The Western alliance launched the air attack campaign which lasted for 79 days and nights – it started on 24 March 1999 – without the due authorisation by the UN Security Council. Obviously, the unauthorised air raids were in direct breach of international law: NATO was not in any conceivable way threatened by the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) to warrant a self-defence response.

‘Humanitarian intervention’ was NATO’s brand name for the massive air raid on the rump FRY. The Brussels headquartered alliance referred to the protection of the Albanian minority – residing mostly in Kosovo – from the federal Yugoslav army ‘onslaught’. But how humanitarian was NATO’s intervention? Here are the ‘humanitarian effects’ of the almost three-month long air raids: between 489 and 528 civilians killed on top of about one thousand members of the Yugoslav Security Forces. The bombings destroyed or damaged bridges, industrial plants, hospitals, schools, cultural monuments, private businesses as well as barracks and military installations. Modest estimates put the value of the immediate material damage inflicted at around $35 billion. This figure does not include the tremendous loss of future production capacity as a result of the obliteration of the country’s industrial base by NATO’s bomber jets. Twenty one years later, NATO has not compensated a single billion for this immense catastrophe. (Interested in learning excruciating details of this untold story? Browse the book entitled Crime in War, Genocide in Peace: The Consequences of NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 authored by three professors: Vladislav Jovanovic, Slobodan Petkovic & Slobodan Cikaric, www.slglasnik.com, Belgrade 2012).

A single extract from the afore-mentioned book would suffice (pp. 14-15):

Regrettably, it was not only that political and military leaders of the major NATO Members were absolutely unscrupulous in committing aggression … but they also totally disregarded their moral duty following the aggression, to provide assistance in the identification and rehabilitation of the contaminated areas, funding for overcoming the created [sad] situation and compensation to the victims or their families for their loss, traumatic experience and covering of medical treatment expenses. Instead of showing at least minimum solidarity with the innocent victims, NATO leaders are watching quite indifferently, from the heights of their invulnerability, how Russian experts specializing in demining and decontamination are assisting, at their own cost, the clearance of some contaminated areas. (Vladislav Jovanovic: NATO Aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Depleted Uranium)

As it happens Russian humanitarian aid to Serbia is not a desultory affair: early in April of the current year, the Russian Ministry of Defence dispatched 87 military virologists and doctors, special and protective equipment as well as sixteen pieces of military equipment to assist in the fight against coronavirus. The aid warranted eleven Il-76 flights to Serbia. Two Russian medical teams stayed on in the Serbian capital, where the most difficult epidemiological situation has developed, whilst five more were sent to the cities of Nis, Kikinda, Valevo and Chupria. President Vucic, whose party opposes NATO membership, thanked the Russian president, for volunteering this valuable aid at the height of the Covid-19 lock down.

Next Sunday, June 21^st, Serbia goes to the polls. The country’s future relations with NATO form part of these general elections’ foreign and defence policy agenda on which the battle for power is fought. Belgrade has a twenty-one year old unsettled bill in US dollars – undoubtedly an eleven digit figure – to claim from the unscrupulous Western alliance.

In less than a year time (May 2021) the Cypriot voters will also go to the polls for parliamentary elections. The island republic’s relations with NATO has also been part of the Cypriot national debate. The issue is complex; equally historically loaded. It was NATO-member Turkey which invaded Cyprus in 1974 using NATO weaponry. The US arms sales embargo imposed on Turkey in the aftermath of the invasion was so short-lived that amounted to a mockery. Like in the case of NATO air strikes on Serbia, Ankara failed to pay the billions in compensation for damages and war crimes committed by its invading troops in Cyprus. Not to mention NATO’s complete failure to reign in Turkish continuous trouble making in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. So much so that an exacerbated French Ministry of Defence had to put out a no-word-mincing statement: there is a Turkey time bomb within NATO, let’s face it, otherwise we fool ourselves!                                            

Κατ’ αρχάς ας ξεκινήσουμε με την σημασία της διεξαγωγής αδιάβλητων δημοψηφισμάτων ως γνήσιας έκφρασης αυτοδιάθεσης των λαών. Η ημερομηνία δημοσίευσης του άρθρου του ΧΜ συμπίπτει με μια σημαντική επέτειο της Κυπριακής Ιστορίας: η 15η Ιανουαρίου του 1950, ήταν η πρώτη Κυριακή του Ενωτικού Δημοψηφίσματος στην Κύπρο. Τότε, ο Κυπριακός Λαός ψήφισε με καταπληκτική πλειοψηφία για την Ένωση της νήσου με την Ελλάδα. Η απόφαση του καταπατήθηκε από τους Βρετανούς αποικιοκράτες ενώ η αδυναμία της μητέρας πατρίδας να προστρέξει για εφαρμογή της ξεκάθαρης ετυμηγορίας (96%) κατέστησε το αποτέλεσμα του Κυπριακού δημοψηφίσματος ανενεργό εις το διηνεκές! Αντίθετα στην περίπτωση της Κριμαϊκής Χερσονήσου, όπου επίσης η καταπληκτική πλειοψηφία του Κριμαϊκού λαού ψήφισε υπέρ της ένωσης με την Ρωσική Ομοσπονδία, η ετυμηγορία εφαρμόστηκε πάραυτα με απόφαση της Μόσχας η οποία και από τότε προχωρά στην κοινωνικο-οικονομική ανάπτυξη της Κριμαίας.

Χαρακτηριστικά, όπως αναφέρεται και στο άρθρο του ΧΜ, κατά την τελευταία τετραετία, στην Κριμαϊκή Χερσόνησο οι υποδομές, η αγροτική και βιομηχανική οικονομία αναπτύσσονται, ο ορυκτός πλούτος καθίσταται εκμεταλλεύσιμος και βεβαίως συνεπακολούθως το βιοτικό επίπεδο του τοπικού πληθυσμού ανεβαίνει. Εμφανώς η Ρωσική κυβέρνηση έχει μακροπρόθεσμο σχέδιο ανάπτυξης της Κριμαίας, το οποίο μετατρέπει την δυσκολία της επιβολής Δυτικών κυρώσεων σε μια ευκαιρία διαφορετικής ανάπτυξης της περιοχής. Πιο συγκεκριμένα, όπως αναφέρεται στο προαναφερθέν άρθρο: «Στόχος της Ρωσίας είναι η Κριμαία να γίνει η νότια πύλη των αφρικανικών χωρών και των προϊόντων τους και να δημιουργήσει μια ζώνη ελεύθερης αγοράς [εμπορίου] για τα αγροτικά προϊόντα που προέρχονται από χώρες της ΕΕ, τα οποία λόγω κυρώσεων δεν προωθούνται στη ρωσική αγορά και των οποίων η αξία ανέρχεται στα 100 δις ευρώ.» Γίνεται αντιληπτό ότι ο όγκος των εν δυνάμει συναλλαγών είναι τεράστιος.

Στο άρθρο επισημαίνεται επίσης η σοβαρή εκδοχή, να έχει προκατασκευαστεί η νέα κρίση των Στενών του Κερτς από τον πρόεδρο Ποροσένκο με σκοπό να συσπειρώσει τις ψήφους των ακραίων εθνικιστών σε μια προσπάθεια να αποσοβήσει προδιαγεγραμμένη ήττα λόγω της άθλιας οικονομικής κατάστασης στην χώρα.

Ένα άλλο σοβαρό ενδεχόμενο μας βρίσκει επίσης σύμφωνους: όπως εκτιμάται από αρκετούς διεθνών αναλυτών, η πρόσφατη κρίση στο Κερτς πιθανόν να είναι πρόβα τζενεράλε για έναυσμα Γ’ Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου. Οι ΗΠΑ, για ανεξήγητο(;) λόγο, έχουν αποχωρήσει από την Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty – Συνθήκη INF (όχι ΙΜF όπως εκ παραδρομής αναφέρεται στο εν λόγω άρθρο). Η Συνθήκη INF διημείφθη το 1987 μεταξύ ΗΠΑ και ΕΣΣΔ και προέβλεπε απόσυρση πυραύλων – και των εκτοξευτών τους – τόσο συμβατικών όσο και πυρηνικών, βεληνεκούς 500 μέχρι 5,500 χιλιομέτρων. Μέσα σε τέσσερα χρόνια, μέχρι το 1991, είχαν αποσυρθεί από την ενεργό δράση 2,692 πύραυλοι. Στη δεκαετία 1991-2001 διεθνείς παρατηρητές επιβεβαίωναν με διατεταγμένες επιθεωρήσεις ότι οι αποσυρθέντες πύραυλοι παρέμειναν ανενεργοί.

Σήμερα, ως αποτέλεσμα της Αμερικανικής απόσυρσης από την Συνθήκη INF, αλλά και της γενικότερης τεταμένης κατάστασης δημιουργηθείσας από τις απανωτές επελάσεις του ΝΑΤΟ επί του πάλαι πότε Σοβιετικού χώρου άσκησης επιρροής – κατ’ αθέτηση σιωπηρής συμφωνίας μη επέκτασης του μετά την διάλυση της ΕΣΣΔ –  γινόμαστε σήμερα μάρτυρες μιας νέας κούρσας εξοπλιστικού ανταγωνισμού η οποία αναβιώνει τον Ψυχρό Πόλεμο. Από την μια, ΗΠΑ με το ρυμουλκούμενο της ΝΑΤΟ να επιχειρούν με υπερβολική αυταρέσκεια να παίξουν τον ρόλο του αδιαμφισβήτητου πλανητάρχη, ενώ από την άλλη μια ανερχόμενη Ρωσία και Κίνα να ορθώνουν ανασχετικώς το ανάστημα τους. Ας σημειώσουμε εδώ ότι αθροιστικά οι δύο τελευταίες δυνάμεις πόρρω απέχουν σε στρατιωτικές δαπάνες συγκρινόμενες με αυτές της υπερδύναμης των ΗΠΑ.

Όπως και να ‘χει το ξέσπασμα ενός καταστροφικού περιφερειακού πολέμου στον Εύξεινο Πόντο θα είχε απρόβλεπτες συνέπειες. Θα μπορούσε εύλογα να ρωτήσει ο μέσος Κύπριος: και τι μπορεί να πράξει η μικρή και αδύναμη Κύπρος; Κι όμως η Κύπρος ως μέλος της ΕΕ με κατά πλειοψηφία ορθόδοξο πληθυσμό και άριστες σχέσεις τόσο με την Μόσχα όσο και με το Κίεβο και τις ΗΠΑ θα μπορούσε να αναλάβει πρωτοβουλία διαμεσολάβησης σπρώχνοντας προς την κατεύθυνση της εκτόνωσης της κρίσης και της προώθησης του αφοπλισμού. Είμαστε πεπεισμένοι ότι η ομόδοξη προεδρεύουσα της ΕΕ παρευξείνια Ρουμανία έχει επίσης άμεσο κι απτό συμφέρον εκτόνωσης της παρούσας κρίσης.

Ως προς το γενικότερο ζήτημα της μη εξάπλωσης, με απώτερο στόχο την εξάλειψη των Όπλων Μαζικής Καταστροφής, ας μας επιτραπεί να αναφέρουμε ότι η δουλειά του Δικτύου Ανεξαρτήτων Δεξαμενών Σκέψης της ΕΕ στο συγκεκριμένο φλέγον ζήτημα δεν είναι αμελητέα κι έχει την στήριξη της καθ ύλην αρμόδιας Φεντερίκα Μογκερίνι. Ένα κυπριακό ίδρυμα ερευνών συμμετέχει σε αυτή την αγωνιώδη προσπάθεια …

Από την σκοπιά της Λευκωσίας – αν όχι και της Αθήνας – εύλογα τίθεται το εξής ερώτημα: θα είχε πρόβλημα ο Ρώσος ή ο Αμερικανός Πρόεδρος με την Λευκωσία ως φιλοξενούσα πρωτεύουσα για πραγματοποίηση της πρώτης τους συνάντησης; Η απάντηση είναι ουδέν πρόβλημα: η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία είναι ακόμη πιο ουδέτερη κι διπλά αποδεκτή από Μόσχα και Ουάσιγκτον μιας και είναι κράτος μέλος της ΕΕ αλλά όχι του ΝΑΤΟ. Η τελευταία ιδιότητα, η συμμετοχή δηλαδή στην Βορειοατλαντική Συμμαχία, ενίοτε ενοχλεί την Μόσχα, αν και παρατηρούμε ότι στην περίπτωση της Λιουμπλιάνα ο Πούτιν ασμένως έσπευσε να δηλώσει ότι δεν έχει αντίρρηση.

Πριν προλάβω να βάλω την πέννα στο χαρτί για να προτείνω την Λευκωσία για την συνάντηση κορυφής Τραμπ-Πούτιν ξεσπά η αχρείαστη ψυχοφθόρα και ζημιογόνα διαμάχη για θέματα της συγχρόνου ιστορίας μας αυτονόητα και αυταπόδεικτα: η έγκριση της Βουλής και του ΠτΔ για την ενημέρωση (Ν.Β. όχι την επισταμένη έρευνα και εμβριθή μελέτη) μιας καθόλα ιστορικής στιγμής της νεότερης Κύπρου: του Ενωτικού Δημοψηφίσματος του 1950. Γιατί ένα απλό θέμα προσφοράς στοιχειώδους ιστορικής γνώσης προς τους εφήβους μας να χρειάζεται ψήφισμα της Βουλής και προεδρική υπογραφή για να εφαρμοστεί; Ποιος ο λόγος ύπαρξης τότε του Υπουργείου Παιδείας; (Ο γράφων έχει εδώ και εικοσαετία αναλύσει αποδεσμευμένες Βρετανικές εκθέσεις επί του θέματος του Δημοψηφίσματος 1950. Δέστε σχετική ανάλυση με τίτλο: Το Ενωτικό Δημοψήφισμα 1950 με Βρετανικά Μάτια: Γνήσια Βούληση του Κυπριακού Λαού http://www.inter-security-forum.org). Φυσικά η υπερβολική αντίδραση του ΤΚ ηγέτη και η αποχώρηση του από την αίθουσα των συνομιλιών κρίνεται ανάξια σχολιασμού.

Το κεφαλαιώδες ερώτημα που τίθεται είναι τι είδους κράτος είμαστε και πώς στεκόμαστε στη διεθνή σκακιέρα; Αυτομειωνόμαστε και υποπίπτουμε σε διεθνή ανυποληψία ενόσω αναλωνόμαστε στα αυτονόητα και στα αυταπόδεικτα αντί να έχομε την προσοχή μας στραμμένη στη επίρρωση του κύρους της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας ως κράτους Ευρωπαϊκού, παράγοντα σταθερότητας στην ταραγμένη μας περιοχή, κράτους διατηρούντος άριστες σχέσεις με τις δυο υπερδυνάμεις όπως και με όλους τους γείτονες πλην βεβαίως της κατοχικής Ισλαμο-Φασιστικής Τουρκίας.

Από πού κι ως πού ο ΠτΔ να αναλώνεται σε πεντασέλιδες εξηγήσεις προς συγκράτηση του αφηνιασμένου Ακιντζί, άθλιου υποχείριου της φασιστικής Άγκυρας του νέο-σουλτάνου Ερντογάν, αντί να αναλαμβάνει ωραίες και λαμπρές διεθνείς πρωτοβουλίες όπως η προαναφερθείσα μιας και διατηρεί προς πίστη του άριστες σχέσεις τόσο με την Ουάσιγκτον όσο και με την Μόσχα; Κύριε Αναστασιάδη όρθωσε διεθνές ανάστημα όπως σού αξίζει, πάψε να αυτοϋποβαθμίζεσαι σε Κοινοτάρχη, πάψε να ρυμουλκήσε από τα Τουρκικά καμώματα και πάρε τον δρόμο τον λαμπρόν της σύζευξης των δύο υπερδυνάμεων στον αγώνα κατά των επί των θυρών ημών Δυνάμεων του Σκότους του Ισλαμικού Κράτους και των προστατών τους συμπεριλαμβανομένης της κατοχικής Τουρκίας. Αυτό επιτάσσει η ιστορική στιγμή!

The neo-nationalist partners of Turkey’s Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan who played a key role in orchestrating the abortive coup of July 15 to benefit political masters now have a new plan in the works: belligerent posturing with neighboring Greece over disputed claims in the Aegean Sea.

The surprise visit of Chief of General Staff Gen. Hulusi Akar, an Erdoğan loyalist, to the Aegean islets of Kardak (Imia), accompanied by the commanders of the land, naval and air forces, has all the hallmarks of this sinister plot and has nothing to do with the Greek courts refusing to turn over soldiers who are alleged to have been involved in a coup attempt. This is much bigger than the court case, and I’m afraid the Turkish Islamists, in cooperation with neo-nationalists in the army and intelligence agency, are set to escalate the tension with Greece.

The main motivation for Erdoğan in this belligerence is to fish for nationalist votes ahead of a critical referendum in April that will likely give him sweeping powers and the opportunity to change the character of the secular parliamentary democracy in Turkey into an autocratic one-man regime that is rooted in xenophobic Islamist ideology. The Turkish president had already sent signals to deliberately stoke tension with Greece months before Turkey’s top generals staged a showdown in the Aegean near Kardak last Sunday. In a series of public speeches delivered in October 2016, Erdoğan opened the Lausanne Treaty, which delineated borders with Greece, among others, up to debate, questioned the handover of islands in the Aegean to Greece and even said Turkish mosques are still present on islands near Turkey as if they were the deed to Erdogan’s claim on the islands.

We have seen that playbook in the past. I wrote details of secret plans of the neo-nationalists in the Turkish military before, exposing how they plotted to bring Turkey to the brink of war with Greece over the Aegean with false flags in 2003. I will quote some of my earlier writings to shed light on what we’ll likely see in the coming months on the border with Greece. Some influential generals at the time thought it would be a good idea to raise the tension with Greece to strengthen their position domestically and embarrass the new government formed by Erdoğan, who they despised. Now, the same neo-nationalist faction has partnered with him after Erdoğan found himself in legal trouble in the 2013 graft probes and orchestrated the acquittal of these crazy guys in the military to enlist allies against his political foes. In a secret deal of clemency for convicted felons by Erdoğan, these generals walked free, in total disregard of the overwhelming evidence of crime we all saw in the indictment and evidentiary files.

The secret plan to stir up troubles with Greece is borrowed from the botched false flag of 1962 called Operation Northwoods, a plot planned by the US Department of Defense to trigger a war with Cuba. The plan was not put into action following President John F. Kennedy’s rejection of it but contained appalling scenarios such shooting down passenger and military planes, the harassment of US aircraft, the sinking of a US ship in the vicinity of Cuba, the burning of crops, the sinking of a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the US and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs.

The Turkish version of Operation Northwoods is called Operation Thunderstorm (Oraj), which was cooked up by neo-nationalist generals in the Turkish military as part of the plan in the Sledgehammer coup preparations. The plot was uncovered by investigators during the execution of a search warrant at the Naval Intelligence Department located at the Gölcük Naval Command, a major naval base located on the east coast of the Sea of Marmara. The plan sees an escalation of the crisis with Greece by provoking conflict in the air, at sea and on land borders.

The Oraj plan, dated February 2003, specifically asked for increased flights over the Aegean and ordered commanding officers to instruct pilots to engage in harassment maneuvers with Greek fighter jets. It wanted Turkish pilots to be more aggressive and even issued new rules of engagement allowing pilots to take shots at Greek fighters, albeit unofficially. The plan suggested reorganizing the special fleet with the specific objective of having a Turkish pilot shoot down a Turkish jet in his own squadron in the event all other efforts to provoke a Greek fighter to destroy a Turkish jet failed. Fabricated stories would then be planted in the media, saying that Greece intentionally shot down a Turkish jet.

To accompany the provocations in the air, both the land and sea forces would also be instructed to engage in hostilities. Tensions would increase along the Thracian border with Greece, with new guard outposts set up in the area. “The naval forces would continuously conduct training exercises in the Aegean Sea. Fighter jets would be kept on standby on the tarmac round the clock at the Balıkesir, Bandırma, Çiğli, Çorlu and Dalaman military airports, and they would be scrambled even if there were reports of minor infractions,” the plan explained.

Another document, dated December 2002, disclosed a secret meeting in Ankara about the Suga plan, where the issue of islands/islets whose sovereignty still remains disputed was discussed to provoke Greece. In a related memo dated Jan. 10, 2003, Navy Col. Mustafa Karasabun submitted plans to make changes in the rules of engagement in the Aegean, giving a free hand in provocations. Plotters debated different scenarios on how to best trigger a conflict with Greece, short of war. For example, one proposal envisaged creating the impression that the Turkish navy was about to conduct a major amphibious assault on the Greek base on Nisos Leros Island (İleryoz Ada in Turkish) near Turkey. Air assets were to be mobilized to boost that impression. The plan was intended to precipitate a change in the Greek navy’s level of alertness, resulting in a panicked response, stated Col. Murat Saka, the planning project officer, in a document submitted to a court.

Prosecutors believe the Oraj plan was cooked up by Bilgin Balanlı, who was air marshal at the time and in line to become head of the Turkish Air Forces before his dreams were shattered by his arrest in 2011. He was given orders to do so by former Air Force Commander Gen. İbrahim Fırtına, who was the commander of the War Academies in 2003.

The ringleaders were the heads of the three commands in 2003 — Gen. Çetin Doğan of the İstanbul-based 1st Army Command, Gen. Fırtına and Adm. Özden Örnek of the Naval Forces Command — all of whom were later convicted but saved by Erdoğan in a secret deal. Unlike Operation Northwoods, some parts of the Oraj plan had already started to be implemented. For example, a confidential memo written by Navy Col. Cem Gürdeniz in February 2003 discussed increasing flights over the Aegean Sea as part of the Oraj plan. It also said the harassment of Turkish fighter jets by Greek aircraft and their prevention from undertaking given tasks would be brought to the attention of the public through the media.

After reading the indictment, I checked public records to determine whether they matched the details of these plans, and it turned out the actual timeline of events corresponds with the steps explained in the Oraj plan. According to a January 2004 report in the Greek Eleftheros Typos newspaper, there was a huge spike in the number of alleged violations of Greek airspace by Turkish fighter jets in that period. In 2003, there were a total of 3,900 violations committed by Turkish aircraft, up from 3,200 in 2002. In contrast, the preceding years saw a lower number of violations. In 2000 this figure was 398 and in 2001 it was 957. In 2003, when the Oraj plan was active, 1,020 incidents of dogfights between Greek and Turkish fighter jets were reported.

From the press coverage back in those years, it was clear that Greece was understandably upset over the unprecedented number of violations, prompting Athens to raise the issue with Ankara.

Frustrated by the lack of progress on the issue, Greek government spokesman Hristos Proropapas in October 2003 said: “Many circles both in Athens and Ankara do not want the violations to continue. But there are generals sitting in Ankara.” He was pointing the finger at the untouchable generals who secretly launched the plans. Perhaps Greek intelligence was even made aware of the plots in the 2003/04 period by its allies or found out on its own.

All indications suggested Greece knew something different was in play and suspected foul play on the Turkish side. It marshaled its diplomatic corps, even instructing its ambassador Michalis Christidis to hold a press conference in Ankara in June 2003 to share his government’s concerns directly with the Turkish public. Stressing that Greece had taken note of an unusual increase in the number of violations over the Aegean, the ambassador underlined that there was a qualitative change in the way these violations had occurred. “Most of the Turkish fighters were armed. Two-thirds of the violations happened within six miles of Greek airspace, and some of them were committed very close to residential areas,” he said.

These conspiracy plans were eventually thwarted because one man, Chief of General Staff Gen. Hilmi Özkök, was very much opposed to raising tension with Greece. He even gave an interview to Greek newspaper Eleftherotypia in October 2003 to ease Greek concerns. Erdoğan was weak in the government but was helped out by NATO, especially by the US, as well as by the European Union with the preparations of launching official membership talks with Turkey. Turkish media had been scrutinizing the actions of the military, and the judiciary was relatively independent with the rule of law still in place despite serious shortcomings.

Now the political calculations have changed dramatically. Erdoğan is leading the charge against NATO, bashing the allies all the time as if he were the unofficial spokesperson for Russian President Vladimir Putin to discredit and undermine the NATO alliance. His media machinery is busy making a case that Turkey should exit NATO and deny access to the US and other NATO allies to bases in Turkey including İncirlik, where the US-led anti-ISIL coalition is based. He thinks belligerence with Greece will secure him his imperial presidency by attracting more votes under a pumped-up nationalistic euphoria. The neo-nationalists in the Turkish military for whom there is no love lost with NATO have a completely free hand to do as they please. The EU is in disarray and lacks the political determination to really tackle Turkey. Brussels has been busy for some time now with appeasement rather than a real engagement that requires playing hardball at times, especially on economic leverage.

More importantly, the Turkish judicial and police investigators who exposed these conspiracies in the first place and prevented the plans from reaching full operation capacity have been purged by Erdoğan as part of his deal with the neo-nationalists, led by the staunchly anti-Western and xenophobic Doğu Perinçek. Tens of thousands of judges, prosecutors, military, police and intelligence officers were dismissed, and many were arrested on trumped-up charges. Checks and balances in Turkey’s security apparatus are completely gone. On top of that, the media is totally controlled by Erdoğan and his partners. According to a Stockholm Center for Freedom (SCF) report issued last week, 191 journalists have been jailed with additional 92 being sought for an arrest in Turkey. It is a world record by any measure. Close to 200 media outlets were shut down arbitrarily by the government as well. Therefore, no independent media is left to scrutinize government actions and expose these plots.

A more dangerously combustible mix is now seen in controlling the levers of power in Turkey, which is ready to engage in hostilities with Greece to gain favors on the home front. Greece has more reasons to be worried today about Erdoğan’s ambitions.

Source: https://abdullahbozkurtblog.wordpress.com/

Indeed, the Italian Minister of Interior encapsulated the unfortunate, if not desperate, situation in which Greece unwillingly finds itself.  Angelino Alfano, in very eloquent terms, resembled the EU to a building where the residents quarrel non-stop and everybody blames the poor janitor, the powerless gate keeper to the EU, that is to say, Greece. How true!

On the other hand, Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime Minister shouts out: ‘why should I subject my country to the burden of unruly refugees when I did not have a hand in all this’?

But is it so? Are the European leaders absolutely clear of any responsibility of the horrors taking place in the Middle East North Africa region today? It is high time, the Europeans, reflected on the root causes of the current MENA region crisis. The root causes are no other than the unilateral policies of NATO aimed at regime change in an entire raft of countries of the region in order to serve US interests. We are now experiencing the long term consequences of non-stop US interventions in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, and now in Syria to which the EU-NATO either unwisely subscribed or was unwillingly dragged into. Thirteen years into the US-led ‘Coalition of the willing’ intervention in Iraq, the country is still shattered by bomb blasts that kill hundreds week in, week out. Five years since the NATO bombing campaign that unseated and assassinated Muammar Qaddafi: Libya is in deep tribal civil war, ungovernable and a hot bed of jihadists.

What is new with US allies in the region? The Saudis, who have an abominable human rights record, yet have been for decades the US military-industrial complex best client building up a formidable war machine, have been for a couple of months now stitching up, a new Arab NATO-style alliance, purportedly to ‘fight terrorist organizations’. For once, Riyadh has been aiding and abetting extremist Sunni organizations for five years in Syria in effort to topple largely secular Assad and radicalize the Sunni population of the country. In this alliance, the House of Saud, relies on the support of Turkey, the arch state terrorist, of the region, who has been murdering its own Kurdish population on and off for over thirty years, with a revived vengeance as of late. Ankara is seeking to neutralize the YPG, the Syrian Kurds civil protection units that have achieved success in pushing away Islamic State terrorists with the help of Russian airstrikes on ISIS targets.

In conclusion, what the MENA region needs to pacify is not another NATO-style unilateralist organization but consolidation of the Syrian political process after the agreed ceasefire. For obvious reasons ISIS, being an extremist terrorist organization is excluded. The ISIS threat should be eradicated. Russia, invited by the Syrian government, seems to be the only power that achieves, through its air campaign, real results in that respect. Ironically, the EU blindly follows the US, in imposing sanctions on Russia, failing to see where the threat lies and who its real ally is in securing a prosperous European future.

In the course of the last couple of years NATO members on both sides of the Atlantic painfully looked for the right pretext to attach the coalition forces moved out from Afghanistan closer to the European borders of Russia and Belarus. Especially, Washington excelled in this search. NATO is for the US the main tool used to keep the American presence on the European continent and strengthen the so-called transatlantic relations that are critical to the US economy and its ambitions for global dominance.

Long before the Ukrainian crisis it was difficult for the US and its allies in Europe to explain why NATO decided to rapidly arm Poland, transfer its troops and weapons from Western to Central Europe and develop the concept of annual large-scale military exercises near the western border of the Collective Security Treaty Organization with the participation of Ukraine in the framework of the «Connected Forces Initiative». Now NATO seems to have а good motive for these activities. In a word, the coup d’ etat in Kiev and its consequences turned out for the US and the European countries just in time.

The new authorities in Kiev and certain organizations of the Western-sponsored ‘civil society’, which form the Ukrainian NATO supporters, were quickly disappointed with the position of the North Atlantic Alliance. On the one hand NATO accuses Moscow of agitating trouble in Ukraine, while on other hand it does not show any will to directly intervene in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. The new Kiev authorities realized too soon that they must rely primarily on their own forces, the backbone of which are the Ukrainian security service, the police, the militants of the “Right Sector”.

As a result of this, the new Ukrainian government and its Western trustees, including the leadership of NATO, according to open media sources, has worked out a strategy, the main objectives of which appear to be:

i. Recovery with the assistance of Western consultants of combat readiness of the Ukrainian army and interior troops within sufficient timeframe to conduct punitive actions and deter Russia in conditions where the majority of local Russian-speaking population will ask her for help.

ii. Ensuring constant presence of NATO military contingents on the territory of Ukraine under the pretext of preparation and staging of exercises with the participation of Ukrainian army units.

iii. Make sure Ukraine joins in the regional defence initiatives of the Central and Northern European countries, which are not formally included in the NATO structures, but closely cooperate with the North Atlantic Alliance;

iv. Strengthen the military contingent of NATO along the western borders of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus with a focus on Air Force as well as Special Forces.

In order to achieve the above goals, it is planned to establish an expeditionary force, able in a short time to be deployed in the area of crisis.

Apparently, the future military doctrine of Ukraine, will have an aggressive anti-Russian character based on the hypothesis that the real enemy is at the Eastern and Southern borders, where Kiev should create a defensive infrastructure. Military units, located there, including of the Interior Ministry and the Security Service of Ukraine, will be formed in general on contract basis from among the nationalist-minded citizens of the Western and Central regions. They will also form the majority of the National Guard, which, if necessary, will be used to suppress any manifestations of discontent vis-a-vis the current government policies under the pretext of fighting against ‘separatism’.

From the above discussion it follows that high attention is expected to be paid to interaction between the special services of Ukraine and NATO countries. In the future, the joint activity of Ukrainian and Western special services may be the focal point of efforts of those members of the North Atlantic Alliance that are acting in line with the strategy of US neo-conservatives and the Anglo-Saxon camp as a whole.