Read Part I:

Evolution of NATO Aggression Against the World – From Serbia to Russia

By Drago Bosnic, April 08, 2025

 

***

In the first part of the analysis of NATO aggression on Serbia/Yugoslavia the focus was mostly on the kinetic aspects of warfare. On the other hand, this part will also touch upon (geo)political and intelligence aspects, many of which are exclusive information revealed during the commemoration of the 26th anniversary of NATO aggression. I had the honor to attend the event and also contribute as an interpreter for  Professor Michel Chossudovsky who was the guest of honor at the commemoration. His address included numerous details about the events he personally experienced, particularly regarding the imprisonment and subsequent murder of former Serb/Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

One of the very first things Professor Chossudovsky pointed out was that the so-called “international justice” system is criminalized (interestingly, an identical assessment to the one I made during a recent interview with RT). He specifically mentioned the staged trial of President Milosevic as proof of how flawed and corrupt this system is, particularly as the infamous Hague Tribunal also launched another case designed to fake impartiality regarding the narco-terrorist entity in NATO-occupied Kosovo and Metohia. Namely, back in 2020, the former leader of the terrorist KLA Hashim Thaci was indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity during the NATO-orchestrated Kosovo War. After five years, the trial is yet to be publicized.

Professor Chossudovsky’s assessment that this is yet another sham trial certainly stands, as the political West regularly uses its dominance in the so-called “international justice” system to formally indict its proxies and then clear them of all charges (or sentence them if they’re non-compliant). Professor Chossudovsky also talked about his time at the Hague when he met President Milosevic. They discussed the issues of his trial and the fact that the Hague Tribunal didn’t really have a case against him. Formally, Milosevic was given the right to self-defense, but in reality, this was never implemented. As the trial was public, this was a way to ensure that “problematic” details about NATO aggression could never be presented to Western audiences.

Professor Chossudovsky himself knows virtually all the details about the war on Serbia/Yugoslavia, as evidenced by numerous articles, studies and books he wrote in the last several decades. His fascinating analyses are supported by hard evidence, official documentation, testimonies, etc. In fact, professor Chossudovsky was also an active participant in these events, as he exposed numerous lies and propaganda narratives about the “evil Serbs”. What’s more, he was invited to testify during Milosevic’s trial. However, he refused to participate in this fraudulent process after learning that the imprisoned Serb/Yugoslav president was effectively denied the right to self-defense. Worse yet, the Hague Tribunal assigned two British lawyers to Milosevic.

Professor Chossudovsky pointed out that this was an illegal act. Namely, these two had the formal status of amicus curiae (literally ”friend of the court”; plural amici curiae) and were essentially working against Milosevic’s interests, which also explains why he was denied the right to self-defense. These criminal acts were necessary for the political West to justify what professor Chossudovsky rightfully described as NATO’s first official war against a sovereign country (its members previously didn’t really act as a unified organization when attacking countless countries around the world). Milosevic understood this, as evidenced by his statement dated December 11, 2001, just two months after the United States and NATO decided to invade Afghanistan.

Professor Chossudovsky stressed that Milosevic was fully informed on the true nature of Al Qaeda and that the official narrative on the September 11 attacks was based on lies and fabrications. Professor Chossudovsky had written extensively on Al Qaeda and presented evidence of its close ties with the Kosovar terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). President Milosevic was fully aware of relationship of the KLA and Al Qaeda, Expectedly, revealing this was quite problematic, particularly as the KLA was presented as an organization of “democratic freedom fighters” (sounds awfully familiar). This includes the fact that Hashim Thaci and his terrorist henchmen were also wanted by the Interpol, while the US itself had the KLA on its terror list until 1998 (once again, sounds familiar).

Image is licensed under Creative Commons

How did the Hague Tribunal prevent Milosevic from presenting these facts?

Well, they simply cut his microphone while he was speaking. Coupled with the fact that he was assigned two British lawyers to “represent” him, Milosevic’s defense was effectively crippled.

What’s more, the Hague Tribunal justified this criminal act by claiming that his health was deteriorating and that this was “necessary”. Professor Chossudovsky pointed out that the reason for Milosevic’s deteriorating health was precisely the court itself, as it not only denied him the right to medical attention, but it also kept poisoning him with a mix of medication that only exacerbated his health issues. Professor Chossudovsky describes this as an assassination (and rightfully so).

To support this claim, he cited a letter President Milosevic wrote on March 8, 2006 (just three days before his death). Namely, Milosevic sent this letter to the Russian Foreign Ministry, asking for help from the Russian Federation and requesting that Russian doctors be sent to run check-ups. He also pointed out that he was being poisoned and presented evidence for this in the letter. In other words, the Hague Tribunal didn’t only know that Milosevic was intentionally being given the wrong medication, but it actually facilitated this, meaning that he was killed under the auspices of the court. In simpler terms, as professor Chossudovsky said, they knew it and they ordered it. The reason the Hague Tribunal did this was Milosevic’s legacy that would’ve exposed them.

Professor Chossudovsky pointed out that his legacy is also the legacy of all the victims of NATO aggression on Serbia/Yugoslavia, which began through economic warfare against the country in the late 1980s. He particularly stressed the role of the World Bank in the destruction of the country’s economy by enforcing the industrial bankruptcies which were conducive to firing of more than 600,000 people in the industrial sector. Needless to say, the consequences were devastating. Professor Chossudovsky also pointed out that Milosevic could’ve acted otherwise and chosen “an easy way out”, but decided to give his life for the people of Serbia.

Professor Chossudovsky proposed on behalf of the Belgrade Forum the conduct of a campaign against NATO. The slogan of the campaign is both simple and powerful: “No War, no NATO!”

Professor Chossudovsky stressed the importance of dismantling NATO. His assessment is that NATO is the geopolitical extension of the US Defense Department and that its members obey the orders of the Pentagon.

All the decisions regarding its operations, including wars in the Middle East, go through various U.S. command centers. This includes the Central Command (based in MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida), Strategic Command (based in Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska), intelligence apparatus, etc. In turn, the Washington based Bretton Woods institutions implement neoliberal policies Worldwide., 

Professor Chossudovsky expressed doubt there would be any progress in the ongoing talks in Saudi Arabia and stressed that the conflict wasn’t started by Russia in 2022, but by a US Coup d’Etat in 2014.

He also pointed out that NATO supported two Nazi parties in Ukraine, namely the “Right Sector” and “Svoboda”. It should be noted that he doesn’t use the term Neo-Nazi, as these groups trace their origins to literal Nazi organizations from the 1940s. Although they went dormant in the 1950s, these organizations already established ties with the CIA and resumed their activities in the late 1980s (and particularly early 1990s after the dismantling of the USSR). Political support for them was always negligent, as they only got several percent of votes.

However, these organizations had virtually infinite financing from the political West, which ensured they cement their influence, particularly in the former Ukraine’s security apparatus. Professor Chossudovsky also stressed that Europeans (whose taxpayer money was used to finance such Nazi groups) were simultaneously subjected to economic warfare by the US. NATO effectively orchestrated the massive spikes in energy prices which, in turn, caused widespread poverty not just in Europe, but around the world. All this is also integrated into military and intelligence operations by the world’s most vile racketeering cartel. Once again, professor Chossudovsky pledged that the campaign against NATO would focus on all its wars of aggression, including Ukraine/Russia and the Middle East.

To be continued…

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

Source link