From South Asia to Balkans: U.S. backed Arc of Instability

In only a few short years, the world has seen several wars: Ukraine, Syria, the states affected by the “Arab Spring”, and the Islamic State, as well as rising tensions in the South China Sea. What kind of geopolitical game is happening?

What’s happened is that the US has launched a major power play for world domination, seeking to simultaneously carry out geopolitical offensives in Eastern Europe, the Mideast, and Southeast Asia. Looking at the map, it’s clear which states each of these battles are ultimately aimed against: Russia, Iran, and China, not coincidentally the three main centers of the emerging multipolar world. Special attention should be paid to the so-called “Arab Spring”, which was really just a theater-wide Color Revolution that descended into a Hybrid War in the Libyan and Syrian cases. When the US saw that the Syrian people were boldly resisting the external coup attempt being carried out against their country, it and its allies upped the ante by supplying the insurgent groups with weapons and equipment, which thus transitioned the conflict from a ‘soft’ regime change operation into a terrorist war against the state.

The longer this campaign went on for, and it’s already nearing its fifth year, the more appeal that the jihadist war created for foreign nationals, which eventually converged into the so-called “Islamic State”. Let’s remember that according to an official document provided to the Judicial Watch NGO per a US Freedom Of Information Act request, the Defense Intelligence Agency predicted the creation of a “declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want.” The reason underpinning why the US would support the creation of a literal terrorist state in the heart of the Mideast is simple – it planned to both use it as a proxy force for regime change in Syria, and also as a recruiting and training ground for international terrorists from Russia and China, which could then be sent back to their homelands to destabilize the US’ rivals.

The situations in Ukraine and the South China Sea are simpler to understand. The US wanted to separate Russia from the EU and sabotage Moscow’s energy relationship with Brussels, so it cooked up a Color Revolution in Ukraine to exactly coincide with the false “civilizational choice” that it was pressuring its leadership to make. If it didn’t go the way they wanted, which is what ultimately happened, then the US-funded urban guerrillas would be unleashed against the government. After the February Coup, the new authorities were vehemently anti-Russian and slavishly submissive to the US, which thus gave the Pentagon its greatest geopolitical gain since the end of the Old Cold War (and the first of the New Cold War). The South China Sea is similar – the US has been provoking a long-dormant island controversy in order to assemble a coalition of regional states against China and give the US the ‘plausibly justifiable’ excuse to militarize the waters through which most of Beijing’s energy imports and economic exports pass.

Analyzing it all in the global perspective, one can now better understand how the US has launched a multisided offensive war against Eurasia, aiming to dismantle the triangular multipolar alliance between Russia, China, and Iran and thus prolonging its global hegemony for as long as possible. None of these events can be seen as separate from the rest, as they all have in common the same intention of preserving American unipolarity at the expense of destabilizing the leaders of the multipolar world and strategically entangling them in neighboring conflicts.

Recently, the Russian Air Force started attacking the positions of the Islamic State in Syria. What does this mean for Russia and the world?

Russia’s stated goal is to preemptively target Russian-passport-holding terrorists before they return home to carry out future attacks. Since the situation is so chaotic in many parts of Syria, it’s impossible to discern exactly which terrorists are which, hence why Russia is committed to getting rid of the entire rotten structure so as to save both itself and the rest of the world from this menace. Geopolitically speaking, Russia’s anti-terrorist intervention has caught most of the world off guard, as the US and its allies certainly didn’t expect Moscow to make such a bold move. The nascent coalition forming around Russia, Syria, Iraq, and Iran cuts right through the geographic heart of the Mideast, immediately reversing the previous geostrategic gains the US had thought it made from its 2003 War on Iraq and subsequent occupation. The US assumed that it could indirectly control the region after its 2011 withdraw through the simultaneous leveraging of puppet governments and proxy forces (e.g. “Islamic State”), but Russia has proven that such a policy was a lot weaker and less grounded in reality than the Pentagon had previously thought. By actively assembling a multilateral anti-terrorist coalition, Russia has shown that the US doesn’t have a monopoly on such leadership, and, as Sergei Lavrov recently said, the unipolar world has entered the long and painful process of retreat.

This segues well into the global significance of Russia’s anti-terrorist intervention in Syria. Simply put, Russia is saving the entire world from the destructive devils that the US unleashed against it. The plan to weaponize chaos in the Mideast was impossible to limit solely against Russia, China, and Iran, and as is now common knowledge, ISIL has infiltrated Europe and will likely carry out attacks there in the coming future. Russia can’t of course root out the terrorists that have already entered Europe, but it can strike them right at the source of their power, the so-called “Islamic State” in Syria and Iraq. By being the vanguard state that’s directly fighting terrorism in the Mideast, Russia is indirectly saving the rest of the world from its dangers, and for this, Europe, and even the US, should be grateful. But, there’s a divide between Western governments and their people, so this isn’t being equally expressed on both levels. The people of Europe and the US understand what Russia’s doing, they know how evil the “Islamic State” is due to over a year of heavy information bombardment against it on TV, the internet, and newspapers, so when Russia takes on the mantle of anti-terrorist leadership, it certainly endears the global public to it. This, in turn, represents a complete information backfiring for the West, since Russia is supposed to be “enemy #1”, not “savior #1”, which is why the EU and American governments have gone into high gear pursing a nasty information war against the country

The West says that attacks are focused on the opposition and are aimed at destroying the enemies of President Assad. How do you comment on these claims?

Of course they’d say that, it’s a given they’d find any way they can to criticize Russia, no matter how false. Russia and Syria jointly proclaimed that they’d be fighting all terrorist groups, not just ISIL, so this of course includes Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda-affiliated organization that became the West’s main darling after the ‘defection’ of the “Islamic State”. These are the sorts of groups that the US terms as “moderate opposition”, not the legitimately moderate opposition that have partaken in the inter-Syrian dialogue in Moscow or joined with the Syrian Arab Army in fighting against terrorism. Look at it a different way – a “moderate” opposition exists, but it’s patriotic enough to work with the government during this trying times of existential trouble and try to settle its differences with it only later after this national crisis has passed, while the media myth of the “moderate opposition” is in reality a huge group of hard-core, battle-hardened Islamist terrorists that come from all across the world to eat human organs and ritually chop off heads. Most people wouldn’t find fault with Russia for targeting such a “moderate opposition”, except, of course, if they were upset that it was destroying their multimillion-dollar regime-change investment in the country.

The air strikes executed by the USA did not achieve the effect that they were supposed to. Why was that, and do you think that the Russian air strikes will be more efficient?

The US and its allies never at all intended to fight terrorism in Syria, first of all, because they illegally bombed the country without the permission of its government and outside of coordination with its armed forces. If one genuinely wants to eliminate terrorism, they don’t go about doing it without utilizing the most potent on-the-ground force against it, in this case, the Syrian Arab Army. What they wanted, however, was to strategically corral ISIL into the direction of Damascus, hoping that it would defeat the Syrian military for them and thus save the US and its allies from having to engage in a potentially costly and protracted campaign against it. After ISIL overthrew the government, only then would the “anti-terrorist” coalition have gotten serious about destroying it and unleashing a Libyan-style assault on the country. The geopolitical determinants dictated by Russia’s brave resistance to the latter scenario during September 2013 precluded the US from doing this until only after the government was already overthrown by proxy forces. Considering all of this, namely that the US-led coalition never wanted to defeat terrorism, it’s obvious why the Russian efforts will succeed in its place, as its motives are purely about the destruction of ISIL and the elimination of terrorist groups from the Mideast.

In the meantime, the big wave of population migration is continuing, several years from the start of the war in Syria. Why is it happening precisely at this time?

There are many myths about the so-called “refugees”, so it’s necessary to first dispel them before properly answering the question. To begin, most of Syria’s refugees are internal and have chosen to remain in their country out of patriotic reasons. It’s not to say that all of those who left are unpatriotic, but most of them have a clear ideological tint of anti-government attitude, especially those that left for Turkey. Even today, around 80% of the Syrian population is protected by the Syrian Arab Army, with only a fifth of the country’s inhabitants being under the control of terrorists. This statistic alone should testify to the popularity of President Assad and the loyalty of his country’s citizens. Also, there haven’t been any significant terrorist advances towards major population areas in the past year, so the sudden influx of hundreds of thousands of “Syrians” definitely isn’t caused by any military development in the war.

What’s happening then is that many of the two million who were living in Turkey have finally been allowed to leave their refugee camps (where they were indefinitely interned previously), and with gentle state nudging, have decided to make their way to the EU, the disturbing majority of which happen to be military-aged young men. It’s not because these Islamist-affiliated, anti-government individuals (of which most of them are) love peace, democracy, or orderly values (if they did, they would have supported their government), but because they want to receive generous welfare handouts and transplant their caliphate mentality to the heart of Europe. Many of them have no intention of assimilating or integrating into European life, rather hoping that they can intimidate the host country into accommodating for their preferences instead.

But, none of this is unexpected at all, since Turkey knew full well the type of people that it had been housing, yet it decided to open the floodgates to Europe anyhow. The reasons being are multifold, but they relate chiefly to (1) increasing Turkey’s negotiating status for EU ascension by bullying Brussels into certain social and economic concessions; (2) intimidating Europe into supporting Turkey’s prior plans for a NATO-led ‘no-fly zone’ in northern Syria (no longer valid after the Russian anti-terrorist intervention); and (3) advancing the US’ “Green Transversal” project in the Balkans.

There are statements that the Middle East is moving into the Balkans and Europe. What does that mean, and do you think that the refugee crisis could be used for this purpose and the construction of the “Green Transversal” described by Russian scholar Guskova?

Let me begin by approaching the question from reverse and addressing the tail end of it first, since it all dovetails together better this way. The US has played its hand in guiding the refugee flows to Europe via the Balkans in order actualize the “Green Transversal” project, which I described in strategic-tactical detail in a written interview with Slobodan Tomic’s “Voice of the People”. To briefly summarize, the US interest in doing so is to strategically exploit the humanitarian catastrophe that it created in order to achieve certain objectives that would enhance its control over Europe. Washington knows that the flood of hundreds of thousands of non-assimilating individuals into the EU will inevitably create a certain amount of social tension that could be exploited by its intelligence agencies, either in engineering anti-government sentiment to remove independently minded leaders or in keeping Europe in a constant state of tension that ‘justifies’ the NATO occupation. Per the latter, countries such as Germany, which hadn’t domestically deployed their military for years, saw the need to do so during this crisis, thus meaning that next year’s budget will likely see a certain boost given for defense expenditure. The US, of course, would then see to it that this is transferred to NATO commitments, thereby completing the transformation of the humanitarian crisis into one of military, anti-Russian advantage for Washington in the context of the New Cold War.

In order to get to the EU, particularly its most powerful economy, Germany, the refugees would thus need to be corralled in a beeline fashion straight to their target, ergo the reason why they transit the Balkans and not Italy. Remember also that the whole reason for this is that hundreds of thousands of them have been released from Turkey and are now free to do so, with many copycat attempts of non-Syrians masquerading as legitimate refugees entering into the fray as well. Using Turkey as the ‘bridge’, they then set sail for Greece and continue along a predetermined path through the Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, and previously Hungary (although they’ve now been diverted to Croatia and Slovenia). This isn’t incidental, as they could theoretically have gone through Albania or Bulgaria instead of Macedonia, but the human trafficking groups (formerly only of the drug trafficking business, and most of which are Albanian-composed and American-affiliated) purposely take them through Macedonia in order to avoid unsettling the domestic situation in its neighboring NATO-member states. Macedonia and Serbia have specifically been targeted because of their cooperation with both Russia and China, the former for Balkan Stream (the author’s name for the Balkan segment of “Turkish Stream”) and the latter for its high-speed rail plans in connecting Budapest and Piraeus. Taken together, these two mega-projects, if successfully completed, would turn these states into the multipolar world’s gateway to Europe, and this geopolitical consequence is too much for the US to fathom.

Therefore, the collateral humanitarian situation created as a result of the US’ dual Wars on Libya and Syria provided the perfect opportunity to ‘demographically engineer’ the Balkans into the most destabilizing scenario possible. Taking advantage of Serbia and Macedonia’s fears of a demographic imbalance endangering their national unity (in this case, a Muslim minority dominating the Christian majority), the US sought to encourage as many Muslim refugees as possible to transit through these countries, knowing full well that it would put the native population on the defensive edge and provoke the heralded “Christian vs Muslim” Balkan War that Washington wants. Such a conflict wouldn’t be to any region inhabitant’s advantage – neither Christian nor Muslim – but unfortunately certain elements of both populations find an alluring appeal in this ultra-dangerous scenario. The US’ aim is to divide the region so that it can more easily be controlled and/or directly conquered, potentially even by drawing NATO-member Albania into the mix so as to ‘justify’ a full-fledged ‘Alliance’ war against these two geostrategic states. In order for American policy makers to get to this tantalizing scenario, they must first enact the demographic engineering that was just spoken about, and the “Green Transversal” seeks to create the conditions where the overwhelming migration of Muslims to predominantly Christian states sets off this chain reaction of violence. Looked at from this perspective, then Hungary’s border fence and other EU states’ efforts to block the refugees off and seal them in the Balkans unintentionally fulfills this purpose, which would be to indefinitely box them into countries that they never wanted to remain in and which don’t want them to be there anyhow.
________

Just liked I ended my interview with Slobodan Tomic, I’d like to also end mine with you by imploring the audience to understand the US’ tricky geopolitical and demographic mechanisms for controlling the Balkans, and to absolutely not let any ethnic or religious tensions get the best of their judgement. Albanians and Macedonians, Muslims and Christians, can both peacefully coexist in the country without any problem, and it’s only to the US’ ultimate benefit that each side fights the other. Times will likely get hard in the future, as the tens of thousands of migrants regularly passing through the Balkans each month eventually get walled off from Europe and trapped in the region, but one must always keep in mind that these people, no matter what may be their financially motivated intent in going to Europe, are really just weaponized social masses created by the US’ destructive Wars on Libya and Syria, and that this is all really one huge game of global control by Washington. With the acknowledgement of this understanding, it’s my sincere hope that the Republic of Macedonia and its politically aware people can weather the coming difficulties without having them result in the US’ planned destabilization. God bless, and take care.