Los nuevos monstruos

Los nazis de Bruselas no son una excepción, una excrecencia, un moco roñoso en un entorno europeo por lo demás impoluto y plural. Los nazis de Bruselas son los que acompañan puntualmente cada genocidio que acomete el Imperio desde los noventa del siglo pasado en adelante. De Bosnia a Siria y Libia, los nazis de Bruselas, bajo las banderas de la NATO, recorrieron el largo camino que separa la independencia de criterios de la abyección soez. Veamos primero cómo fue que no se aprendieron las lecciones de la historia. A continuación, un artículo de Jan Oberg reproducido en Octubre de 2014 en Global Research:

Título: NATO and the Destruction of Yugoslavia: Where it All Went Wrong and Lessons Were Never Learnt

Texto: On November 9, it is 25 years the Berlin Wall came down. Seventeen months later, Yugoslavia’s dissolution began and various concepts and policies were introduced that fundamentally changed international politics ever since – more so than the fall of the Wall.

These features can be seen in the conflict (mis)management in later conflicts.

By now we should have accumulated enough evidence of how effective the various ”teatments” of the ”patient” called Yugoslavia were. To put it crudely: A unique country was destroyed – yes from the inside too, but that doesn’t reduce the responsibility of the West/NATO in its role as ”peacemaker”.

Today, Croatia is ethnically much more clean; Kosovo remains a failed state; the constituencies of the Dayton Accords for Bosnia (1995) still won’t live together as one state, as elections have just shown us. Macedonia’s problems have only deepened. The split between Serbia and Montenegro was enigmatic. Today’s Slovenia is the only unit that can be said to be in a better situation now than when part of Yugoslavia.

It is high time we get a critical discussion going of what the international so-called community chose to actually do – no matter the stated intentions – to help bring about peace in former Yugoslavia.

All of it must be re-assessed and lessons must be learned for governments to introduce a little modesty and recognise that they are not born peacemakers but rather war makers. And we need such a debate to go down another road than the one we took since 1999.

TFF maintains that the crisis in and around Yugoslavia is much more significant for international affairs than hitherto assumed because e.g.:

• The international so-called community’s attempt at being self-appointed conflict analysers and peacemakers with no prior education or training right after being Cold War warriors led to miserable results on the ground.

• Closely related: the amateurish idea that conflicts could be understood and treated as two parties, one good and one bad. The bad guys were the Serbs, of course, and Slobodan Milosevic became the new ”Hitler of Europe” after the West had used him as an ally.

• During this crisis Russia was sidetracked and humiliated. But in the Soviet Union era no one would have dared touch the Yugoslav space. Now the West could do what it wanted and Russia could do nothing to oppose it.

• Violent humanitarian intervention was introduced and persuaded many, like Vaclav Havel, peace and green movements as well as human rights advocates, that military intervention was OK if only the stated intentions sounded good. We know now it isn’t.

• The UN’s Agenda for Peace’s concept of peace enforcement lead to the absurdity of bombing in Bosnia where UN peacekeepers were on the ground.

• International law was ignored or twisted to fit purposes such as recognising Slovenia and Croatia and to bomb to create a new independent Kosovo/a without any UN mandate.

• Bombing to create a new state for Western strategic purposes and to get new bases (Bondsteel) in Kosovo was an innovation. That’s the main reason the West lacks every credibility when it teaches Russia or anybody else what international law is. The annexation of Crimea was at least not done by violence but by a helter-skelter referendum.

• More generally – creating new states out of existing ones has not been possible without bloodshed, with a few exceptions such Norway from Sweden 1905, Singapore from Malaysia in 1965 (after only 2 years) and the splitting up of Czechoslovakia. Anyhow it was done in Yugoslavia with highly predictable bloody results. No government listened to expert warnings.

• The undermining of the UN and all it stands for by NATO countries in particular started in Yugoslavia: unclear mandates, huge mandates with no proportional resources, abrogation of missions when they were about to succeed (such as UNTAES in Eastern Slavonia and UNPREDEP in Macedonia) and asking the UN to protect six safe zones in Bosnia (one being Srebrenica) and giving it 1200 instead of the required 33.000 peacekeepers. In addition, at the time of that massacre, the UN was fundamentally broke.

• Unequal attention to human rights. The human and minority rights of Serbs – who were minorities in most other republics-becoming-new-states and in total made up 42% of the population – were never respected on par with those of others.

• Sanctions – the ”soft” instrument that’s been used with so counterproductive effects in many other places – made most people dependent on a mafia-smuggling economy and destroyed Macedonia’s economy. Why? Because Macedonia was supposed to not trade with Serbia, its largest market, without receiving compensation from those who installed sanctions.

• The parties’ massive, systematic use of propaganda through marketing corporations, paid lies, planted stories – with media generally unaware of this manipulation and not developing a filter against it. Admittedly, Yugoslavia was an extremely difficult conflict; however it is difficult to understand that media understood less and less of it over time.

• Keeping a conflict violent for much longer than it otherwise would by pumping in weapons to all sides (in spite of a weapons embargo). The West presented itself as a peacemaker, arranged negotiations, humanitarian aid etc with one hand and prolonged the war through arms deliveries and training programs with the other.

• It was in Yugoslavia that the EU’s largest foreign policy blunder took place: The unified Germany’s first big step was to get the EU on board splitting up Yugoslavia and recognise Slovenia and Croatia – the latter’s Pavelic regime a World War II Nazi ally – as independent states and thereby making the war in Bosnia unavoidable.

• The introduction of a special politicised courts for special wars: Rwanda and Yugoslavia, the latter in the Hague Tribunal.

• Destruction of diversity. The destruction of a unique country and the beginning of the destruction of the position of neutrality and non-alignment (Sweden, Austria and Finland) that reduced diversity in the world and opened the way for NATO expansion right up to Russia’s borders later.

• Yugoslavia should also be remembered for one good thing: that nonviolence is always stronger in the long run. It was not the diplomatic isolation, not the 10 years of sanctions, not marginalization and not 78 days of merciless bombings that brought the fall of Slobodan Milosevic. It was the nonviolent mass protests of the October 5, 2000.

In short – Western hubris combined with ignorant, non-professional conflict-management – or perhaps deliberate and cynical destruction – of one of the world’s most interesting and diverse societies. True, the various groups in former Yugoslavia started it all themselves but the helpers who came in stage gave little help and made everythig worse than a divorce needed to have been.

Two of the main reasons the West is declining relative to the rest of the world is its inability to recognise its mistakes and crimes and to learn from them. If you are number one in a system you usually teach others lessons, you don’t learn. If you are number 2 or 25, there is always somebody higher up to learn from.

Unless we learn from Yugoslavia, we’ll see more Western decline.

***

Ahora, vayamos a la integración europea actual según las premisas de los nazis de Bruselas. A continuación, un artículo de Pyotr Iskenderov para Strategic Culture Foundation:

Título: Modern Nazism as the Driving Force of Euro-Atlantic Integration

Texto: The growth of Nazism that has taken place in Europe over the last few years, the increased activities of fascist groups, the cultivation of fascist ideology at the level of individual state leaders, and the repeated attempts to revise the outcome of the Second World War all have deep-rooted causes. At the heart of this phenomenon is the desire of the Western architects of a ‘new world order’ to use modern Nazism as an instrument of European integration, which has already more or less merged with Euro-Atlantic integration. In practice, this takes the form of mobilising public opinion in individual countries and entire regions under the slogans of Euro-Atlantism and Russophobia, and attempting to provoke opponents into a response in order to shift the blame for destabilising the situation onto them.

These methods were first tried out in the 1990s on a collapsed Yugoslavia. At that time, the gamble was on nationalist and openly fascist parties and organisations in Croatia to begin with, then in Bosnia and Herzegovina and, finally, among Kosovo Albanians. They were assigned the role of a catalyst for anti-Serb sentiment. This was the first level of using Nazism in the geopolitical interests of the West. The transition to the second level took place following the logical reaction of Belgrade, which was declared to be the manifestation of a Serbian ‘empire’. This allowed the West to move to the third level of intervention in the Balkans – creating the basis for military action under the auspices of UN resolutions (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and without such resolutions (Yugoslavia in 1999).

A similar scenario is currently being played out with regard to Ukraine. It is naive to think that Western leaders do not have information about the fascist nature of Pravy Sektor and other similar groups with which the Ukrainian regime is sharing power. Especially since the activities of these groups are already posing a direct threat to the existence of ethnic minorities with close ties to their fellow nationals in Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Greece and a number of other EU member countries. The scenario being played out, however, requires the European Union to close its eyes to this danger so that it can use these nationalist forces to mobilise anti-Russian Federation and anti-Russian elements in Ukraine as much as possible under the same Euro-Atlantic slogans. As part of this approach, the Nazis are being positioned as ‘champions of democracy and European values’ and their opponents represented by the residents of East Ukraine as supporters of totalitarianism, of a Russian ‘fifth column’ and of terrorists. At the same time, the legitimate actions of Russia in providing political and humanitarian support to the population of Donbass are being treated as ‘anti-Ukrainian’, as interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine.

Something similar can also be observed in other parts of the former Soviet Union. Since the beginning of the 1990s, the US and the EU have closed its eyes to the activities of fascist movements and neo-Nazi organisations in the Baltic Republics and have reacted strongly to any attempts by Russia to draw the attention of the public and international organisations to the rebirth of Nazism in the Baltic States and to the infringement of the rights of the Russian population, once again treating Russia’s actions as ‘interfering in internal affairs’.

At a time when the idea of European integration is largely losing its appeal in the eyes of Europeans and there are increasing conflicts and signs of an internal schism within the EU itself, it would be native to expect Washington and Brussels to give up using Nazism as propaganda support for the European integration process.

At the same time, the growing disenchantment of EU member states with Brussels bureaucracy is already forcing Western centres to adjust their positions somewhat. This is being facilitated by the fact that the neo-Nazis have developed the ability to slip out of the control of their mentors and guardians. Thus, the Czech Republic has already demanded an explanation from the Ukrainian authorities regarding the law passed by the Verkhovna Rada on the glorification of the OUN-UPA, threatening that otherwise it will not ratify the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. «Before the summit in Riga, Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Minister Klimkin needs to come to Prague and explain what the situation is regarding the law on the Banderites and so on,» said Czech Foreign Affairs Minister Lubomír Zaorálek.

Obviously one could have expected stronger words from the foreign minister of a country that, in 1938, became the victim of the Munich Agreement between the West and Hitler, especially regarding the Kiev authorities’ decision to hold Hitler’s Germany and the USSR equally responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War. This was expressed particularly clearly by the director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Israel, Efraim Zuroff: «The passage of a ban on Nazism and Communism equates the most genocidal regime in human history with the regime which liberated Auschwitz and helped end the reign of terror of the Third Reich.» [1].

Objective assessments of the outcome of the Second World War and of the Western European media are slipping out. The Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet recalls that «there is one thing that cannot be taken away from the leaders and the people of the Soviet Union – their desire to destroy the Hitler regime... The Red Army really fought to liberate Eastern Europe from fascism»...

Any lack of control over the neo-Nazi organisations in Ukraine risks causing armed conflicts not just in the east, but also in the west of the country. If this happens, the governments of EU states neighbouring Ukraine will no longer stay on the sidelines. It stands to reason if the interests of their fellow countrymen are more important to them than playing geopolitical games with the new Nazis for the sake of the triumph of Euro-Atlantism.

Nota:

[1] The Jerusalem Post, 14.04.2015