David Brown
by DAVID BROWN | CLEARNFO.com | March 11, 2015
America is playing a dangerous geopolitical chess game with Russia. But for what purpose? What good can come from this direct challenge to Russia? America’s strategy reads like a playbook from PNAC, the Wolfowitz Doctrine, and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s ‘The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives‘. While the average American is busy working, paying taxes and taking care of their families, ‘the powers that shouldn’t be’ are busy plotting and planning their next global conquest. To be sure, this is not all America’s fault but rooted in Quigley’s Anglo-American Establishment‘s plan for a single world government; enabled and condoned by the globalists in Western Europe. The table —or in this case the geopolitical chessboard— has been set. What Russia will do to counteract this direct threat is the big question. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, America assured Russia that NATO forces would not move one inch further East. Russia relaxed and America lied. Russia is no longer relaxed and America’s grand scheme has been revealed to all with functioning brains and eyes to see. Unable to take care of her veterans of countless ‘kinetic military actions‘ or even to fix the potholes in the streets, America has decided rather to ramp up the goal of surrounding Russia and China to make real the psychopathic dreams of Wolfowitz and Brzezinski. What other conclusions can we reach after America’s orchestrated Ukraine putsch and the expansion of NATO forces on Russia’s doorstep? America, it seems, is itching for a war at any cost and to damage Russia. [Note: You can read much about this sorry history at ClearNFO by searching on the word ‘Ukraine’.] Is the plan to distract the world and the American people from the impending economic catastrophe — precipitated by unprecedented sovereign debt created out of thin air by the globalists– or does America really believe she can bludgeon Russia into submission and win anything worth having? History should have taught the Pentagon planners in Washington that Russia is no easy mark. It is my opinion that Russia will not be dragged quietly into the bloody nightmare of the Wolfowitz-Brzezinski doctrine. Review the facts presented below and make up your own mind.
U.S. Military Moves To Russian Borders For First Time Ever
From Willy Wimmer’s letter below … #9. North of Poland, it is important to maintain the complete control of entry from St. Petersburg to the Baltic Sea. [6] Thus this means to cut away Russia from its Baltic Sea connection and therefore to cut it off from Europe.
Mr Gerhard Schroeder, MP
Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany,
Federal Chancellery,
Schlossplatz 1, 10178 Berlin
Berlin, 05-02-2000
Dear Chancellor,
Last weekend, I was in the Slovakian capital of Bratislava, where I had the opportunity to participate in a conference jointly organized by the US State Department and the American Enterprise Institute (the institute of the Republican Party foreign policy) with focus on the themes of the Balkan and NATO enlargement.
The event was attended by high-ranking personalities already reflected in the presence of several prime ministers and foreign and defense ministers from the region. Of the many important issues that could be dealt with under that topic, some deserve particularly to be reported.
1. The organizers requested that the Allies achieve recognition of the independence of the state of Kosovo, according to international law. [1]
2. The organizers declared that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was beyond any jurisdiction, in particular beyond the Final Act of Helsinki. [2]
3. The European legal system is an obstacle to the implementation of NATO plans. The American legal system was more suitable for this, even when being used in Europe.
4. The war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was conducted to revise a false decision made by General Eisenhower in World War II. Due to strategic reasons, the decision to deploy US soldiers in the region had to be rectified. [3]
5. The European Allies went along with the war in Yugoslavia in order to overcome de facto the dilemma caused by the April 1999 ‘New Strategic Concept’, which was enacted by the Alliance and the European predisposition of an existing mandate from the UN or the OSCE.
6. Irrespective of the subsequent legalistic European interpretation, where the enlarged task field of NATO in the Yugoslavian war exceeded the contract territory, it was an exceptional case, obviously a precedent which anyone at any time could and would rely on. [4]
7. The goal of the recently pending NATO expansion, is to restore the geographical situation between the Baltic Sea and Anatolia, as it had been at the time of the height of Roman expansion. [5]
8. In order to achieve this, Poland is to be surrounded in the north and south by democratic neighboring states. Romania and Bulgaria are to secure the ground connection to Turkey, Serbia (most likely to ensure a US military presence) was to be permanently excluded from European development.
9. North of Poland, it is important to maintain the complete control of entry from St. Petersburg to the Baltic Sea. [6]
10. In each case, the right of self-determination is given priority over all other provisions or rules of international law. [7]
11. The assessment, according to which NATO, when attacking the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia actually infringed upon international rule and, above all, any relevant provisions of international law, did not evoke contradiction. [8]
After this very candidly run event and in view of participants and organizers, one cannot help but make an assessment of the statements made at this conference.
In the global context and in order to achieve their goals, the American side, deliberately and intendedly wants to lever out the international legal system which was developed as a result of two world wars in the last century. Power shall precede law. Where international law stands in the way, it will be eliminated.
When a similar development happened to the League of Nations, the Second World War was not far off. This type of thinking which considers its own interests as being absolute, can only be called totalitarianism.
Sincerely,
Willy Wimmer
Member of Parliament,
Chairman oft he CDU district association Lower Rhine,
Vice-President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
[1] So far, the Kosovo continues to nominally be a province of Serbia, which in turn is a constituent republic of Yugoslavia. Maintaining this status, had been a prerequisite for the termination of the so-called Kosovo war in June 1999. Officially, maintaining this status is the program of the West until today.
[2] The Helsinki Final Act, the so-called CSCE Order, had put down the foundations of coexistence of the European states in 1975. These principles included amongst others the inviolability of borders.
[3] This seems to refer to the Allied invasion of Europe during the Second World War. Churchill et.al. had demanded then that an Allied invasion of the Balkans was to take place. Instead, Eisenhower as Commander of Chief of the Allied forces commanded invasions of Sicily (1943) and France (1944). As a result, there was no Western occupation of the Balkans at the end of the Second World War.
[4] On the part of NATO, the 1999 Kosovo war was performed without UN mandate. Such a mandate would have complied with the wish of the European governments but not the American government. The latter wants to act preferably self-confidently without international restrictions. Items 5 and 6 apparently meant that with this war a) the European states would have overcome their commitment towards their public regarding such a UN mandate and b) a precedent for future operations without UN mandate was created.
[5] The Roman Empire never extended to the Baltic Sea. Should Wimmer here have reported the statements correctly, ‘Roman’ on the one hand, means the Roman Empire, and on the other hand, the Roman church.
[6] Thus this means to cut away Russia from its Baltic Sea connection and therefore to cut it off from Europe.
[7] Emphasizing this right of self-determination, the American Wilsonianism, coined after the former president Woodrow Wilson, shows itself once again, according to Rudolf Steiner who was a main opponent of the founding of the threefold movement. Steiner saw this as a program for the “destruction of the coexistence of the European peoples”. It allows the destruction of almost all European countries by accentuating “minority problems”.
[8] Apparently, this is about the reactions to a Wimmer draft. The conference participants were apparently aware of these violations against the provisions of international law, yet they did not care.
Willy Wimmer Interview RT Russia Today 26.04.2014 Washington organized events happening in Ukraine
Reference:
The Nato-Aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999
by Milica Radojkovic-Hänsel
Voltaire Network | 28 April 2013
NOTE: For additional background information on this topic, please search for ‘Ukraine’ and / or ‘Russia’ at www.clearnfo.com
