was "startled by its stark
terms." ...
"I think you can almost write the death certificate
now," a Government official who specializes in
Yugoslav affairs said recently.
"Yugoslavia Seen Breaking Up Soon"
By David Binder
The New York Times,
November 28, 1990
|
Aware of the consequences of all previous publications of "secrets" from the
CIA secret vaults, we must ask ourselves why that report was presented
to the public of the "mondialist [global] village". The author of this article
believes that CIA is trying to psychologically prepare the public of the
"mondialist [global] village" for wars and disintegration of states which
Washington directly and indirectly is currently preparing or inciting. When
these predictions come true, the wars and disintegrations will be accepted as
[unavoidable], predicted by the aforementioned information technology, which
has, long time ago, replaced in the consciousness of the mondialized mob not
only every trust in human intellect but even ancient God's grace, with which the
people of the past explained numerous historical calamities.
Far Away From the God and Close
to the USA
Therefore, the aforementioned
Report indirectly informs all true peace-lovers and peace makers to
abandon all hope and illusions. Besides, this historic reality absolutely
refutes all theories of bribed and free ("useful fools", in CIA vocabulary)
prophets of the alleged virtues of the American model for the "multicultural"
and "civic society", which is supposedly naturally inclined towards peace,
unlike every kind of nationalism and national states which (again supposedly)
invariably engage in expansionist wars. In reality, history demonstrates that
"the leading democracy" and the model for all approaches towards "multicultural"
and "civic society" as a state model is by far the largest producer of military
interventions and wars.
Only in its geopolitical environment, in North, Central and South America,
during the last 100 years the USA has engaged in almost 90 military
interventions and expansionist wars and a huge number of direct and indirect
coups. The USA have used their military power against Mexico (14 times), Cuba
(13 times), Panama (12 times), Nicaragua (10 times), Dominican Republic (9
times), Columbia and Honduras (9 times each), Haiti (6 times), Puerto Rico (3
times), and once against Argentina and Brazil.
Recent (after WWII) AMERICAN "War for Peace" |
Country bombed by U.S.: |
Year: |
China
|
1945-46 |
Korea
|
1950-53 |
China
|
1950-53 |
Guatemala
|
1954 |
Indonesia
|
1958 |
Cuba
|
1959-60 |
Guatemala
|
1960 |
Congo
|
1964 |
Peru
|
1965 |
Laos
|
1964-73 |
Vietnam
|
1961-73 |
Cambodia
|
1969-70 |
Guatemala
|
1967-69 |
Grenada
|
1983 |
Libya
|
1986 |
El Salvador
|
1980s |
Nicaragua
|
1980s |
Panama
|
1989 |
Iraq
|
1991-2003 |
Sudan
|
1998 |
Afghanistan
|
1998, 2002 |
Yugoslavia
|
1999 |
Chronic military interventionism of the USA is in the service of
corresponding political, military and economic hegemony which via imposed
indebtedness destroys all economies and produces poverty which forces the masses
from the American Third World countries to emigrate to the USA. These
unfortunate nations have made up a proverb which succinctly expresses their
fate: "So far away from the God, and so close to the USA!"
Recently, International Herald Tribune published an article by two
gurus of the Washington mondialism: Jacob Heilbrun and Michael Lind together
explained 100 years of military interventionism as wars which led to the
establishment of the "first American empire". According to them, the second
empire was conquered thanks to W.W.II and includes Western Europe, Japan and a
number of islands in the Pacific. Heilbrun and Lind informed the public that
lately we had witnessed the establishment of the "third American empire" through
"American leadership in the movement of Muslim nations, from the Persian gulf to
the Balkans." This sequence of events will lead to the resurrection of the
Ottoman empire under American tutelage, with the tendency of spreading of this
"third American empire" into "Eastern Europe (with aid from NATO) and formerly
neutral Yugoslavia".
The real goal of Washington "peace initiatives" has been confirmed in the
statements by Strobe Talbot, under-secretary in the USA government, who
emphasized that NATO wants to engage in and initiate operations which were
outside its formerly defined zone of action, "in Mid-east and elsewhere". That
"elsewhere", in view of discovery of mondialist ambitions, should be understood
as "everywhere". Foreign policy commentator in Paris Le monde
diplomatique, Marion Ajer, in the essay under the title NATO: in
service of which security? provides answer for the above mentioned
question: "This third deployment of military forces in Europe (after 1917 and
1944) presents (once the wishes of the European Union members for common defense
force are neutralized) the renewal of the traditional role of the USA in the
(Atlantic) alliance and their confirmation as the most important military force
in unipolar world."
Basic Strategy Against
Russia
NATO alliance is the basic "hard" tool for
the establishment and spreading of the "third American empire", from the Middle
East, where the hegemony and control of the world oil reserves is secured by the
military axis Israel-Turkey (recently made official with an international
agreement), through "Islamic axis" for penetration of Turkey and Muslim
immigrants into the European Union, all the way to the borders of Russia. The
project for the spreading of NATO influence through the "post-communist" region
is a threat to Russia which will probably materialize provided Russian people
liberates itself by overthrowing its current russofobic, foreign and
mondialistic rulers. NATO strategic maps from 1982 already framed the Caucasus
region as a future war theater, which throws different light on the current war
in Chechenia and the efforts of its Washington instigators to spread that
conflict on the rest of Russia in order to provoke its destruction.
This is the interventionist implementation of the anti Russian strategy which
can be found in the National Security Service Directive number 20/1 from August
18, 1948: "We must ensure that even an non-communist and nominally friendly
regime in Russia: a) does not have in the future sizeable military force; b)
that its economy is strongly dependent on the rest of the world; c) does not
have strong control over the minorities; d) cannot establish anything similar to
the 'iron curtain'. If that regime exhibits unfavorable attitude towards
communists and favorable attitude towards the USA we still must ensure that
these conditions are imposed although not in an offensive and humiliating
manner. Still, we must win them over, if not peacefully than by force, to
protect our own interests."
In light of this strategy and its implementation, we can conclude that NATO
alliance and "Partnership for Peace" are the means for the establishment and
spreading of the "third American empire", as is confirmed by Heilbrun and Lind:
"In the predictable future, the main purpose of the NATO alliance countries will
be to serve as centers for recruitment of soldiers for American wars in the
Balkans, Mediterranean and in the (Persian) Gulf. The challenge of the
establishment of the new European-Middle Eastern sphere of influence will
require development of new institutions and alliances, similar to the NATO
alliance ("partnership for Peace", D.K. remark) for relations with various
protectorates which the USA has collected since 1990."
Therefore, all propaganda about the alleged security and peacemaking nature
of the NATO alliance and "Partnership for Peace" (waiting room for NATO) simply
serves for indoctrination of gullible masses and corresponding political
pseudo-elites in the ruins of the post-communist systems. In such a situation,
peace and security depend mostly on the good or bad will of the "new world
order" strategists from Washington and their plutocratic commanders from New
York. Good example of the total "impotence" of the NATO alliance to establish
lasting peace even among its members are the continuous military provocations by
Turkey, starting with the twenty years long military occupation of the northern
half of Cyprus and ending with recent attacks at the territorial integrity of
Greece. It is obvious that Turkey wouldn't have been able to stage these
provocations without prodding by or at least silent agreement of the Washington
strategists, whose Generals are supreme commanders of the NATO forces. NATO
alliance has failed to control Turkish ambitions for conquest; instead they have
recently decided to send "observers" to the endangered Greek borders.
Those who seek
Freedom Will Get War
Another proof of the real character
and purpose of the NATO alliance as the "soft" tool for the establishment and
enlargement of the "third American empire" are the political and economic
conditions for the acceptance to the alliance which have nothing to do with the
military and defensive goals. Apparently, NATO alliance will only accept
"democratic countries", therefore countries with governments which are
trustworthy servants of the American interests.
Another crucial condition is the "market economy", actually total lack of
means for the protection of the domestic economy from the foreign financial, and
manufacturing pirates. History tells us that most, even the largest wars (such
as those against Imperial Japan, Tsar's Russia and Austro-Hungarian empire) were
initiated by the Western capitalists because of the determination of those
states to defend their economic independence and wealth, domestic markets and
resources. The aforementioned CIA Report also raises this cause for
wars by menacingly pointing out that the most endangered states are those with
"low degree of market accessibility".
Another important condition for accession to the NATO alliance is the
"readiness to bear in full all costs necessary to align the domestic military
forces with the NATO forces". In other words, readiness to buy weapons made
in the USA, pay expensive advisers for the training on those weapons, and
pay for the upkeep of the American occupation forces. The necessary investment
is so huge for the economically weak and indebted states from Eastern Europe
that even the makers of these conditions (or extortion) are sensing likely
failure. On the pages of the Washington Post William Odom openly
admits: "Armies of [Eastern European] countries are not modern enough to comply
with the NATO standards. The investments necessary to reach compliance are too
large for their economies at the moment."
Among the conditions for acceptance to the NATO alliance we can find one that
at first seems quite benign and reasonable: "NATO members accept the principle
of peaceful solutions of internal problems and border disputes". Unfortunately,
this condition only seems benign. Recent experience confirms that this condition
actually implies giving up the sovereignty and acknowledging the right of the
"international community" (one of USA pseudonyms) to be the sole arbiter in
internal and international disputes ( incited by Washington).
Keen and experienced mind can easily spot in this condition another
announcement of new European and fratricidal wars, based on the ancient formula
of political cynicism: "divide and conquer". The locations of these future and
possible wars have already been determined, as is confirmed by numerous American
forecasters, from CIA's task force to already mentioned William Odom:
"Large number of restive Hungarians live in southern Slovakia, Romanian
Transilvania and northern Serbia. Russia is demanding that Poland cede a
corridor leading to the Kaliningrad enclave (former Eastern Prussia). There is a
Polish minority in Lithuania, while Estonia and Latvia have sizeable Russian
minorities. Moldavia, formerly a part of Romania, has an uncertain status.
Enlargement of NATO can prevent some of these problems and serve as a warning to
those who would try to use these possible future conflicts."
Reading these texts, a gullible reader might think, with gratitude, that
Washington strategists are sincerely worried about the peace in Eastern Europe
and are trying to protect it by offering the services of the NATO alliance. The
experience from the war in the ruins of Bosnia-Hercegovina is enough to realize,
once for all, that European peace is undesirable for Washington strategists.
First, they pushed Bosnian Islamists on the road towards secession, via a
referendum on independence, which according to unequivocal Izetbegovic's
admission could have meant only one thing: "declaration of war". Later, they
sabotaged every peace agreement among the war parties, advising the leader of
Islamists [Izetbegovic] to reject these agreements and wait for promised greater
gains. Only when they gauged that peace (?) or a cease-fire suited their current
goals, Washington srategists forced the Islamists to sign a peace agreement, at
the same time presenting the Dayton agreement as the result of their skill,
omnipotence and the proof of European impotence, which is another reason for
American hegemony and presence of NATO occupation forces under American command
[in Europe].
Fear Leads
to NATO
As Marion Ajer lucidly points out at the pages of
Le Monde Diplomatique, (where, due to the exclusive nature of the
publication, one can find a truth or two now and then), "in order for the NATO
alliance to survive it will be necessary to produce new wars." Therefore, in
order to justify NATO alliance in the eyes of insufficiently compliant
Europeans, Washington strategists will have to produce new wars in Europe to
keep NATO busy. The same rule applies to the Eastern European nations which are
offered protection and security under the supposedly peaceful wing of the NATO
alliance: their peace and security will consistently be endangered to force them
to obediently pay the racket to the NATO alliance, that is New York plutocrats.
European peace has been based for a long time on Versailles and Trianon
pacts, but now American interventionism is destroying those foundations. In a
speech delivered in the American national press club on January 31, 1996,
Richard Holbrooke, Washington administrator of the war in the ruins of
Bosnia-Hercegovina, announced that the foundations of European peace had been
destroyed because of "unresolved heritage from Versailles and Trianon
conferences". Therefore, all borders within Eastern Europe and between Germany
and Eastern Europe can now be disputed. This fact, combined with war threats
which it brings is the main reason for the attempts to buy peace by paying the
racket to Washington extortionists.
Yours truly asked recently an influential Bulgarian geopolitician, Sergey
Stanisev, from the Bulgarian Institute for the Balkan and European
Research, why important political forces in Bulgaria support Bulgaria's
entry to the NATO alliance. Mr. Stanisev replied:
"Naturally, the real reason is not some putative fear from Russian
expansionist policy, as is usually claimed in public. Nobody serious and
sensible pays any attention to warnings from Washington that the new Russian
state could in the future start a conquest of the former Soviet and East
European territories, which it had controlled. Even if it had expansionist
ambitions, that new Russia simply wouldn't be capable of anything like that. How
can one even imagine that the army which is not capable of crashing the Chechen
uprising could embark on a huge conquest? Fundamental and hidden reason for the
desire to join the NATO alliance is in the fear from the Washington's successful
war-mongering policy. The performance of that policy in the Yugoslav territory
has seriously affected all Eastern European elites. Many believe that they will
buy peace and mercy by joining the NATO and paying a ransom to Washington
war-mongers."
A good example for the mentioned war psychosis is the race to join NATO
between Hungary and Romania, which is fuelled by the emissaries and
extortionists from Washington, starting with Javier Solana, NATO secretary
general. Mr. Solana has recently visited capitals of all Eastern European
countries willing to pay NATO's racket, starting with Kiev and ending with
Sofia; to all of them he swore that the "race is open" and the referee
"unbiased". Still in practice, although "all are equal" some are "more equal
then others" since they execute "democratic demands" (from the Washington
strategists of mondialism) with more enthusiasm than others.
Romanian collocutors, including the president, Defense Minister, Minister of
Foreign Affairs, and the heads of both houses of Parliament, offered many
humiliating guarantees to Solana that Romania fulfils all conditions to join
NATO. They even presented the results of a poll which demonstrates that 95% of
Romanians supports Romania's entry into NATO alliance. Still, they were left
with the impression that Hungary will be accepted to NATO in the first round
while Romania will have to wait outside.
Illusion Called West
Their impression was also that Washington
deliberately favors some "applications" over others in order to cause suspicion
between states, disputes and finally conflicts. Romanian Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Melekasanu, publicly pointed out that "the race for entry into NATO is
causing instability in this part of the world". According to the professional
opinion of the Romanian Defense Minister, Tinka, if Hungary joins NATO while
Romania remains outside, both countries will "engage in an arms race". Of course
that race will be run according to the NATO standards, to great satisfaction of
American military industry and its investors and international extortionists
which will provide credits to both of these blackmailed and indebted states.
Romanian Defense Minister, Tinka, correctly estimates that the arms race
between Romania and Hungary will encourage separatism within the Hungarian
minority in Romania and demands for territorial concessions by Hungary, based on
the Washington declaration of the practical annulment of Trianon treaty. Javier
Solana did his best to incite such a Hungarian-Romanian conflict for his
paymasters, New York plutocrats, by expressing to his Romanian hosts, "great
dismay about the situation of national minorities, above all the Hungarian
minority, and their rights in Romania".
Romanians, themselves excellent students of history, about which testify
magnificent works of Romanian intellectuals, Mircea Eliade, Emil Cioran and
Vintile Horia, can recognize veiled threats but for now do not have means to
defend themselves. The columnist from the respected magazine Adevarul,
Dumitru Tinu, also testifies about this impotence: "Romania is the victim in a
game of interests; she will again feel betrayed in her great trust in the West."
One should read the message sent to Romanians and other Orthodox people by Emil
Cioran from his Paris exile via his book History and Utopia in order to
understand all futility of trust in the West.
Let us also give credit to contemporary Chinese political sagacity (wisdom)
which easily sees through all manipulations of the Western power brokers. This
wisdom has been acquired through 6 millennia of culture and history. This wisdom
has been recently addressed in a cowboy manner by the American Secretary for
Defense, William Perry, who aggressively offered some sort of "Partnership for
Peace": "Through direct contacts with Chinese military forces we can contribute
that the Chinese national security institutions and strategic thinking, new arms
acquisitions and budgetary policy as well as the general style of action become
more open."
Naturally, Chinese wisdom gently but decisively declined Perry's offer,
easily spotting a lie. Failure of Perry's deception gave material to Henry
Kisinger to find lessons for the future: "As long as military co-operation is
presented as some sort of assistance whose goal is the transformation of Chinese
institutions, the society which has been independent for 6 thousands years must
perceive this as patronizing."
(...) It is unnecessary to emphasize that Europeans must with all their force
work on the "demise of West (= USA)" and their liberation. Europeans can offer
the greatest contribution to this demise by resolutely defending sovereignty and
independence of their states from the aggression of the mondialist, political,
economic, (sub)cultural and military hegemony. The power of the West will
collapse if it's denied its centuries old prey on which it lives and prospers
like a parasite. The main condition for the European defense movement is the
recognition of the enemy and his goals. A good example for this recognition is
the article by Richard Ovinkov which has been published in Russian paper
Pravda:
"The essence of the American and Western policy (which has been tested on the
Yugoslav territory) is to incite internal ethnic instability and conflicts,
especially in multinational states and to use these conflicts for their own
goals. Is seems that the makers of such policy want to use this (Yugoslav)
precedent of a successful divisions among Slavic peoples in the future as well.
The possibilities for its realization will depend on whether they will succeed
in dividing the Slavs and put them against each others. Is it possible that we
haven't learned anything yet?"
End quote.