PARTNERSHIP FOR RACKET

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." 

 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 

 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.
 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

 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 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

 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

 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?"