Andrew Korybko’s Interview With Serbia’s “Geopolitica” Magazine (English Exclusive)

by Biljana Đorović and exclusively published in print in the magazine Geopolitica

You are a brilliant young researcher who entered with rocket speed into the first-world echelon of geopolitical analysts. Your insights penetrate into the heart of the problems the world faces today. These problems can best be studied from the perspective of the nature of modern warfare: hybrid wars and network-centric wars. Present us, please, the nature of these wars you’re talking about in your study: “HYBRID WARS: the indirect adaptive approach to regime change“.

First off, thank you for the very kind words, that’s real nice of you to say and I profoundly appreciate it. I also want to thank the audience for their interest in reading my interview, and I promise that they’ll be left with a completely new picture of the world by the time they’re done. This exclusive may be lengthy, but I hope to make it worth everyone’s precious time in giving them an experience that they won’t soon forget.

To address your question, my book focuses on the most cutting-edge form of warfare, which I define as being the transformation of failed Color Revolutions into Unconventional Wars. Using the examples of Syria and Ukraine, I assert that the US’ new cost-saving strategy to regime change is to use embedded NGOs to orchestrate state destabilization, and if this doesn’t succeed in overthrowing the government or blackmailing it to the point of submission, then the next step is to turn the placard-holding protester into a gun-toting insurgent. What’s really astounding, I’ve learned, is that it’s actually not all that hard to do, since there are certain strategic and organizational commonalities between Color Revolutions and Unconventional Wars, both in terms of what motivates their participants and the role of the external forces guiding the campaign, for but only two such examples.

This is post-modern warfare, the evolution of what everyone had unfortunately grown accustomed to ever since the end of the Cold War. This type of conflict is waged indirectly and via proxy, and in some cases, many people don’t even realize they’re in the middle of a warzone until it’s too late. Taking advantage of new information platforms like social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), the organizers are capable of luring thousands of unaware civilians into their “protest marches” for use as human shields against the authorities, all with the eventual intent of having professional provocateurs instigate violence so that as many causalities are caused as possible.

The purpose behind this morbid manipulation of one’s countrymen is to engineer the conditions for a state crackdown against the “protest” movement, which will then have the ‘justifiable grounds’ to call for regime change and escalate their demands against the government. Filmed by cell phone cameras and immediately uploaded to YouTube, select scenes can be purposely presented out of context or outright edited in order to garner as much pro-“revolutionary” sympathy across the world as possible. Once the event has made global headlines (usually in preplanned cahoots between the organizers, their external patrons, and their affiliated friendly media entities like CNN), it can prompt foreign leaders to issue statements of condemnation or perhaps even sanctions against the affected country’s authorities. The point is to tactically initiate the conflict escalation ladder that foreign intelligence services had already prepared for in order to enact maximum pressure against the target state.

If this strategy doesn’t achieve its expected ends, then the US’ latest improvisation in warfare is to transition the ‘soft’ coup attempt into a ‘hard’ one, where the TV-presentable “protesters” morph into rugged guerrillas obsessed with regime change. It’s not to say that every Color Revolution will end in an Unconventional War or that every Unconventional War will begin as a Color Revolution from this point forward, but that for all their geographic and demographic differences, it’s this common thread of approach that most closely links the US’ Wars on Syria and Ukraine.

It turned out that the Syrian people have stoutly resisted the Hybrid War being waged against them for nearly five years already, whereas the Ukrainians capitulated after about three months when the urban “EuroMaidan” terrorists became too much for the state to handle. Keep in mind, however, that up until the day of the coup, guerrillas had seized a few provinces in Western Ukraine and had already raided police and military weapon reserves, arming themselves for what looked like an imminent march on Kiev. This news isn’t secret – it was proudly reported by Newsweek Magazine just before the coup happened, but afterwards it was suppressed and not a single Western media commentator ever touched upon it again. Considering this, one can see that the Syrian scenario was clearly being planned for Ukraine, and had the coup not succeeded, then the War on Ukraine might have looked a lot more like the War on Syria.

The “hard” part – the battlefield introduction of this dangerous variation of warfare – has already been passed, and now it’ll continue to be tested in different environments and circumstances until it’s perfected to the point of becoming the unquestionable standard for the US. It’s not often that a new strategic threshold is passed in the global military realm. The introduction of tactical nuclear weapons, precision-guided munitions, and robotics have all been paradigm changers over the past decades that have changed the calculations that go into conducting and defending against various aggressions, and Hybrid War (the combination of a Color Revolution and Unconventional War for regime change ends) ranks right beside them in revolutionizing how wars are fought.

What is the place of war in our civilization? Is war a permanent condition like Sun Tzu Wu and Michel Foucault thought, where politics is seen as a continuation of war by other means?

There will always be elements of conflict in society, and even between family members, but the question is in controlling the extent that it’s taken to. The extreme escalation of a dispute leads to violence, whether it’s a punch in the face amidst a personal feud, or a military strike or invasion in an international one. But, in these instances, the participants are clear and there’s no ambiguity about who’s involved, whether or not a state of conflict exists between the parties, and correspondingly, how to proportionately respond to it. What’s so destabilizing about Hybrid War is that all of the previous is so confused and murky under its dizzying conditions.

The attackers, their backers, the right kind of response (and against whom?), all of these things are completely outside the experience of the targeted government when put in the context of Hybrid War, and therefore they get thrown completely off guard and force into a state of strategic paralysis. Their feedback loop is completely disrupted and they thus become exceptionally vulnerable to collapse, hence why a Color Revolution typically succeeds in each case that the US invests enough time and money. Other less serious attempts are made to ‘test the waters’ of state defenses and either refine the overall theory itself or craft the best forthcoming method of applying it against the designated target sometime in the future.

What makes Hybrid Wars so unique in the spectrum of human warfare is that it pays particular emphasis in using human shields during the Color Revolution phase and terrorism during the Unconventional Warfare one (oftentimes with both tactics intermixed during their application). Although there’s a sizeable foreign component that goes into these conflicts, their general rule is that they’re sparked off by domestic elements operating under the orders of their external patron. Never before in human civilization have traitors, backstabbers, and internal subversives that ‘open the gates’ for the enemy played such a prominent role in the warfighting strategy of an aggressive power, and the reason for this is because such behavior was universally reviled and looked down upon even by those that have historically engaged in it from time to time, to say nothing of the disgust that everyone (even the contracting power) personally feels towards the traitorous individuals that assisted the operation, whether or not it succeeded.

What this means is that the fundamentals of Hybrid War are against standard human nature and that they’re an extreme manifestation of conflict. Being so far removed from the standard practices of how human beings have historically and regularly dealt with one another, Hybrid War is able to successfully surprise all those that it has thus far been practiced against, although with the passing of time and the “normalization” of such methods, it’ll begin to lose a bit of its luster and become slightly more predictable in a sense. Still, the essence of using one’s own people against them as militant proxies on behalf of another power is unsettling and will always remain so, because somewhere in the mix of things the targeted authority will be faced with the uncomfortable decision of having to strike back at its own citizens out of self-defense, which is as unnatural for a country to do against “unarmed protesters” as it is for a sibling to strike their own “unprovoked”.

In both cases, however, things are not as they seem, it’s just the weight of ‘human conscience’ that holds back the defending actor. Nobody wants to feel like “Cain” who mercilessly killed their brother – everyone needs to feel as though there’s some kind of justification for their response. Visually, it might not look like the “protesters” are a threat, and in many cases of legitimate protest, there’s nothing for anyone to fear, neither the state nor the protesters. But when a “protest” becomes cover for a foreign intelligence-organized regime change attempt, and there’s hundreds or maybe even thousands of unwitting and unaware human shields tricked into attending, then the situation is beyond critical and the risks of violence are extraordinarily high.

In this case, the state will be very reluctant to defend itself and the rest of the non-protesting citizens that it represents (always the vast majority of the population) because it doesn’t want to inflict collateral damage against the human shields, but if provoked to do so because of petrol bombs or other ordinances being used against it by professional provocateurs (urban terrorists/guerrillas, but identified in the US as “protest organizers”), there might not be any choice. It’s just that by the time it takes decisive action, it might be too late to stem the critical anti-government mass that has formed, or the action itself might unwittingly lead to the creation of the very same scenario that the state is trying to avoid.

These are the ethical, moral, and importantly, strategic dilemmas that Hybrid War, especially the initial Color Revolution phase, are expected to pose to the targeted state, and because it goes completely against the experience of human nature, it’s more likely to lead to the decision-making paralysis that could dramatically increase the coup’s chance of success.

What geopolitical strategy is being implemented today in the West? You talk about “A global shift in US strategy, with America transitioning from the ‘world policeman’ to the Lead From Behind mastermind.” Please describe the new US strategy. Are the insights of Mackinder and Brzezinski, as the pivot for western geopolitical optics, now modified, and in what way?

The essence of Lead From Behind is that the US uses proxy leadership to enforce its sway in geostrategic regions of the world. The idea is that it rules through designated regional leaders that share the same strategic goals, but to make sure that they don’t exploit the US for their own benefit, there typically is some element of “partnership reinforcement” at play, be it embarrassing intelligence about the national leader, American military bases in the country, or an economic relationship that the ‘host’ country can’t afford to have endangered through American meddling and/or sanctions. Think of it as the manifestation of the ‘puppet master’ theme, in which one state is pulling the strings of its underlings and macro-managing their worldwide sphere of influence. The most common examples that come to mind are Germany for the EU and Central Europe, Poland for Eastern Europe, Turkey for the Mideast (which, as we’ve all seen, has mostly failed in this role), Saudi Arabia for the Gulf, and an envisaged role of Japan for East and Southeast Asia, to name but the most prominent.

The ideas of Mackinder and Brzezinski are still in effect, they’ve just taken on a different form. It’s still the goal of American grand strategy to dismember Russia, China, and we can even include Iran in this list, but the chances of doing so would exponentially increase if it can establish premier influence in Central Asia, either through direct occupation, Color Revolutions, Lead From Behind proxy leadership, or the fulfilment of the “Eurasian Balkan” pan-regional destruction scenario. The real prize has, and always will be, Central Asia, since control over this space would allow the US to simultaneously project controlling and destabilizing influence over Russia, China, and Iran.

Contemporaneously, we can identify three primary perches for the projection of American grand strategy towards Eurasia. The first one is on the western fringes in Europe, and here the US pursues a dual-track policy of seeking to strengthen NATO while weakening the EU. It uses the artificial hype about a “Russian threat” to achieve the former, and TTIP to achieve the latter. The artificially manufactured “refugee crisis” is convenient in pressuring EU-member states to spike their defense budgets in the future, since we’ve seen that many of them have become increasingly reliant on using the military for handling the overwhelming inflow of individuals.

Recently there had been a trend to decrease military spending because it wasn’t seen as that practical for EU countries, especially amidst the Great Recession, but now that these hundreds of thousands of refugees have been forced upon them, and in response they’ve mobilized their militaries for dealing with this, they’ll likely increase the military’s allotment in the upcoming budgets. Being the Lead From Behind mastermind that it is, the US will see to it that these investments have a dual purpose applicable to NATO and the encirclement of Russia, while knowing full well that the EU cannot afford to increase its military budget while cutting back on social commitments. The internal friction that this could cause also presents an opportunity for the US, since it can steer the resultant anti-government sentiment in the direction of regime change blackmail against whichever ruler it is that’s being threatened, thus further weakening the sovereignty of EU-member states while strengthening its own hold over their decision-making apparatus.

The Balkans are the ‘blind spot’ of American control over Europe owing largely to the fact that three select states have thus far not been formally swallowed by NATO. These are Republika Srpska, Serbia, and the Republic of Macedonia. All together I consider these three states to comprise the Central Balkans region, the weakest point of US control over the continent, but hence the most likely to be destabilized in the coming future for this exact same reason. The Hybrid War attempt in Macedonia earlier this year, where a Color Revolution was meant to be timed with an explosion of Albanian-affiliated terrorism, was thankfully averted by the patriotism of the population and the professionalism of the security services, but it can’t be discounted that this scenario will be repeated in the coming early elections in April. More ominously, however, there’s also the chance that stranded refugees stuck in the Central Balkans after being walled off from Europe could be exploited into some sort of violent anti-government action (perhaps to “protest” their processing facilities) in order to prompt a state crackdown that could be manipulated to delegitimize the authorities in the eyes of the West and give ‘reason’ behind a forthcoming Color Revolution.

Moving along, there’s the southern vector of control, and that’s traditionally been the Mideast. The US is presently on the retreat from this theater due to the absolute mismanagement of its Lead From Behind strategy, the valiant and continued resistance of the Syrian people to the War of Terror being waged on their country, and Russia’s recent anti-terrorist intervention in the region. Furthermore, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the two pillars of the US’ planned control over the Mideast, are now facing intense internal crises, with Turkey on the brink of an all-out civil war and Saudi Arabia at risk of crumbling in the near future due to decreased oil revenues and rising internal resentment. If the pace keeps up, then the US will largely be removed from the region, barring the naval and air bases that it’s expected to retain in Bahrain and Qatar, respectively, thus forcing it to improvise and develop a new strategy in this direction.

It had earlier tried to manipulate Iran through the nuclear agreement in order to co-opt the “moderates” in power and establish an internal bridgehead of influence to divide the state, but thankfully the ploy had failed and Tehran has indisputably remained one of the leaders of the multipolar resistance to the US. The most telling proof of this is in its multilateral military cooperation with Russia, Syria, Iraq, and a few regional non-state actors in fighting against the US’ ISIL proxy, essentially a Frankenstein Hybrid War manifestation that was meant to redraw the borders of the “New Middle East” to serve America and Israel’s strategic advantage. Anyhow, with the Iranian gambit having failed, and if the US can no longer faithfully depend on its weakened Turkish and Saudi pillars, it may predictably begin considering India as its next major strategic partner.

In a nutshell, what the US wants to do is ‘flip’ India over to the unipolar camp and against Russia and China in the New Cold War just like how it ‘flipped’ China against the Soviet Union in the Old Cold War. There are preexisting strategic factors for why India could be tempted to enter into the “China Containment Coalition” and oppose Beijing on all fronts, including in ASEAN, which appears to be an emerging theater of their rivalry, but just in case the US can’t “convince” Prime Minister Modi of the need to follow this ‘suggestion’, it also is using the specter of full-fledged ISIL violence in neighboring Bangladesh to keep him in check. As it pertains to Russia, what many people don’t know is that India has been deepening its defense cooperation with the US and Israel in recent years, and that if the present trajectory continues, then these two will eventually become more important to India’s defense sector than Russia in the coming decades, as New Delhi transitions away from aging Soviet-era weaponry and maintenance to new Western-provided munitions. If the US can succeed in ‘poaching’ India from the multipolar camp, it would be a strategic victory that might even partially compensate for its feared full-fledged withdraw from the Mideast.

Finally, the last geopolitical perch of American power is East Asia, and here the bilateral relationships with Japan and South Korea come into play. The two states have their vehement differences over World War II and Japan’s interpretation of it, but the US is trying to ideally soothe over these differences by twinning these two states together in a de-facto military alliance against North Korea, which, of course, could just as easily be redirected against China in the future. The strategic vulnerability here is that South Korea is very economically close to China, and that Beijing has been competing for Seoul’s loyalty in recent years with somewhat surprising success. China’s goal is to isolate Japan from Northeast Asia and maintain the neutrality of South Korea in the New Cold War (in the sense that it isn’t turned into an anti-Chinese staging ground in its own right, despite its occupation by roughly 28,000 US troops), and if this transpires, then the US’ strategic paradigm in the region would be ruined.

Shifting gears a bit, the US is trying to expand Japan’s role in the Pivot to Asia by joining it with Southeast Asia and key members of the ASEAN economic bloc, ergo the TPP. The intention is for Tokyo to exercise complementary “leadership” alongside the US in this geo-critical region in helping to shoulder some of the economic and military burden in encircling China. The Philippines are the most important state in this regard because their few, overlapping strategic partnerships with the US, Japan, and Vietnam mean that it becomes the geographical center of the “Chinese Containment Coalition”, and the one place where all three can physically cooperate. Additionally, Japan’s recent move to authorize the deployment of its military personnel abroad in “supportive missions” can be interpreted as a major step in this direction of American-Vietnamese-Japanese anti-Chinese collaboration in the Philippines.

Finally, my last thoughts of the US’ grand strategy towards Eurasia are that everything I’ve just described is carried out in order to pursue the encirclement of Russia, China, and Iran, the most effective Resistant & Defiant Great Powers in opposing Washington’s world order. Hybrid Wars are purposed so that the Eurasian Heartland can be more easily penetrated via asymmetrical means, either directly in a “one-off” try or piecemeal by creating a chain of destabilization (Brzezinski’s “Eurasian Balkans”) that will eventually lead to that pivotal geopolitical destination. Terror groups, both “conventional” Islamic ones and less traditional urban ones like “EuroMaidan” and “Pravy Sektor”, have emerged as the US’ vanguard of choice in actualizing this strategy, hence why Russia, China, and Iran have placed such emphasis on destroying terrorism and countering the informational and organizational components of Hybrid War such as the foreign-funded NGOs that represent the first step of asymmetrical destabilization.

What is the role of the extraordinarily significant thinker Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin in the formation of Russian politics and policy of BRICS?

Mr. Dugin has had some really profound ideas that I feel have rubbed off on some of the practitioners and strategists in the Russian Federation. His geopolitical theory about Eurasianism is difficult to find fault with since it scientifically explains the contrasting imperatives of Russian and American grand strategy in the supercontinent. Notably, what comes to mind when I think of Dugin nowadays are his predictions that Russia will enact a sort of southern pivot towards the Muslim world, and we see precisely that through its diplomatic efforts in reaching the Iranian nuclear agreement and its present anti-terrorist intervention in Syria.

Concerning BRICS, I do see Dugin as having a bit of an influence on that, but I think that it’s more accurate to attribute that to former Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov. His late-1990s vision of creating a strategic triangle between Russia, India, and China formed the Eurasian basis of BRICS, which eventually went transcontinental with Brazil and South Africa’s incorporation. In fact, RIC, the core of BRICS, was around before Goldman Sachs even coined the term “BRIC”, which in their definition was more of an economic category of states, not so much the geopolitical and strategic convergence that Primakov had spearheaded. In fact, when talking about BRICS, it’s much more accurate to remember Primakov’s intention behind the multilateral partnership, which as I just stated was a geopolitical and strategic convergence, than Goldman Sachs’ economic understanding, since it’s the strategic factors that are much more in play than the economic ones at this point (although that’s not at all to suggest that the economic portion of this multilateral partnership is insignificant in any way).

Information, genetic, and demographic bombs are very powerful weapons in modern wars. What strategy is being plotted in the dark corridors of power against Serbia in the context of demography? Do the globalists use the potential of radical Islam in order to establish a New World Order? Is Serbia being turned into a territory where the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate is a part of the globalist agenda? What is the role of the Yinon and Biden plans in the context of demographic engineering?

In answering this question, it’s appropriate to recall the Central Balkans geopolitical categorization that I spoke about earlier between Republika Srpska, Serbia, and the Republic of Macedonia and highlight how Serbia sits at the center of this strategic designation. The US has been trying to establish perpetual control over Serbia just as the Austrian-Hungarian Empire had tried to do nearly a century prior, but just like during that time, Serbs have resisted and the country has never fallen under the type of control that its enemies have lusted for. What’s going on in Serbian society nowadays is another War of Independence, it’s just that people haven’t taken to calling it this, despite nearly every citizen feeling like something significant is afoot. In this return of history, Serbian must break free from American neo-colonialism, not Austrian-Hungarian traditional colonialism, and this time, the colonists and their supporters are harder to identify. Whereas the first one was fought with physical resistance, this second War of Independence can be fought in an intangible way through cultural, political, and ideological resistance without Serbs having to resort to any violence whatsoever against their occupiers. All that they need to do is pinpoint the problematic influences over their country, institutions, and society, and work in replacing them with their patriotic counterparts.

What I’ve just described is the strategic socio-political backdrop to everything that’s been going on in Serbian society since the Bulldozer Color Revolution against Slobodan Milosevic, but in the proceeding 15 years, the American neo-colonists and their EU foot soldiers haven’t reaped the type of benefits that they anticipated from Serbia due to the Resistance that’s bravely been presented against them. Thus, a new measure had to be implemented, and that’s “Plan B”, which is basically that if the US cannot outright control the Central Balkans, then it must rip it further apart than it already was in a repeat of the vicious divide-and-rule wars that occurred in the 1990s. This time, however, it won’t be between the feuding former federal republics of Yugoslavia, but between Christendom and Islam.

I have a moral and ethical obligation to preface the following analysis by informing everyone that such a conflict is absolutely against the greater interests of every Balkan citizen, be they Serbian or Albanian, Christian or Muslim, and that it’s an entirely manufactured American-led trap that’s being set for the region to tantalizingly fall in to. Existing tension is being exploited to unprecedented levels in order to create the conditions where both sides feel threatened and ultimately resort to lightning-fast escalations of violence, and the “refugee crisis”, for lack of a better description, is intended to be the ultimate catalyst in bringing about an intense regional war in the future.

The “refugees” themselves (not all of whom are genuinely fleeing terrorism, but many of which are economic opportunists from countries as far away as Somalia and Afghanistan, with a disproportional percentage of young military-age males leading the way) are either being pushed out of their countries by the violent aftereffects of the Yinon-Biden Plans, lured into the EU by American-organized Twitter and other social media campaigns that appeal to their economic self-interst, or a combination thereof, and should be seen as unwitting pawns in the greater conflict that the US is cooking up. That being said, I’d like to remind everyone that no matter what transpires in the future, violence against identity-based groups separate from one’s own is NOT the solution to the tension that the US is building, and that it’s actually exactly what the US wants in order to spark the massive divide-and-rule bloodletting that it needs to happen in order to fully institutionalize its control over the Balkans in the aftermath.

Having explained this very important concept, let me detail what the US has in store for Serbia and the rest of the Central Balkans.

Washington knows that Albania can never defeat Serbia and Macedonia on its own unless NATO expensively got involved in the conventional intervention in support of its aggression. While that’s always a factor to be feared because of Tirana’s NATO membership, it’s not likely in the current environment that this would happen, both for geopolitical reasons (not to divert forces away from Eastern Europe and other areas) and more practical ones (the enormous financial commitment that this would entail and the fears of mission creep). Therefore, something had to happen in order to shift the military-strategic balance in Albania’s favor, and the refugee crisis presented the ultimate “solution” in this regard.

We should be reminded that the crisis was created for more than just Balkan-centric ends, as the US’ greatest goal in this “humanitarian intervention” (in the sense of almost a million human beings ‘intervening’ in the Balkans and Europe so far) has been to weaken the EU through permanent demographic distortion and increase NATO military budgets, but the residual support that this larger mission provides in provoking the Christian vs Muslim war that the US wants is also an ‘added benefit’ for Washington. Conceived in this manner, the refugee crisis can be seen as facilitating the infiltration of possible combatants (the disproportional percentage of military-age young males) into the heart of the Central Balkans as a new “Gladio” force of destabilization. When Croatia’s anti-Serbian border fence is completed, the Macedonia-Serbia-Republika Srpska chain of refugee destabilization will be complete. The individuals will have to ‘detour’ through Bosnia en route to Europe, thus finalizing the last step of the plan to destabilize all Central Balkan states through a forthcoming inter-religious war.

One would do well to remember that quite a few of these “youngsters” had earlier been fighting with terrorist groups like ISIL and Al Nusra, and only fled Syria because of advances being made by the Syrian Arab Army at the time and the guilty fear they held of legal repercussions being enacted against them. Therefore, they already have combat experience that can be ‘reactivated’ the moment that a gun returns to their hands. Others have had no such backgrounds, but are still susceptible to militant suggestions if they’re made to feel cornered and “under attack”. In the event that the EU completely walls off the Balkans, which seems to be more of a “when” than an “if”, there will be tens of thousands of disaffected individuals stuck in a country that they never wanted to remain in and amidst a society that doesn’t want them but is obligated to take care of them.

Looking at a recent scandal in Slovenia as an indication of what will likely come when the migrants get upset at their living conditions, they might even take to burning their own settlements like they did in Brezice, but even worse, they might try to pin the blame on Serbs, especially if this occurs in the wintertime and to much international fanfare. Whether or not the migrants go on burning spree, the issue remains that they’ll be deeply dissatisfied having to live in Serbia, and it’s not because of the Serbian people or their society, but because of their own false expectations in which a majority of them assumed that they can force their own culture, religion, and language on the native inhabitants of their destination state instead of assimilating and integrating with them (the definition of “multiculturalism”). With such boiling tension on the part of the migrants, all it takes is for a few terrorists (perhaps a revival or clone of the KLA) to put some weapons and explosives in their hands, and all of a sudden there’s thousands of deadly rioters tearing up the whole of Serbia.

Keep in mind that by this time, the refugee crisis will already have engulfed Republika Srpska in equal measure, so the same risk is prevalent there, too. In fact, there’s another particularly destabilizing scenario that can occur in that state, and it’s that Sarajevo decides to send the military to guard Republika Srpska’s Croatian and/or Serbian borders (for the first, as a way of sucking up to the EU by preventing the migrants from breaking through the border, and for the latter, to keep them all stuck in Serbia). If they make this move, it’ll immediately produce a negative response from Banja Luka, because it’s already suspicious of the federal center in trying to find a pretext to occupy it and force a revision of the Dayton Accords, specifically with the proposed illegal creation of the Court and Prosecutor’s Office. Republika Srpska’s reaction will be painted by the Western mainstream media as “hostile”, “aggressive”, and an attempted “revision” of the Dayton Accords, even though it’s Sarajevo that’s the one doing this, not Banja Luka. The result will be a heightened constitutional crisis that might set off a renewed civil war in the country, albeit one which would now engulf Serbia proper and be partially fought by some stay-behind terrorist-armed “refugees”.

Concerning Macedonia, the situation is similar, but it needs to be explicitly pointed out that the Albanian population there is mostly peaceful and against the concept of Greater Albania, especially one enforced by terrorist means. The proof lies in their attitude and behavior during the Kumanovo terrorist raid in in May, as unlike what the West may have hoped, the local Albanians in the country didn’t heed the “signal” to rise up and assist the Color Revolutionaries that were active at the same time. Had they done this, then a Hybrid War would have surely ensued in Macedonia, but thankfully the Albanians proved themselves to be patriotic, religiously moderate, and capable of resisting external influence, and they thus deserve to be commended to the highest degree. That in and of itself shows that the transnational Albanian community is divided over the implementation of “Greater Albania”, and that this is a Tirana- and Washington-advocated geopolitical project that does not enjoy the fully support of all the diaspora. In connection with this, it’s more important than ever for the US to rely more on arming and provoking newly arrived refugees than on waiting for local Albanians and Muslims to “rise up”, because the Macedonian case proves that most of them are happy with their lives as it is and don’t want to destroy their inclusive, multiethnic, and polyconfessional state.

One last thing to mention about the structure of the US’ planned region-wide war is that Montenegro occupies a very geostrategic position in all of this. Institutionally, it was supposed to be part of the “Western Balkans”, that is, the NATO- and EU-dominated part of the Balkans (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia [minus Republika Srpska], Montenegro, the occupied Province of Kosovo, and Albania), but with the current protest movement against NATO and Djukanovic, everything is now up for grabs. The West had originally wanted to separate Montenegro from Serbia in the military and social sense (after having succeeded politically), just as they’ve been trying to do with Ukraine and Russia. But, if Montenegro resists and the NATO plan is scrapped or indefinitely postponed until a new government can do away with it, then the concept of the Central Balkans would expand to include Montenegro, thus dividing the Western Balkans and opening up a new strategic space for the Resistance, which in turn would offset Albania and put it in a weakened position if it decides to resort to aggression.

To summarize everything that I lengthily described, the general idea is that US is setting up a new regional war in the Balkans that will give the misleading appearance of being one of Christianity versus Islam, and the whole point is to further divide the region so that it can be easier to rule afterwards. Republika Srpska, Serbia, and Macedonia will have to fend off aggression on each of their western borders coming from Bosnia (Sarajevo) and Albania, with the latter supporting KLA terrorists and arming disaffected refugees stranded in the Serbian and Macedonian interior. The US wants to see Republika Srpska erased from the map, Serbia totally crippled, and Macedonia either losing part of its territory to “Greater Albania” like the Kosovo scenario or becoming a federalized and ineffective state whose entire territory can then be influenced by the small geographic portion of “Greater Albania” within its borders.

Bosnia (Sarajevo), Albania, and their internal supporters in Republika Srpska, Serbia, and Macedonia would be fools for going along with this because the US and its allies will then use the perpetual threat of terrorists within their borders to militarily keep them in check and dictate decisions to their governments. Furthermore, the actual terrorism that will inevitably take root in the transnational failed state structure that the US wants to create would do enough harm within the region that Washington would likely never have to intervene again in keeping the Balkans divided – it would be a self-perpetuating process that continually drags all of the countries involved down with it. By that time, with the EU having already walled off the Balkans, the West will sit back and watch the internecine violence from a distance, ironically resorting to lethal action in making sure that no real refugees from this future conflict flee into the bloc.

How do you comment on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s visit to Israel and his meeting with Netanyahu behind closed doors. Do you see this secret meeting in the context of formation of Greater Israel?

I don’t know exactly what they discussed, but I can definitely comment on the idea of “Greater Israel” and how it’s actually the entire reason behind the refugee crisis in the first place. I have an untraditional understanding of this that contravenes the conventional fears of Israel literally expanding its borders. Instead, my post-modern interpretation identifies the devilish triangle of the Yinon Plan, the Biden Plan, and the “Blood Borders” plan of Ralph Peters as creating the geopolitical conditions to actualize “Greater Israel” without ever having to formally expand Israel’s borders.

What I mean by this is that each of those three plans deals with weakening and dividing the Arab states of the Mideast, which ultimately serves to satisfy Israel’s regional interests. It never again wants to face a coalition of Arab states, so it accordingly prefers to instigate wars between and within these countries. The US promoted the “Arab Spring” theater-wide Color Revolutions to achieve two purposes: the first one was to overthrow unfriendly governments like those in Libya and Syria, while the other was to guide inevitable leadership transitions in allied states like Egypt and Yemen. In both cases, the end goal was to have a transnational Muslim Brotherhood clique running the regime changed states, and Washington then hoped to use this geopolitical bloc to “counter Iran”, but also to keep the Gulf Monarchies, especially Saudi Arabia, deeper in check owing to the ideological incompatibilities between the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists and Monarchic autocrats.

One may wonder how Israel would have benefited from being surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood states in Syria, Egypt, and what would have inevitably also been Lebanon, too, if it succeeded, but it’s clear that this “Brotherhood Bloc” wouldn’t have been cohesive. In fact, it would have been fraught with international rivalry and internal destabilization, and it would have been much more divided than unified, except, of course, in having the US order its formal military to bandwagon against Iran. Once more, the Yinon-Biden-“Blood Borders” plans are in effect, and Israel is insulated from the chaos that’s been created from strategic state fragmentation, walled off and as secure as ever.

In fact, Israel’s present position in profiting from the Arab states’ internecine warfare may eerily be prescient of the EU’s in any forthcoming Balkan bedlam. In both cases, the neighboring state would be physically walled off from the massive bloodletting next door, strategically intervening only when necessary (and then in extremely limited engagements like one-off bombing runs or missile strikes) in order to tip the balance of power to their preferred terrorist side. Neither Israel or the EU in any forthcoming scenario would want to expend the amount of money and resources necessary for a more robust military invasion, thus they’ll simply sit back and watch their neighbors tear one another to bits. However, in the case of the Balkans, the situation would affect the EU a lot more negatively than it does for Israel, since a large chunk of territory that it had at one time wanted to formally integrate into its sphere would be devastated and destroyed. Unlike Brussels, Tel Aviv isn’t currently entertaining any possibilities of incorporating the neighboring Arab regions under its domain, hence why it does so via the ultimate Lead From Behind method of getting the US, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to control the region on its behalf, which, it must be reminded, created the destructive physical conditions for the refugee crisis in the first place.

Will Russia help Serbia and could Russia help Serbia due to the fact that Serbia has established a quisling system and an appropriate regime?

My view is that Russia will always be there for Serbia and will continue to provide it with military equipment, diplomatic support, and cultural exchanages (including educational scholarships), but that it’s up to Serbia to take the initiative in intensifying this cooperation. Russia doesn’t want to come off as intrusive and forcing itself on Serbia if the present government would rather coquettishly “balance” between East and West (no matter how unsustainable this policy in its present form is). It’s Belgrade’s prerogative, not Moscow’s to move the current state of relations in one direction or another, but it should know that Russia will consent to its decision no matter what it is out of respect for its national sovereignty.

On the civilian front, no matter what Belgrade decides to do, it’s clear that the Russian and Serbian people have a natural and sincere affiliation for one another and feel a spiritual bond after having gone through similar historical experiences. Moreover, the linguistic, religious, and ethnic similarities between Belgrade and Moscow tie them closer together than Belgrade and Brussels, for example, further demonstrating the deep compatibility of their relations. There will always be interest in one another’s cultures, hence the presence of friendly and domestically constituted interest groups in each country that want to see both governments expand their relations to the level that they deserve.

This is very topical in the current political environment because it’s evident that there are a lot of such pressure groups in Serbia that would like to see their government move closer to Russia, regardless of what the EU thinks about it. It’s these pragmatically minded citizens, motivated by patriotism and a sincere desire to see their country prosper on the global stage, that are taking the lead in encouraging their national officials to more resolutely engage with Russia. It looks like the fruits of their labor are already paying off, as Prime Minister Vucic has indicated that he’s interested in enhancing full-spectrum cooperation with Russia. As the EU and the US viciously try to sabotage and subvert Serbia, it’s refreshing to see that the government, following grassroots pressure from the citizenry and displaying awareness of geopolitical realities, might belatedly be realizing that Serbia’s only true Great Power friend lies in the East…but will it finally make a decisive pivot in its direction?

———-

With that, I’d like to thank Geopolitica for the phenomenal opportunity to share my views on these very pressing topics, but even more, I’m thankful for the readers in being interested enough in what I have to say and reading through my interview. To have arrived at this point, it shows that you all have a genuine desire to absorb a non-conventional analysis about the world in general and the Balkans in particular, and now the responsibility is on your shoulders to inform your fellow countrymen of what you learned and assist them in understanding what’s really going on.

Remember to emphasize how it’s to the US’ grand strategic interest to see ethnic and religious differences lead to renewed conflict, and how the “refugees”, despite some of their provocative actions, are really just human pawns in a larger geopolitical game.

No matter what, peace must be preserved in the Balkans, and a regional war must not be allowed to break out because of the US’ manipulations and the hotheaded tempers of a few provoked individuals on both sides. Hybrid Wars thrive in environments where the populace is ignorant of their existence, goals, and the divisive social manipulations used to conjure up conflict, but by raising awareness of the bloody mess that the US is working to create in the Balkans, God willing, everyone will take a step back, realize the tremendous stakes that are at risk, and join together in building an alternative and peaceful future.

Thank you all again, take care, and God bless.