An excerpt from Zivadin Jovanovic interview to the Serbian TV CG regarding the 14 years since NATO aggression against Serbia and Montenegro. Translation of parts of the original article as published in Serbian on Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals
Translation from Serbian to English by Ana Tsivdari
NATO aggression against Serbia and Montenegro, 14 years ago was a war of conquest. The conquest of Kosovo and Metohija was the immediate objective. Aggression continued by breaking FRY, and it continues today by crushing Serbia. Brussels "negotiations" aimed to consolidate the objectives of the NATO aggression 14 years ago. Who dares and wants to see it can conclude that to the US, UK, Germany and the West (read: NATO and the EU) the "independent Kosovo" led by the former leader of the KLA terroristsis is more important than Serbia. I am sad that the leadership of Serbia dares not or does not want to see that those countries ruthlessly humiliate Serbia and the Serbian people. We need not even get a date, nor a single membership, but we have to keep only the dignity, freedom and friends who do not blackmail and humiliate us.
It is true that the Kosovo Province is very rich in lignite and strategic minerals such as nickel, gold and other necessary for the development of new technologies and industries. However, I believe that the main goal of the conquest and looting of the Province is geo-strategic - NATO expansion to the East, to Russia's borders, establishing a base for the control of the Caspian basin, the Caucasus and the Middle East. The strategic objective is to weaken and break up Russia, mastering the resources of Siberia. Justifying the existence of NATO after the Cold War era and demonstration by the U.S. that they remain the largest World power without which Europe is powerless - were also motives of the aggressor.
There are documents certifying that the immediate goal of the U.S. aggression in 1999. was to justify the deployment of U.S. military forces in the Balkans and to thereby correct the failure of General Dwight D. Eisenhower during World War II. This explains the building of American military base "Bondsteel" in Urosevac, the largest in Europe, establishing, after "Bodnstil", three U.S. military bases in Bulgaria, four U.S. military bases in Romania and many others. In Europe today there are far more foreign military bases than during the height of the Cold War, competition among capitalist and "communist" system and the existence of the Warsaw Pact. Where does this lead to and what are the goals of militarization of Europe today?
NATO Aggression in 1999, as even Americans recognized, was required as a precedent for armed attacks of NATO, or some of its members, without the UN Security Council approval, anywhere on the planet at any time. What ensued, as is well known, is military intervention and aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, and later, on Libya, recently, in Mali. There is an ongoing, indirect (by proxy) armed attack (by terrorists and mercenaries) on Syria. Former NATO commander in Europe, General Wesley Clark in a U.S. television interview confirmed that the Pentagon has a list of countries against which it is planning armed attacks, including Iran.
Based on the above, it is my opinion that the NATO aggression against Serbia and Montenegro (FRY) in 1999. marked the beginning of "controlled" Third World War of "low intensity" whose strategic goal is the redistribution of natural resources on the planet, mainly oil and gas, and strategic minerals. Control of strategic roads and markets is also part of the same strategy. It would be too simplistic to say that these are specific, or what U.S. strategists like to say, "Unique" cases. Behind the "trees" of "unique cases" we should recognize the "forest", ie, the strategy for global control of resources on the planet. So far, war was being fought on three continents. With goals of conquest, those who "willingly" or unwillingly participate in that war are NATO, as the biggest military alliance in the world, the EU which adopted a strategy of NATO, three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and six of the eight members of the G-8. Eventual deterioration of the global crisis and efforts of the rich to transfer the burden of compensation for their losses by force of arms to other parts of the world, could give the entirely new outline to this "forest" of "unique" wars.
Read more in Serbian here
No comments:
Post a Comment