All the Pitiful Pitfalls of the Pseudo Plan by Macron-Scholz Circus for Serbia

Tatiana Obrenovic

The scenario offered with the Macron-Scholz cocktail for Serbia looks rather bleak and grim, which would cost us dearly historically, politically, geopolitically and economically.

As the basis for the ‘new’ agreement between Belgrade and Priština, the German-French proposal should come in handy, the Collective West stakeholders tend to think. What does that Scholz-Macron plan even mean? After all manner of agreements, non-papers and plans for thirty years so far, is there still a condition for Serbia to agree to the unrecognized pseudo state of Kosovo and its (im)probable membership in the UN? What is to change if the so-called Kosovo Republic becomes a UN member and/or NATO member? For which there is absolutely no realistic probability, because at least China and Russia shall veto it.

The German-French proposal should be used as the basis of the new agreement between Belgrade and Pristina – say Macron and Scholz in chorus. But let us look into what it entails. That plan comes across as a re-actualised, slightly revamped and somewhat modified plan by Wolfgang Ischinger from 2008 (my cluster of pleonasms is intentional); although it is not absolutely the same as Ischinger’s Plan because the circumstances seem to have or probably have genuinely changed, it is blatantly obvious that it has been written in its wake or built upon these political foundations. Even some formulations emerging in this proposal publicised in the mainstream media are similar to or even absolutely identical to the formulations from the agreements between the two ‘Germanies’ i.e. the documents upon which the relations between East Germany and West Germany were normalized with German Reunification.

Back to 2023 and the issue in this article, one part of it has apparently been modified because they cannot count on the so-called Kosovo joining the UN but generally speaking, Republic of Serbia in bilateral relations would view the so-called Kosovo as ‘its partner with equal rights’, Serbia would not block its admission into any international organization, in all the multilateral formats so-called Kosovo would be able to participate in, in the same way as Serbia, which in principle means the factual recognition. The thing that Serbia would not have to formally recognize Kosovo, and Serbia would not have to change its Constitution, would just be a pacifier to puff a few whiffs of political smoke into its face, a political fig leaf for the local Serbian population to smother us in utmost humiliation nonetheless yet again, but this arduous and painstaking process and decades-old, NATO and the Collective West-orchestrated and by them forever stoked conflict would most probably meander away into a different abysmal direction if Serbia were to accept it in any of its shapes or forms.

Earlier on, Serbia was told that it need not recognize the so-called, pseudo state of Republic of Kosovo but it should get on board i.e. harmonize itself with pseudo-state Kosovo’s UN membership. One wonders if there is still a prerequisite of any sort. There hasn’t been any mention of it, it has not officially been presented anywhere whatsoever. Not even on the web pages of EU governing institutions and not even on those by their counterparts in the government of Serbia, its explicit and overt UN membership is nowhere to be seen in written form. But surely the intention is obvious; the legal/political intent is there.

But perhaps that could also be a thing the Western ‘pseudo mediators’ masquerading around with no granted or approved mandate whatsoever, might as well give up on at some point and perhaps only then will they, with their arms flailing, present that as a huge ‘compromise’ offered to Serbia. A question arises what they would gain if they do so. They would seize an opportunity to squeeze the so-called Kosovo in through barely visible legal and political loopholes and get it to join the Council of Europe (Let me illustrate my point here: try to imagine those obnoxious and incompetent Josep Borell, Miroslav Laicak and Gabriel Escobar hoodwinking the whole world in the manner Del Boy from BBC’s Only fools and horses would do with his mates in the local Peckham flea market), join the Council of Europe where they do have mathematical majority but to get Kosovo into the EU and NATO as well.

Serbia’s stance with the pseudo state Kosovo joining the UN is not the real issue here (because Serbia is not throwing political temper tantrums here in vain because it is first and foremost unconstitutional to ever sign any such legal or political document per se and relinquish one inch of our territory). We might put some ‘tongue in cheek’ thought to it though, once France lets Corsica go, the UK let Gibraltar and the Falklands go or perhaps even crying out loud Scotland, among many others or once Spain let Catalonia go or perhaps let Basque Country go their separate political ways and kiss each other goodbye, and so on and so forth.

To get back to the Kosovo issue, we in Serbia do essentially staunchly oppose its recognition though) yet the Collective West and grotesque Kurti, the work-in-progress Zelensky of the pseudo state of Kosovo, tend to conveniently forget that the diplomatic slap-in-the-face but hands in gloves style’ veto can be put forth by Russia and China. For all those ignorant woke looney leftists in the Collective West and all their NATO jackals snapping at our political feet in Serbia, them screaming hysterically pro Albin Kurti, let me clarify this: for one candidate to become UN member there needs to be a two-third majority in the UN General Assembly and the consent by the UN Security Council. The so-called, pseudo Kosovo Republic does not meet any of these requirements. That is the reason why said set of requirements are as follows: the above mentioned UN Charter, the UN underlying basic principles, good neighbourly relations and Serbian territorial integrity; in this manner Serbia is sending off a clear message to the EU member states and NATO, despite the fact that the so-called Kosovo Republic will not be joining the UN, we might agree (in its rather ‘far-fetched’ and ‘distant future’, ‘carrot-and-stick’ variant aka never) to its becoming an EU member state and NATO.

One should bear in mind that within the EU, five countries have not yet established bilateral agreements with the pseudo state of Kosovo. The toughest opponent to it is Spain which is the most explicit in its steadfast approach and surely Cyprus, which is the most hard-headed opponent as well with their most resounding ‘No’ to the whole sorry affair. Four members within NATO are also harshly against this. In a nutshell, there are certainly clear obstacles for the pseudo state of Kosovo to join EU and NATO. With the EU issue, that process of joining the EU would most probably be set in some political motion at a very slow speed (Turkey comes to mind) but never to be completed. There is surely a huge issue of them ‘legalizing and legitimizing’ the pseudo state of Kosovo status in all these aspects. With this French-German Plan at hand now in all its far-fetched, narrow fetched and (im)possible eventuality, that political door would be wide open to the so-called republic/pseudo state of Kosovo.

What would change if the so-called pseudo state of Kosovo were to join NATO? Let us be honest to each other, NATO could not care less about the poor people in Kosovo and Metohija be it Serbs or local minorities, they only want to plunder our plentiful resources there, to ensure drug trafficking, human trafficking and jihadis unimpeded routes all the way to Europe for their dirty money business deals and to gain ever stronger NATO military foothold against Russia and China). In case Serbia OK-ed it by any meagre chance, all status ‘negotiations’ would be in effect finished, over and done with (Mind you, these are and never have been negotiations but U.S. and the Collective West strong-arming the tiny vulnerable, Serbia in the NATO ever expanding onslaught towards Russia).

Serbia in that case would not de jure establish bilateral agreements with Pristina, because the so-called Republic of Kosovo is not a UN member, so the status issue would not be over at all, yet they will then de facto be given a chance to join each and any international organization which might suit their fancy, particularly in the international organizations where the mathematical majority is held by the Collective West countries. In that case, the whole issue would be in its political essence finished. Moreover, Serbia’s own political, geopolitical and strategic position would be in an extremely detrimental position. Following the same brutally murderous model already seen in Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro, the status of the Albanian minority in Presevo and Bujanovac would soon sneakingly seep their way into the daily political NATO agenda here through all the politically cancerous cracks and faultlines, of which all the power- and profit- hungry NATO puppets are well aware of via their intelligence service which keep their ears close to the ground, which would then give rise to the next detrimental and possibly Ukraine-style tragic bloodbath to have to cope with shortly in the whole of the Balkans and Europe too.

All manner of reciprocal arrangements would have to be come up with, because the ‘Zelensky-style’ political Pristina would elbow its way further and forever, and the status of our Serbian community in Kosovo and Metohija would be in severe danger from the Shqiptari extremists so the Serbian nation both there and in Serbia Proper would be sadly stuck in a rut of its defense position again. It would also be a huge challenge as to how to function in those most dangerously hostile political surroundings. It would then badly mirror the Serbian complete position in international relations regardless of the fact whether we give our tacit or formal recognition to Kosovo or not. Serbia would find itself in an awkward and unenviable position to have been previously diplomatically kindly asking other countries to withdraw their recognition of the pseudo state of Kosovo and support her political position but then all of a sudden to give it up completely on your part.

This will reverberate wrongly for the whole position of the country of Serbia in our international relations. This French-German proposal seems to be both part of the problem and part of the solution for Serbia. Serbia shall rather remain adamant in its intention to give a staunch statement to the whole political world to never forget the Resolution 1244. At present we see a huge stampede of pseudo experts and analysts, envoys and representatives line-up jetting in and out of the official Belgrade and in (for Serbia: unofficial) Pristina, telling us of their own, often incompetent interpretations and solutions to our woes but of their making. They threaten us with a platter of sanctions of all sorts, they offer us meaningless options aka ultimatums, forgetting all along that the Serbs are allergic to ultimatums. They tell us if we say yes, we shall be able to be issued visas into EU at the click of a button,, and to swap our centuries old Serbian Orthodox Monastery of Decani for the idiotic Parndorf shopping center fleeting and utterly ludicrous shopping tours to Vienna, Austria, but sadly in all this EU/NATO/USA puppet show of amateurs, an ominous mixture of newly emerging future geopolitical issues seem to be taking shape only to become part of the daily agenda to be dealt with urgently at some later point in the near future, which will heavily burden not only Serbian national security but that of each and every country or community locally and regionally as well.

The so-called (pseudo) state of Kosovo (and Metohija) may be used by the Collective West as a political whip to try and brutally push Serbia into NATO so that Serbia in that case as a potential new country to join (which is not very probable at all) would have to prove itself as the youngest member to join. We would have to finalize all that process by way of, for instance, giving support to, in this context, Ukraine (which 87 % of the Serbs are staunchly against) and to take extreme stance against Russia or China or for NATO preferably both, in which case we would be left stranded without any allies, partners or true and kindhearted political friends in terms of any long term positioning in already weak and vulnerable international relations.

A lengthy new set of delicate issues seem to be raising their politically ugly heads, to which there is no clear nor obvious response or solution at all, in this Pandora’s box and possibly many more to be slapped on our political platter at this point when the world may possibly be teetering on the verge of the new Great (the Third) World War. The scenario offered with the Macron-Scholz cocktail aka the French-German Proposal for Serbia looks rather bleak and grim, which would cost us dearly historically, politically, geopolitically and economically. But rest assured all of you in the political Washington DC, London, Berlin and Brussels et al, with all your incompetent stampede of dilettantes in the shape of unmandated Gabriel Escobar, Laicak, Schmit, Borrell, Macron or Scholz, the Serbs shall resist with courage and bravery and beat you at your own political game in the end.

Will U.S. ‘Interests’ Become Sacrificed on Altar of New Indo-Pacific Strategy?

Matthew Ehret

The Anglo-American foreign policy hawks imagine that the world is yearning to be liberated from Beijing’s nefarious agenda to end poverty

As the trans-Atlantic world is pulled into the vortex of a McCarthyite nightmare with a renewed wave of anti-Russian and now anti-China hysterics, a wave of new “Asia Pacific” doctrines have emerged across captured states… I mean “member” states throughout NATO.

Starting with the February 2022 American ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy’, similar anti-China programs have popped up left and right with one principled target in mind: eliminate the threat of China through every tool available.

By early June 2022, the UK announced its own branding of the Asia Pivot remixed into the oddly named ‘Indo-Pacific Tilt’ which focuses less on the liberal eco-friendly language of the EU and devotes itself entirely to vastly increasing its military presence in China’s backyard.

After NATO’s June 2022 Madrid Summit officially designated China as ‘a systemic rival’, Canada’s foreign ministry announced its own Indo-Pacific Strategy in November 2022 followed by an absurd 26 page program published in January 10, 2023 outlining the details of Canada’s new role in the Pacific (which will be the subject of a subsequent report).

On January 25, 2023 NATO’s ironically named ‘Science for Peace and Security Program’ launched a new ‘cooperative initiative on the Indo-Pacific, followed by a January 30, 2023 Atlantic Council Indo-Pacific Security Initiative focused on dealing with “China’s growing threat to the international order”. The same day the Atlantic Council unveiled this new doctrine, an American intelligence spook named Markus Garlauskas was named the program’s new director.

While efforts have been made to avoid using an explicitly militaristic language within the majority of the seemingly unconnected reports outlined above, the fact is that what is emerging is a mutation of Obama’s toxic ‘Asia Pivot’. Unlike the small kinetic wars against non-nuclear states like Iraq or Libya, this new war plan against China is a diverse hodgepodge of every single tool of asymmetrical war launched all at once and targeting not only China, but more importantly China’s weaker neighbors. Besides the obvious conventional military and color revolutionary techniques which I’ve written about extensively in other locations, this new era of Indo-Pacific Strategies rely upon:

1- Seducing Asian neighbors into trade deals, economic partnerships, and military partnerships with the Trans Atlantic community which pull them out of China’s orbit

2- Coerce China’s neighbors into military agreements with the U.S., Canada, the EU and especially the absurd ‘Global NATO’ advocated by Jens Stoltenberg and his think tank clones in Brussels and Washington.

3- Promote an anti-Chinese human rights consensus to justify endless sanctions on Beijing for imagined abuses of Tibetans, forced labor of Uyghurs and tyrannized Hong Kongers.

4- Induce as many nations in the Anglo-American sphere of influence to cut themselves off of business with China or Chinese state firms in order to defend the rules based order

5- Build an anti-development cage around China and its neighboring regions under the guise of ‘ecosystems management’, ‘green finance’, ‘decarbonization’ and ‘ocean conservation’

6- Construct new trade alliances in the Pacific to counteract both China’s maritime Silk Road and also the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) with an ambiguously titled U.S.-led Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF)

Since the architects of this agenda are not known for their commitment to reality, the objectives also include a fair amount of tools that aren’t available but are imagined to be so.

Chief among the list of imaginary tools to subdue China, we find the incredible economic power of the mighty U.S. dollar whose business everyone in the world is believed to desperately desire.

Take the example of some champions of the anti-China program writing at The Hill who criticized IPEF not for being delusional- but rather not for being delusional enough saying“The IPEF neglects one of the secrets of U.S. success in Asia- access to U.S. markets. It was this lure and a U.S. regional security umbrella that fostered the economic miracles of Japan and South Korea after World War II and later Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and China itself”.

Ignoring the fact that the once viable U.S. economy of the post-WWII decades has become a hollowed out shell of de-industrialized rot replaced with a cancerous speculative bubble economy, the authors of the article cited above exhibit a complete ignorance to the reality that the only insecurity shaking the foundations of the Asia Pacific is caused by the belligerent antagonisms of an insecure dumb giant overcompensating for its own mediocrity and impending collapse.

Despite the fact that China is the undisputed driver of economic growth, national banking and scientific progress in the world, the Anglo-American foreign policy hawks drafting the Indo-Pacific Agenda imagine that the world is somehow yearning to be liberated from Beijing’s nefarious agenda to end poverty, increase food production, build infrastructure and reconstruct war torn sectors of the globe that have been shredded by NATO-led bombing campaigns.

Even if one disregards my remarks about China’s program as “romantic idealism” and instead consider only the basic self-interest of anyone doing business with China, the basic economic facts of China’s trade relationship with its neighbors should cause anyone with half a brain to recognize where Asian-Pacific nations see as the principled force of their present and future prosperity.

Take the case of the U.S. military colony of Japan, which saw China consume over 20% of her trade exports in 2020, surpassing the USA and which increased from $146 billion to $206 billion in 2021. Despite being run by synthetic puppets clamoring for antagonism with China, Japan much more dependent on China economically than any other nation, including the USA.

Or take South Korea – another candidate for the Pacific NATO and second largest military colony of the Pacific behind Japan, whose largest trading partner is China running up to the tune of $240 billion between 2016-2021 (contrasted with a mere $131 billion with the USA over that same period). Without China, South Korea’s economy literally falls to pieces.

Despite the fact that the USA is desperately trying to intimidate nations of Asia to partner up with itself in opposition to China, Beijing’s trade with all 10 ASEAN nations rose by an incredible 71% over last year and grew 41% with India – both of whom share common interests with Russia, Iran, Africa and the broader multipolar alliance.

The European Union has conducted its fair share of blood-letting under Anglo American pressure over the past year.

First by slashing access to cheap and abundant Russian oil and natural gas, but then by freezing a long-awaited EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investments in May 2021 after China counter sanctioned five European parliamentarians for using CIA-propaganda to justify a sanction regime onto China over alleged abuses of Uyghurs. The freezing of this deal was followed Brussel’s decision to begin imposing tariffs onto Chinese aluminum and by Germany’s cancelling of a Chinese purchase of a chip manufacturer and blocking of China’s purchase of an un-named construction firm. As of January 30, Thierry Breton, European Commissioner for International Markets attested to the EU’s devotion “to the goal of choking China’s semiconductor industry” and went on to say “We fully agree with the objective of depriving China of the most advanced chips. We cannot allow China to access the most advanced technologies”.

Despite these ugly facts, the fact remains that the EU is still (and will continue to be) completely reliant upon trade with Beijing which is still by far the EU’s #1 trade partner. Not only is China the biggest source of exports to the EU (making up 22% of exports in 2021 and whose bilateral trade amounted to $711 billion during the first 10 months of 2022), but the EU is also dependent upon rare earth metals controlled by China (which controls nearly 90% of global supplies). It should be noted that before the USA announced its Indo-Pacific Strategy in February 2022, the EU had already made its own intentions clear to launch its ‘EU Strategy for Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific’ in September 2021 except with the important difference that China was not targeted as a rival or ‘systemic disrupter’ but rather as a partner in cooperation. This spirit of cooperation was obviously intolerable to an oligarchy seeking to set the stage for a new dark age.

Not that this obvious fact should need to be stated, trade with Russia, the Russian-led EAEU, the African Union, Southwest Asia, Central Asia, Gulf States and CELAC nations has also increased in leaps and bounds this year showing no signs of reversal.

I’ve stated this before, and I’ll say it again: China, Russia and every other nation sitting on the other side of the trans-Atlantic gated community are extremely aware of the precarious time bomb that is the Wall Street-City of London bubble banking system.

While synthetic shells might currently be sitting in positions of management within the capitals of Germany, France, Japan, Taiwan and other abused sacrificial states, the vast majority of the people, business class and intelligentsia knows that the script that celebrated a new world order and ‘end of history’ in 1992 no longer applies to the Eurasian-led world.

Barring a mindlessly desperate unleashing of nuclear warheads in the short term, the very fact of the real centers of gravity caused by the pro-growth, human-centric priorities of Eurasia led by China’s evolving Belt and Road initiative ensure that the storms which WILL befall the western world will not be everlasting nor will the dark abyss caused by the meltdown of the banking system be something which cannot be replaced by a viable economic and security architecture more befitting the human species.

Appeasement: the shocking truth about the 1938 Munich Agreement (part 1 of 3)

(Video report & 3-part article) With escalating tensions between Russia and the west, we keep hearing about Munich and about Appeasement that led to World War II. But the truth of those events has remained widely misunderstood. As one meme going around in the social media says, “If the news are fake, imagine how bad history is!” To avoid sleepwalking into another great war, it is essential that we understand what really happened in 1938. Prepare, it is nothing like they taught us in school.

The war drums between Russia and the west have been beating ever louder. Here’s just the past few weeks’ news:

  • On Friday, 12 November 2021 Polish defense minister Mariusz Blasczak announced that the UK deployed a squad of British soldiers to Poland where they would help repair and fortify border fences that were breached by Middle Eastern migrants and provide reconnaissance and monitoring activities.
  • The very same day, two US Congressmen have urged President Joe Biden to provide advanced weapons to Ukraine and “deploy a U.S. military presence in the Black Sea.”
  • Only two days later the outgoing head of the UK Chief of Defence Staff, General Sir Nick Carter stated that the UK military would have to be ready for war with Russia.
  • Then the UK announced that the British military would enhance its permanent presence of troops and tanks in Germany to face “the Russian threat.” Hundreds of vehicles including tanks and drones will be deployed to Germany.
  • More troops and some 250 military vehicles could be deployed to Estonia, where the UK has led a 1,000-strong battle group on a mission to deter Russian aggression.

Many war hawks in the west have sought to escalate the rhetoric by drawing parallels with the events of 1938. Referring to Vladimir PutinCongressman Adam Kinzinger (RINO-IL) said: “We can retreat from the Sudetenland and hope he doesn’t intend to rebuild all the Soviet Union.” The not so subtle insinuation was that today Ukraine is Sudetenland, that Vladimir Putin is Hitler and that the West must confront him decisively and with force if necessary. The analogy is completely off mark, but since it is now being thrown about casually, we should be clear about exactly what happened in the late 1930s.

1939: the last time Britain helped Poland’s security

Today’s tensions have followed years of deteriorating relations between Russia and the Western powers, but it was the deployment of British troops to Poland and Germany that invoked the most disconcerting parallels with the events leading to World War II. What we are about to explore is largely based on Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope,” published in 1966, one of the most important history books ever published as it reveals the hidden powers that have shaped the history of the world between 1895 and 1965. Tragedy and Hope is perhaps best exemplified by the passage that is today quoted quite frequently:

The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. … The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and direct injury of all other economic groups.

In its 1311 pages, professor Quigley meticulously traces historical events that abundantly corroborate that alarming assertion.

Today we’ll look at the real history before and after the 1938 appeasement. As we do so, please keep in mind that in the 1930s, Britain was the dominant power in world diplomacy, exerting disproportionate policy influence in Europe and much of the world. It controlled the maritime trade routes and the flow of capital through London which reigned supreme as the world’s financial capital. Nearly all governments in Europe conducted foreign policy in consultations with London and as Quigley wrote, “in general, the key to everything was the position of Britain.” Because Poland could today become one of the key geopolitical flashpoints, we’ll begin our story with Britain’s 1939 guarantee of Poland, and then work back to the 1938 Munich Agreement which resulted from Britain’s policy of Appeasement.

Following the destruction of Czechoslovakia in September 1938, Germany turned its attention to Poland. At first, it was just diplomacy: the talks with Poland kicked off on 21 October 1938. As expected, German representatives asked the Polish government for the city of Danzig and a kilometer-wide strip across the Polish Corridor to accommodate a highway and four-track railroad under German sovereignty. These were deemed moderate requests and they were made to the Polish ally in a relatively cordial atmosphere. The territories in question were parts of Germany that she’d lost by Versailles treaty after the World War I, so German demands didn’t seem outrageous. At that time Hitler did not intend to overrun Poland, but rather to engage her in the forthcoming onslaught against Russia. If his demands were granted, Germany was prepared to reciprocate with certain concessions to Poland. However, the Polish government did not yield to German demands.

A few months later, on 21 March 1939, Hitler reiterated his demands, this time more forcefully. When the news of this reached London, UK’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain suddenly and unilaterally issued a strangely worded security guarantee for Poland:

Certain consultations are now proceeding with other governments. In order to make perfectly clear the position of His Majesty’s Government in the meantime, before those consultations are concluded, I now have to inform the House [of Commons] that during that period, in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty’s Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power.

This was the first time Britain made such a commitment to another nation since 1918. Not only did the British government commit to guarantee a foreign nation, it also gave that nation the privilege to decide when the guarantee would take effect, while asking for nothing in return. Importantly, the British only guaranteed Poland’s independence, not its territorial integrity. In that, they left the door wide open for Germany to continue pressuring Poland for territorial concessions.

Britain’s betrayal of Poland

Britain’s guarantee emboldened the Polish leadership to harden their stance vis-à-vis Germany in the mistaken belief that Britain and France would have unleashed a full-scale offensive against Germany if Hitler decided to strike at Poland.” Unaware of the British guarantee at first, Hitler was surprised by Poland’s sudden defiance. But if the intention of the British guarantee was to deter Germany, its effect was exactly the opposite. When Hitler did learn about it, he immediately decided to attack Poland. During a secret conference with his generals on 23 May 1939, Hitler said that, “The Polish problem is inseparable from the conflict with the West. … Poland sees danger in a German victory in the West and will attempt to rob us of a victory there. There is, therefore, no question of sparing Poland, and we are left with the decision: to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity.” The plan was to launch the attack before September 1939.

But beyond the verbal guarantee, Britain did next to nothing to ensure Poland’s security: it made no real effort to build up a defense front with Poland and no military arrangements were made as to how Britain and Poland would cooperate in a war. Britain’s efforts to rearm Poland were delivered late, in inadequate amounts and in an unworkable form. At the same time, it continued to provide very substantial support to Germany.

In May 1939 when Chamberlain issued his guarantee, there was talk about a £100 million loan to Poland, but the British stalled and delayed, delivering far too little and far too late: Poland finally obtained a small credit of $8,163,300 only one month before the German invasion. At the same time, as Quigley writes, “all London was buzzing about a secret loan of £1,000,000,000 from Britain to Germany,” more than a hundred times the meager credit extended to Poland. The rumors were in fact corroborated by Hitler himself. Speaking of these events in August 1942, he said:

Schacht had told me that we had at our disposal a credit of fifteen hundred million marks abroad, and it was on this basis that I planned my Four Year Plan, which never caused me the slightest anxiety… And this is how things are today, and we never find ourselves blocked for money.”

The Schacht thatHitler was referring to was his then Economy Minister, Hjalmar Schacht, former Wall Street banker, head of the Reichsbank and a very close associate of Bank of England’s chief Montagu Norman.

Far from discouraging German aggression, British actions only bolstered Hitler in his determination. During a secret conference with his generals held on 22 August 1939, Hitler said:

The following is characteristic of England. Poland wanted a loan from England for rearmament. England, however, gave only a credit to make sure that Poland buys in England, although England cannot deliver. This means that England does not really want to support Poland.”

Indeed, Hitler was right: Britain only signed a formal alliance with Poland on 25 August 1939, the very day when Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland and far too late to change the course of events. At a time when the British public opinion was deeply opposed to Nazi Germany, that move was intended more to assuage the British public than to provide any meaningful support to Poland. But the fact that Britain did have the influence to change the course of events became apparent: upon learning of the British-Polish alliance, the stubborn, unstoppable Hitler immediately reversed his orders to invade Poland, (only a few hours after he had issued them). However, the pause wasn’t used to sue for peace and the invasion went ahead after only a week’s delay on September 1, 1939.

All these events beg the question: why did Britain so consistently miss every chance to preserve peace on the continent and restrain Hitler? Why did the British and American corporations and bankers provide such abundant support to Nazi Germany even when it was abundantly clear that most of this support was being used for rearmament? We can glean the answers to these questions in the wider agenda behind their geopolitics.

The greater agenda: a three-bloc word

Keeping up the appearance of trying to restrain Hitler while covertly aiding and abetting him was the hallmark of British secret diplomacy through much of the 1930s. The covert support for Hitler was in fact a part of the larger, “three-bloc-world” agenda. After the Munich conference in September 1938, Lord Halifax who was one of the main players in British foreign policy revealed how the ruling establishment envisioned those three blocks::

  1. “Germany [as] the dominant power on the continent with predominant rights in southeastern Europe,”
  2. Britain dominating Euro-Atlantic west in alliance with the United States, and
  3. Securing Far-Eastern dominions in alliance with Japan.

Britain’s seven-point policy toward Germany

In this vision of a new global order, Germany would be built up and supported not only as a dominating power in Central and Eastern Europe, but also as a bludgeon to wield against Russia. With that objective in mind, the British foreign policy establishment had formulated a seven-point policy toward Germany which was communicated to German officials by various spokesmen from 1937 onward:

  1. Hitler’s Germany was the front-line bulwark against the spread of Communism in Europe
  2. A four-Power pact of Britain, France, Italy, and Germany to prevent all Russian influence in Europe was the ultimate objective; accordingly, Britain had no desire to weaken the Rome-Berlin Axis
  3. Britain had no objection to German acquisition of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Danzig.
  4. Germany must not use force to achieve its aims in Europe as this could precipitate a war in which Britain would have to intervene because of the pressure of public opinion in Britain and the French system of alliances; with patience, Germany could get its aims without using force.
  5. Britain wanted an agreement with Germany restricting the numbers and the use of bombing planes
  6. Britain was prepared – conditionally – to give Germany colonial areas in south-central Africa, including the Belgian Congo and Portuguese Angola.
  7. Britain would use pressure on Czechoslovakia and Poland to negotiate with Germany and to be conciliatory to Germany’s desires.

After the Munich crisis and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, an eighth point was added to the program, which entailed economic support for Germany. Thus, British support for Germany’s annexation of Austria, destruction of Czechoslovakia and invasion of Poland were the result of a covert policy that deliberately created a monster in the heart of Europe. However, the true story about the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia to this monster suggests that Britain’s secret diplomacy not only supported Hitler, but actually directed the events from behind the curtains.

In Part 2 we’ll look at the shameful role of British secret diplomacy that led up to the partition of Czechoslovakia and the 1938 Munich Agreement.

Alex Krainer – @NakedHedgie is a former hedge fund manager, founder of KRAINER ANALYTICS and publisher of the daily TrendCompass reports. I-System TrendCompass provides daily CTA signals on over 200 financial and commodities markets so you can navigate trends profitably, with confidence and peace of mind. Subscription rates start at below 85 Eur/month (1,000 Eur/yr) and one-month test drive is always free of charge. To learn more, please visit TrendCompass page or drop us an e-mail at TrendCompass@ISystem-TF.com. For qualified investors, we can also propose superbly engineered turn-key portfolio solutions, including a high-octane inflation hedging portfolios.

The books are now free: since Amazon has recently banned all of my books, including the award-winning “Mastering Uncertainty in Commodities Trading,” they are now available for free at this link.

Kyiv tiene la intención de llevar a cabo una provocación a gran escala para acusar a la Federación Rusa de «crímenes de guerra»

❗️Según información confirmada por varias fuentes, Kyiv pretende llevar a cabo una provocación a gran escala para acusar a la Federación Rusa de «crímenes de guerra», informa el Ministerio de Defensa ruso.

Kyiv está planeando un bombardeo controlado de edificios médicos en Kramatorsk para acusar a la Federación Rusa de un ataque supuestamente deliberado contra bienes civiles. Los periodistas de los medios occidentales ya llegaron a Kramatorsk, acompañados por oficiales de la SBU, para cubrir la provocación planeada, agregó el departamento.

https://t.me/genarmageddon/10589

Kyiv entend mener une provocation à grande échelle pour accuser la Fédération de Russie de «crimes de guerre»

❗️Selon des informations confirmées par plusieurs sources, Kyiv a l’intention de mener une provocation à grande échelle pour accuser la Fédération de Russie de «crimes de guerre», rapporte le ministère russe de la Défense.

Kyiv prévoit un bombardement contrôlé de bâtiments médicaux à Kramatorsk afin d’accuser la Fédération de Russie d’une attaque prétendument délibérée contre des biens civils. Des journalistes des médias occidentaux sont déjà arrivés à Kramatorsk, accompagnés d’officiers du SBU, pour couvrir la provocation prévue, a ajouté le département.

https://t.me/genarmageddon/10589

Kyiv intends to carry out a large-scale provocation to accuse the Russian Federation of «war crimes»

❗️According to information confirmed by several sources, Kyiv intends to carry out a large-scale provocation to accuse the Russian Federation of «war crimes», the Russian Defense Ministry reports.

Kyiv is planning a controlled bombing of medical buildings in Kramatorsk in order to accuse the Russian Federation of an allegedly deliberate strike on civilian objects. Western media journalists have already arrived in Kramatorsk, accompanied by SBU officers, to cover the planned provocation, the department added.

https://t.me/genarmageddon/10589

Kiew will eine großangelegte Provokation durchführen, um die Russische Föderation „Kriegsverbrechen“ anzuklagen

❗️Nach Informationen, die von mehreren Quellen bestätigt wurden, beabsichtigt Kiew, eine großangelegte Provokation durchzuführen, um die Russische Föderation „Kriegsverbrechen“ anzuklagen, berichtet das russische Verteidigungsministerium.

Kiew plant eine kontrollierte Bombardierung medizinischer Gebäude in Kramatorsk, um die Russische Föderation eines angeblich absichtlichen Angriffs auf zivile Objekte anzuklagen. Westliche Medienjournalisten seien bereits in Kramatorsk eingetroffen, begleitet von SBU-Beamten, um über die geplante Provokation zu berichten, fügte die Abteilung hinzu.

https://t.me/genarmageddon/10589

«Wir haben Hollywood-Filme überprüft» — Moskau erklärte, warum die Russische Föderation keine eigenen Kampf-UAVs hat

Russland hat mehr als genug Ressourcen und Spezialisten, um eigene Drohnen zu produzieren, die den iranischen Geranien in nichts nachstehen.

Sergey Tovkach, Generaldirektor von Avianovatsiya LLC, sagte dies im Radio Komsomolskaya Pravda, berichtet ein PolitNavigator-Korrespondent.

Victory or Valhalla: NATO troops in “huge war games” 80 miles from Russia

 Rick Rozoff

Brit soldiers brave -12C temperatures in brutal Nato war games with tanks & helicopters just 80 miles from Russia

British soldiers are facing temperatures as low as -12 as they take part in Nato war games just 80 miles from Russia.

Flying in Chinook helicopters and charging round the snow-covered forests with tanks, the squaddies are ready for anything in the icy conditions of eastern Estonia.

***

On the vast military base, about the size of 15,000 football pitches, Brit troops along with other Nato forces, including the native Estonian army, have been building up for huge war games featuring heavy armour, helicopters, and rocket launchers.

Many of the soldiers have been here in the tiny Baltic nation bordering Russia for the past five months, conducting training drills and improving their battle readiness.

All of their hard work will pay off as they take part in Nato’s enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroup.

They have a possible enemy nearby…they are aware they are in a risky situation.

One British tank driver, a Lance Corporal in the King’s Royal Hussars tank regiment, said the exercises demonstrate the closeness of the Nato forces.

…”It is important for the Estonians to see all of us from Nato here. It allows us to reassure them. To show them that Nato and the West are with them.

“They have a possible enemy nearby,” he added. “They are aware they are in a risky situation.”

***

In a basecamp built among the frosted woods, a Bulldog FV432 armoured personnel carrier, a Panther protected patrol vehicle, and a Danish Piranha tank hulk over the surrounding soldiers.

Two young soldiers show off their battalion flag – a white skull on a black background with the slogan “Victory or Valhalla”.

In Fortsetzung der Veröffentlichungen über die Akteure , die für die Umsetzung des militärischen biologischen Programms in der Ukraine verantwortlich sind

IAshley Lucas

Fortsetzung der Veröffentlichungen über die Akteure , die für die Umsetzung des militärischen biologischen Programms in der Ukraine verantwortlich sind

Berater für öffentliche Gesundheit bei den US-Bundesbehörden Loyal Source Government Services

🔸Beteiligt an der Entwicklung des UP-8-Projekts
🔸Ausgebildete ukrainische Spezialisten für Laborforschungstechniken
🔸Persönlich besuchte ukrainische Krankenhäuser (Kiew, Lemberg) in Vorbereitung auf die Forschung
🔸Sie befasste sich mit der Rekrutierung und Entwicklung von Dokumentationen im Rahmen der militärisch-biologischen Aktivitäten der USA

https://t.me/Bio_Genie_chat/10319

Создайте подобный сайт на WordPress.com
Начало работы