Solve the western war crimes

According to a comment by the FAZ on 8 June 2021, the verdict against the former Bosnian Serb Army chief Ratko Mladić completes the legal reappraisal of the war crimes in Yugoslavia. This assessment is spread by many media-without turning red. What a farce. The war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 was and is contrary to international law. None of the war coalitioners involved were attacked. No one from this war coalition can claim the right to self-defense. It was a war of aggression, which is contrary to international law. The reasons given for this fictitious “humanitarian intervention” had been drowned out and lied about. This includes the claim of the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer that a “second Auschwitz” was to be prevented in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These include the war lie of the German Defense Minister Scharping, who wanted to have discovered a concentration camp in Pristina. So the acts of war committed in this context are war crimes. The war crimes, the military and political responsible for these war crimes are therefore neither politically nor legally processed. They are still at large today.

The NATO War against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1999-The legend of the honest German (peace) broker

Even as the 16-year-old Kohl era paved the way, it was clear that agreeing to a war of aggression is a difficult undertaking. Iraq was far away, the National Socialist slogan “Serbia must die” had not yet completely faded away. The chain of association between German Reichswehr soldiers who invaded Yugoslavia in 1941 and German Bundeswehr soldiers who may return as occupiers almost 60 years later weighed heavily. A" new " Germany was needed. Nothing was more appropriate than to paint a picture of a Germany that had no hegemonic interests of its own. A Germany driven solely by the desire to contribute to a peace settlement between two civil war parties. It is no coincidence that German efforts to find a peaceful settlement to the “Kosovo conflict” were at the forefront of the coverage. It was the hour of Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who flew all over the world, brought Russia into the (NATO)boat and demonstrated a will for peace - until he waved it off:

“I was with Milosevic … I begged him not to use force in Kosovo. (…) I am now God knows not a tender plant when taking and giving. But it hurt when the personal accusation was made that I had fingered the Federal Republic in the war. (…) I can only assure you that I did everything in my power to prevent this confrontation.”

I will come back later to the fact that the gap between the insistent pleading and the actual course of the so-called peace negotiations in Rambouillet was not a serious perception problem, but part of a war strategy.

With the staging of the honest peace broker, who mediates neutrally between the warring civil war parties, another legend was brought into play: the claim that Europe and the USA had been watching idly for years – completely uninvolved and uninterested. This legend was charged with the historical reference to the appeasement policy of the West when Nazi Germany annexed Austria in 1938 – and the later victorious powers watched. As ostentatious and brazen as this historical parallel is, so mendacious is the alleged inaction.

The Silent war

As long as the Communist Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact were the counterpart of NATO, the balance of terror excluded wars in the other spheres of influence, the Balkan states were also taboo for Western military intervention. The destabilization of non-capitalist states, the fight against the “communist enemy” had to be carried out by other means than in the form of open wars.

For example, the US Secret Directive of 1982 (NSDD 54) called for “increased efforts to promote a silent revolution to bring down communist governments and parties” until Tito’s death in 1980, Yugoslavia was a hinge between the Communist Eastern Bloc and the capitalist West-known as the Third Way. A mixture of private and collective economy, capitalist concessions and socialist achievements. “The average growth of the gross domestic product was 6.1% per annum, over the period of 20 years (1960-1980), there was free medical care … the literacy rate was 91%, and the average life expectancy was 72 years.”

After the death of Tito, the gait of Western lenders intensified. In the same year, Yugoslavia joined the International Monetary Fund, accepting higher debt repayment rates and the associated" structural adjustment programs " of the IMF. The consequences of this policy, the consequences of these structural adjustment programmes to the world capitalist market, were serious: economic growth fell from an average of +6.1% per year, step by step, year by year, until it reached -10.6% in 1990. Hundreds of factories went bankrupt, tens of thousands of workers were laid off, and a wage freeze was imposed. The Yugoslav model of “workers' self-management " was exploited. At the top of the list of priorities was the abolition of socialized enterprises under the leadership of works councils, if necessary, their transformation into private capitalist enterprises. In parallel, the dismantling of the social system, the reduction of the public sector was prescribed. It can be assumed that these capitalist adjustment programs affected many-certainly not the power elites in Yugoslavia, who agreed to these conditions and enforced them against the population. With the deterioration of living conditions, discontent grew. The “silent revolution” took concrete shape …

Speculation remains as to the direction in which these social and societal upheavals would have developed if the Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact had still existed in the 1990s. With the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, not only a non-capitalist economic area broke away for Yugoslavia. With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the previously valid division into political and economic spheres of influence became obsolete. This was and is true first of all for the Balkan states, which until 1989 were in the no-man’s-land of the system blocks.

Is it a coincidence that the various attempts at separation in almost all republics of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s were/were politically strong, well armed and enjoyed the support of almost all European states? In the filleting, in the storming of the “Prison of Nations” Yugoslavia, Germany’s foreign policy was not sidelined, but in the midst of it. Germany was a leader in its recognition policy. On 23 December 1991, Germany became the first Western European country to recognise Croatia (and Slovenia). What became the reason for military intervention in Kosovo is an integral part of Croatia’s recognition policy: “In just one day, 200,000 Serbs were expelled from Croatian Krajina …"- as a result of a lightning war of the Croatian army in 1995 against"renegade rebels”. “According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), there are still 250,000 Serbian displaced persons from Croatia living in Serbia and Montenegro and a good 30,000 in Bosnia-Herzegovina.”. Germany was not content with welcoming the results of nationalist policies and welcoming war criminals into the circle of the European family.

Germany also directly ensured that a nationalist and ethnicizing policy had the prospect of success. What years later was to be perceived with a serious and darkened face as the “Kosovo conflict”-had the active role of Germany as a prerequisite. Thus, the KLA was not only politically supported in its struggle for an independent Kosovo. Germany was also significantly involved in their armament and military instruction.

One can see it as a masterpiece of travesty that the same people who armed the KLA politically and militarily justified the stationing of further Bundeswehr units in Macedonia years later by helping to disarm KLA rebels and to settle the Macedonia conflict peacefully.

Peace negotiations in Rambouillet - a war procurement program

The war was preceded by weeks of negotiations between the Yugoslav government, individual NATO states and Kosovo Albanian representatives in Rambouillet. What did the peace plan put forward there include? Why did the Rambouillet negotiations fail? Were these negotiations part of a peace process or part of a deliberate war?

The Yugoslav government agreed to the political part of this agreement, the autonomous status for Kosovo enshrined there. It also accepted the presence of UN soldiers as part of this solution. What it firmly rejected was “a NATO occupation statute for the whole of Yugoslavia”, which was set out in Annex B. Article 8 provided for::

“NATO personnel, including their vehicles, ships, aircraft and equipment, should be able to move freely and unhindered and without access restrictions throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including its airspace and territorial waters”.

What this would have meant in plain language, explained the SPD deputy Hermann Scheer:

“This corresponds in fact to a NATO troop statute for Yugoslavia as a whole, which normally only one state is willing to sign after a complete surrender.”

Thus, if it had been a question of preventing a “humanitarian catastrophe”, a peaceful solution to the “Kosovo conflict” would have been possible. But as little as it was about the people of Kosovo, so little was it about the peaceful settlement of the conflict. The targeted disinformation policy of NATO and the red-green war coalition, the deliberate silence about why the negotiations in Rambouillet had to fail, did not aim at a peace agreement, but at NATO’s entry into war. The failure of the” peace efforts " was inevitable.

In order not to endanger this desired entry into the war, even the members of the Bundestag were deceived when they were supposed to rule on German participation in this war of aggression. They agreed without having the full text of the treaty, including Annex B, before them. A blatant breach of constitutional norms, to which most MPs agreed – without contradiction, without parliamentary consequences.

The first war of aggression of Germany after 1945

On 24 May 1999, NATO began bombing Yugoslavia. A day later, a victory was already certain for the representatives of a “healthy” and completely “normal” nationalism:

“Could it be that Germany has definitely been in a state of normality for a few days? … Bundesluftwaffe … on the front line … since spring 1945 we are in the middle of it again…the long-overdue breakthrough to complete normality … In the economic sector, the Federal Republic has already completed the normalization processes for decades. Now the whole range of foreign policy is also covered.”

The road to it has been prepared long and comprehensively. Ideologically, work was already underway before 1989 to free post-war Germany from “eternal guilt”. They declared themselves “normal"and” fundamentally civilized". With reunification, the last recognizable consequences of the lost World War were eliminated. It is high time to look to the future: “Germany has concluded its history, it can openly declare its world power role in the future and should expand it.“While with the relativization of National Socialist crimes, such as e.g. the equating of Nazi Germany with the SED government, which until then recognized “special” responsibility of Germany was compressed to the usual European level, the German Bundeswehr approached its first “direct” combat mission from all sides: Sometimes with German warships in the Mediterranean and minesweepers off the coast of Kuwait during the US Allied attack on Iraq (1991). Sometimes with Bundeswehr soldiers and bandages in Cambodia (1992/93), another time as soldiers of a supply camp in Somalia (1993/94). The product range ranged from the” Angels of Phnom Penh " (Defense Minister Rühe) to the peacekeeping military force in Bosnia (1996).

“The journey to foreign policy normality” did not have territorial defense in mind. When there was still a military-relevant and system-ideological enemy, the communist Eastern Bloc, one was already in the “front defense”. After its collapse, Germany also discovered its vital interests all over the world, which must not only be enforced economically and politically. Thus, the FRG was and is at NATO level.

“(Also) the Alliance was established exclusively as an alliance for the defence of the territory of the Member States (Art. 5). If this defensive task has become obsolete because the enemy has been lost, it is legitimate to look for new tasks and a new legitimation-which has been done intensively since 1989 at the latest”

A child-friendly description for an imperialism that bombs other states to the ground - pointing earnestly to international law and even mildly-smiling at it. What for years still contradicted its own statutes was removed at the 50th Annual meeting of NATO in 1999 with a redefinition: away from territorial defense, towards the military enforcement of global interests. In short, the establishment of a” world internal policy " that gives itself the mandate where the interests of the imperialist international community are violated and must be defended militarily. This literally pushes boundaries. With the revision of the NATO statutes, the dogmas of international law on national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states were de facto declared null and void. The" low intensity war " of the 70s and 80s turns into open warfare with a lot of applause.

What has established itself in Europe in the hail of bombs against Yugoslavia, has and will become method: At the beginning is the political and economic destabilization of an unwelcome state that does not submit to the world"inside" politics and/or the capitalist world market. The next step is the ethnification of social conflicts, which are accompanied by the strengthening of nationalist/religious opponents. With financial and military means, these are built up until “civil war-like” conditions arise. Then follows the rehearsed scare about the events that you can no longer stand idly by. Just the right time to stage the struggle for a political, peaceful solution, the selfless role of mediator between two warring parties. At the end of the day – given the case – is direct military intervention, endowed with a moral legitimacy that pretends to prevent what it has created the conditions for for years. When U.S. Secretary of State Albright declares that “containment of ethnic conflicts” must be opened up as a new NATO war zone-with the ability and willingness to wage two or three such wars at the same time – she is following precisely this script.

Yugoslavia after the capitulation-the next war has never been so tangible

So much warmth and exuberance among all the (state)men who struggled with this war was not seen on the screen for a long time. The news that the Serbian parliament accepted the NATO conditions, word for word, on 6 April 1999 hit the ranks of EU ministers in Cologne like a (cocktail)bomb. Chancellor Schröder did not miss the opportunity to drink a Kölsch without protocol. He laughed, waved, was just relaxed. It was infected. And so some war colleagues, in front of running cameras, lay in each other’s arms, quite unabashedly and without distance. There was every reason to be so exuberant. The bombing was worth it. And the “peace” even more.

Yugoslavia is in ruins, the entire civilian infrastructure is destroyed. The refugees returning under NATO supervision will return to a bombed-out country. They will find their already barren living conditions even more destroyed. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a sovereign federation of states no longer exists. What is being treated as an acceptance of the Fischer Peace Plan is nothing other than the provisional conclusion to the filleting of Yugoslavia.

There is no need to know the wording of the Fischer Peace plan. Anyone who ruins a country in 79 days does not negotiate the after. He just sets it.

Was anything else really to be expected? Yugoslavia was helpless against NATO’s air war from day one. What remained were hopes, speculations and historical efforts. Everything burst, day after day. The hopes that NATO would not be able to enforce a weeks-long war on domestic policy proved to be false. Neither did a resolute war opposition arise in the individual belligerent NATO countries, nor did the first cracks appear in the bloc of war coalitioners.

Yugoslavia’s hope that Russia could assert its Soviet-era hegemonic claim to the Balkans also proved more than obsolete. True, many threats launched (arms deliveries to Yugoslavia, the deployment of warships, the reorientation of nuclear targets on NATO countries) fed this illusion. But in all these cases, NATO did not even need to assess these “threats.” They were promptly and obediently denied each time by the Russian leadership. Because all these threat scenarios were not aimed at NATO at any time, but at the inner-Russian opposition, which should be immobilized with martial announcements and hints.

Finally, it must have been clear to the Yugoslav government that the attempt to compare the NATO war with the fascist invasion of Germany and Italy could at best have a propagandistic effect. For a partisan war, the military, but above all the social conditions were missing. Social conditions, which the Yugoslav leadership destroyed many years earlier with their own hands. True, the NATO war almost silenced the Yugoslav opposition. But neither the Yugoslav government nor the (parliamentary) opposition had a social, social utopia that goes beyond this murderous NATO war, as well as its civil society version of following capitalism. The threat of a partisan war remained war rhetoric and had to remain so – in the face of a post-communist leadership that did not oppose the break-up of Yugoslavia much more than tanks and unsuitable historical analogies.

An “air campaign” for peace?

A lot of information that was not accessible before the war is now available. Many speculations about why NATO was at war can be put to rest with and after the end of the war. Many doubts about the alleged “humanitarian intervention” can now be checked against the results of the war. The central claim of the war supporters was: There was no “realistic” alternative to the NATO war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in order to prevent a “humanitarian catastrophe”. What remains of it today?

The official political goal of the NATO attacks was to “bomb back” the Yugoslav government to the negotiating table. She was to sign the Rambouillet Agreement. Just five days after the NATO attacks, leading representatives of the NATO states declared the Rambouillet Agreement obsolete. An independent state of Kosovo is now the only realistic solution. After 14 days of bombing, NATO representatives became even clearer. The word “NATO protectorate” made the rounds. The break-up and division of Yugoslavia, which had been going on for more than ten years, was thus approaching its final phase.

A unilateral ceasefire announced by the Yugoslav government on 6 April 1999 could not change this. The offer to withdraw all military units from Kosovo, coupled with assurances that the refugees would be able to return to Kosovo, fell on deaf ears. On the same day, NATO spokesman and Chancellor Schröder made it clear what NATO was really all about: the complete destruction of the Yugoslav army and the subsequent deployment of NATO forces-whatever the cost.

This “negotiation strategy” is practiced. It is part of a staging that should not prevent war, but make it possible. It was already used successfully in the US-Allied war against Iraq in 1991: after the invasion of Iraqi troops in Kuwait, the Iraqi government made the offer to withdraw from Kuwait. The response of then US President George Bush was unequivocal :" There will be no negotiations."

As little as the 1991 Gulf War was about the occupation or restoration of Kuwait’s national sovereignty, so little was the NATO war against Yugoslavia about a political solution. The actual goals of the USA and / or NATO are not negotiated either in the Gulf War or in the war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

US bomber pilot: “I’m at 3,000 feet. At the bottom there is a convoy of cars and some tractors. What’s this? I demand instructions.”

Awac: “What a strange convoy this is? What civilians, damn it, it’s a Serbian trick. Destroy the target.”

US bomber pilot: “What should I destroy? Tractors? Cars? I repeat, I do not see tanks. I demand further instructions.”

Awac: “It is a military objective, a legitimate military objective. Destroy the target. I repeat: destroy the target.”

= = References = = = = External links = = I’m firing."

Radio communication between the pilot of a US fighter plane that struck a Kosovar refugee route and the Awac lead aircraft for this attack, in which at least 45 people were killed.

Against whom did NATO actually wage war?

The claim of" humanitarian intervention " was linked to the promise not to wage war against the civilian population. In fact, in the first two weeks, mainly military targets were destroyed. However, this did not lead to the surrender of the Yugoslav army, nor to the demoralization of the civilian population. Instead of rising against the" dictator", hundreds of thousands took to the streets against the NATO attacks. Doubts were raised in the belligerent states that this war was to be won in this way. The use of ground troops was considered and again rejected. Instead, the" expansion of military goals " was decided: from now on, the civilian population should also fear for their lives:

“I think no electricity for your fridge, no gas for your stove, you don’t come to work because the bridge is gone – the bridge where you held your rock concerts – and you all stood there, with targets on your heads. This has to go away at three in the morning.”

At the latest since the Gulf War in 1991, one can know what is meant by this, when there is no longer talk of military, but of “legitimate goals”. Another description for a war that is henceforth directed against the civil and economic infrastructure of a country. The list is long. It ranges from tobacco factories, fertilizer factories, oil refineries, fuel warehouses, substations, transmission systems, automotive and chemical plants, to (railway)bridges, clinics, drinking water systems and telephone exchanges: “A total of 31 larger factories throughout the country were destroyed in the first month of the war. The war damage is estimated at about 180 billion marks. Twenty road and railway bridges have also been destroyed or severely damaged, as the government in Belgrade and NATO report unanimously.

After ten years under UN sanctions, the country had already returned to the level of 1968 before the start of NATO attacks. In the meantime, however, NATO has “bombed Yugoslavia back” to the level it had at the end of the Second World War, Belgrade economists say.”

Unlike in the US-Allied war against Iraq, even war advocates were able to get an idea of it. Hardly a day passed without a grain silo burning or a car factory being reduced to rubble. Obviously, NATO strategists saw the time had come to accustom the population in the belligerent states to this kind of warfare. You should be right. The “pulverization” of Yugoslavia’s civil infrastructure, carried out before everyone’s eyes, no longer irritated. Not quite. When NATO bombed a fuel depot in Belgrade, breaking windows of the Swiss ambassador’s residence, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer was “indignant”: “The German NATO representative in Brussels will demand that the Alliance avoid civilian damage in the future, the Foreign Office said.“A gesture towards the orchestra pit of concerned civil society activists, as it soon turned out. “NATO spokesman Jamie Shea said in Brussels on Fischer’s demands that no member country had asked for a change in Nato’s previous target policy.”

With this escalation at the latest, what NATO claimed to prevent has occurred. The flow of refugees swelled many times over. Before the NATO war of aggression, international refugee organizations counted about 200,000 refugees from Kosovo. After 14 days of war to prevent a “humanitarian catastrophe” there were about 900,000 refugees. The fact that all neighboring states were completely overwhelmed and the rich belligerent NATO states did everything possible to let as few refugees as possible into their own country is part of the perversion of this humanitarian war rhetoric.

The systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure facilities was not aimed at an opponent already defeated militarily. The main thing was to create a hostage status, for the post-war period. Who remains in power or comes to power after such a war is a matter of cosmetics. Those who dictate the terms of the loans for reconstruction will be in charge. And they are not selectable. “Not everything that happens will be visible on the screen,” NATO spokesman explained smugly. This certainly includes the complete economic and political dependence of Yugoslavia on the victorious NATO states.

If you want to get a rough idea of this, you only have to take a look at Bosnia-Herzegovina: the Bosnian government estimates that reconstruction will cost 47 billion US dollars. The economic and political interests of the lending (NATO)countries are already inscribed in the Constitution: “The High Commissioner has full executive rights in all civil matters. It can even override government decisions of both the Bosnian Federation and the Bosnian Serb Republic of Srpska”. Enough democracy for a country that is not governed by a democratic electoral vote, but solely by the dictates that the European donors attach to every loan.

Has the NATO war against Yugoslavia prevented an “imminent genocide” in Kosovo?

The Yugoslav army waged a war against the KLA, which fought for an independent state of Kosovo. For years, the KLA was politically upgraded and militarily equipped by individual NATO states, above all by the FRG and the USA.

The fight against separatism was not and is not a special phenomenon of Yugoslavia. In all NATO countries, action is being taken against any armed group or organization that wants to question the constitution of the respective state by force of arms – whether in Ireland against the IRA operating there, whether in Spain against ETA or in Turkey against the PKK. In the fight against separatist currents, all European states are united. In the language regulation, it is also conducted as a” fight against terrorism”, across borders, by legal and illegal means. Why the KLA was not – like everyone else – fought as “terrorists”, but supported as “freedom fighters”, is mainly due to the common enemy: Yugoslavia. In the fight against the political and economic constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the different roles suited each other very well: the UN Security Council ensured economic strangulation with the help of the imposed economic embargo, the KLA operated with armed actions on the ground and NATO demonstrated air sovereignty with its bombing war.

Did the Yugoslav army, in its fight against the KLA in Kosovo, use means of" ethnic warfare"? Were massacres against the civilian population part of the fight against the KLA? Were Kosovo Albanians systematically expelled?

Ronald Keith was Director of the OSCE Kosovo Monitoring Commission (KVM) until March 1999. In a Canadian newspaper he describes his impressions until March 20, 1999, when the OSCE observers were withdrawn. He tells of KLA ambushes, of counter-reactions, of a small war, “but, as I have already stated elsewhere, I neither witnessed nor received information about so-called “ethnic cleansing”, and certainly there were no incidents of “genocide policy” while I was in Kosovo with the KVM.”

A secret situation report by the German Ministry of Defence, compiled in March 1999, comes to a similar conclusion: “In recent days there have been no major clashes between Serbian-Yugoslav forces and the KLA … The Serbian security forces have recently limited their actions to routine operations such as checks, patrols, searching for weapons depots and monitoring key roads.”

Exactly the opposite has been launched into the public domain. There is a risk of “genocide” if NATO does not prevent it immediately. After NATO bombed Yugoslavia for more than two weeks with no end in sight, the war approval threatened to crumble. The Minister of Defense Rudolf Scharping:

“When I hear that a concentration camp is being set up in the north of Pristina, when I hear that the parents and teachers of children are being rounded up and the teachers are being shot in front of the children, when I hear that in Pristina the Serbian population is being asked to paint a big “S” on the doors so that they are not affected in the purges, then there is something going on where no civilised European is allowed to close his eyes unless he wants to look into the grimace of his own history.”

There was no concentration camp in Pristina and the" S " for the protection of Serbs did not appear on any door in Pristina.“The bombing war continued and in addition to the many destructions, the fate of the refugees was brought into the picture every day. How they got there, NATO spokesman Jamie Shea told quite frankly: “After the attack on the refugee convoy near Djakovica, the first” accident " of the war, public approval in many countries, including Germany, fell by 20-25 points. We had to work hard for six weeks to win back public opinion. Milosevic made the mistake of driving the refugees from Kosovo to Albania and Macedonia. At the border were television crews filming the suffering. And so public opinion again backed NATO”.

Whether the refugees are fleeing from “Milosevic” or from NATO and the KLA, Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping did not want to leave the suggestive power of the images – and played it safe. On April 7, 1999, he presented an allegedly secret Yugoslav operation plan “Horseshoe “to the public:” It shows very clearly that in clearly recognizable sections the Yugoslav army, the Yugoslav state Police, has begun, in the period from October to the beginning of the negotiations in Rambouillet, not only to meet the preparation for the expulsion of the population, but this expulsion has already begun. It also shows very clearly the systematic, brutal and murderous approach that has been planned since October 1998 and implemented since January 1999”.

What neither the OSCE observers could determine, nor the secret situation reports of Nato and the German Defense Ministry, should now prove the" horseshoe Plan". The only thing that is really systematic in this context is the juxtaposition of war lies and deceptions: there was no “horseshoe” operational plan. The accusation of"ethnic" murder, the systematic expulsion and murder of Kosovo Albanians turned out to be propaganda lies-at the latest after the war. Heinz Loquai, former Brigadier General of the Bundeswehr and employee of the OSCE in Vienna, came to this conclusion in his book: “The Kosovo Conflict-Ways to an Avoidable War”. He based his work on internal daily reports of the Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM) of the OSCE, on the monthly reports of the OSCE Presidency to the UN Secretary General and on “excellent reports of the German Embassy in Belgrade”. Heinz Loquai describes the meaning of the so-called “horseshoe plan” as follows: “There is a connection between the “Massacre of Racak” and the “horseshoe Plan”. The head of the KVM, Walker, with his unproven version of “Racak” lit the fuse to the war against Yugoslavia. Scharping erased the criticism of this war with the” Horseshoe Plan". Both accusations (…) were thus able to fulfill their purpose."

If you would like to consult an even more unsuspected source, please refer to the Stratfor report published on 17.10.1999. Behind the abbreviation Stratfor is not an anti-imperialist group, but the Strategic Forecasting Inc., a company of social scientists, researchers, and former secret service agents in Texas. “This Stratfor report is based on information from both the UN tribunal and other Western institutions such as the OSCE or KFOR, as well as media reports. Stratfor Director George Friedmann concluded: “What is certain is that crimes against humanity, such as the expulsion of Albanians, have been committed in Kosovo. But at the same time, we must conclude from the data that there has not been a mass, systematic killing”

The international war Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, which is prosecuting former President Slobodan Milosevic, is endowed with even higher orders. There he is accused of many things, but not of the “genocide” in Kosovo. “When Carla del Ponte was asked by” Le Monde “why this accusation was missing, she was forced to admit:” Because there is no evidence of this”

Finally war again

Let us return to the EU ministers who launched the first joint war of aggression. In a triumphant mood, they wrote down the next targets in their calendars: the EU should get its military leadership faster than planned. The military units should be ready for future wars even faster than planned. The war against Yugoslavia served as a model for a “Western European defence identity”, to which a military example – in the contractual no man’s land – did not harm, but decisively and quickly helped to break through.

Germany did not play a secondary role, but a major role. There are many indications that the next war, the next German participation in it, will do without great references to its own past. With the “normality of foreign policy” celebrated everywhere, the focus is on a Europe as a second world power that will follow militarily where it has long stood politically and economically.

This heralds militarily what has long been a reality politically and economically: the non-existence of “national sovereignty” of many (non-European) states. For years, the national sovereignty rights of many states, the “non-interference in the internal affairs of another state”, are only on paper. Most states are now only – courtesy-noted on the map. In fact, their domestic policy is dictated more by foreign creditors, Terms of trade, the IMF, the World Bank, than by the will of the electorate, whatever its nature.

Business class of war-ground forces in civil

The military part of this NATO war ended with the surrender of Yugoslavia on June 9, 1999. The airspace was reopened for civil traffic – and the managers and creditors of the war came. Time for the business class to enjoy the war damage – even from the ground. The amount of over 100 billion dollars made the rounds. Enough to earn from reconstruction as much as from war itself. What Detlef Hartmann describes as creative destruction, the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer was allowed to praise as a" Marshall Plan " for the entire Balkans. A “Stability Pact”, an “offer to the countries from the legacy of the old Yugoslavia to join closely with the EU in order to prepare for future membership”. An offer to which there is no alternative. An “offer” that you better not turn down.

“Especially in the face of the acute crisis in the Balkans, it is essential that Europe demonstrates its willingness and ability to address the pressing issues and act decisively”. A psychologically questionable self-perception of a bunch who enters the door and is quite sure that everyone has called for him.

The NATO bombers were ordered back after 72 days. The business class will remain for years, destroying the livelihoods of the majority of people even more sustainably than the bombs did. This assumption requires no speculation. A look at Croatia, where a war criminal impersonates Tito, a look at Bosnia-Herzegovina, where a children’s parliament exercises under NATO supervision, a look at the living conditions of all the “independent” states of ex-Yugoslavia is enough. There is every reason to believe that the Balkans will become the EU’s backyard.

The war of bombs is over. The question of how long the business class of war will be left in peace remains unanswered. An anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist critique of war and peace is currently disturbing the German left more than the old and new war coalitions. Not only the “others"are attached to peace here.

The war against Yugoslavia was calmly prepared. The anti-war opposition remained largely a spectator-whether as a pacifist, anti – militarist or anti-imperialist. The next war will also be able to afford this peaceful coexistence.

The Information that were used can be found in books, newspapers and archives.