The author is a well-known UK pundit who writes frequently on Russia.  He is 
currently running a crowdfunding <https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/41BlC1> to sue 
the Times, one of its writers, Oliver Kamm, and its publisher, Rupert Murdoch, 
for libel and stalking. If you like this article, please consider supporting 
this writer.  He is one of the best out there on Russia.


For more info about that see:  The Times, RT and Oliver Kamm, an Obsessed 
Neocon Stalker 
<http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/times-rt-and-obsessed-neocon-stalker/ri18080>
  and  Creepy London Times Moron Cyber-Stalks Leading UK Russia Expert (Video) 
<http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/creepy-london-times-moron-cyber-stalks-leading-uk-russia-expert/ri18040>




http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/neocons-have-been-destroying-sovereign-nations-20-years/ri20366


Neocons Have Been Destroying Sovereign Nations for 20 Years



An excellent article from one of our favorite Russia authors pointing out 
similar patterns in the destruction of Yugoslavia, Libya, and Syria


Neil Clark
Mon, Jul 17, 2017


A resource-rich, socialist-led, multi-ethnic secular state, with an economic 
system characterized by a high level of public/social ownership and generous 
provision of welfare, education and social services.


An independent foreign policy with friendship and good commercial ties with 
Russia, support for Palestine and African and Arab unity - and historical 
backing for anti-imperialist movements.


Social progress in a number of areas, including women’s emancipation.


The above accurately describes the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Libyan 
Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic. Three countries in three 
different continents, which had so much in common.


All three had governments which described themselves as socialist. All three 
pursued a foreign policy independent of Washington and NATO. And all three were 
targeted for regime change/destruction by the US and its allies using 
remarkably similar methods.


The first step of the imperial predators was the imposition of draconian 
economic sanctions used to cripple their economies, weaken their governments 
(always referred to as ‘a/the regime’) and create political unrest. From 
1992-95, and again in 1998, Yugoslavia was hit by the harshest sanctions ever 
imposed on a European state. The sanctions even involved an EU ban on the 
state-owned passenger airliner JAT


Libya was under US sanctions from the 1980s until 2004, and then again in 2011, 
the year the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa was 
bombed back to the Stone Age.


Syria has been sanctioned by the US since 2004 with a significant increase in 
the severity of the measures in 2011 when the regime change op moved into top 
gear.


The second step was the backing of armed militias/terrorist proxies to 
destabilise the countries and help overthrow these "regimes". The strategy was 
relatively simple. Terrorist attacks and the killing of state officials and 
soldiers would provoke a military response from ‘the regime, whose leader would 
then be condemned for ‘killing his own people’ (or in the case of Milosevic, 
other ethnic groups),  and used to ramp up the case for a ‘humanitarian 
intervention' by the US and its allies.


In Yugoslavia, the US-proxy force was the Kosovan Liberation Army, who were 
given training and logistical support by the West.


In Libya, groups linked to al-Qaeda, like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, 
were provided assistance, with NATO effectively acting as al-Qaeda’s air force


In Syria, there was massive support for anti-government Islamist fighters, 
euphemistically labelled 'moderate rebels.' It didn’t matter to the ‘regime 
changers’ that weapons supplied to ‘moderate rebels’ ended up in the hands of 
groups like ISIS. On the contrary, a declassified secret US intelligence report 
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf>
 from 2012 showed that the Western powers welcomed the possible establishment 
of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria, seeing it as a means of isolating 
‘the Syrian regime’.


The third step carried out at the same time as one and two involved the 
relentless demonisation of the leadership of the target states. This involved 
the leaders being regularly compared to Hitler, and accused of carrying out or 
planning genocide and multiple war crimes. 



Milosevic - President of Yugoslavia - was labelled a ‘dictator’ even though he 
was the democratically-elected leader of a country in which over 20 political 
parties freely operated.


Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi was portrayed as an unstable foaming at the mouth 
lunatic, about to launch a massacre in Benghazi, even though he had governed 
his country since the end of the Swinging Sixties.


Syria’s Assad did take over in an authoritarian one-party system, but was given 
zero credit for introducing a new constitution which ended the Ba’ath Party’s 
monopoly of political power. Instead all the deaths in the Syrian conflict were 
blamed on him, even those of the thousands of Syrian soldiers killed by 
Western/GCC-armed and funded ‘rebels’.


The fourth step in the imperial strategy was the deployment of gatekeepers - or 
‘Imperial Truth Enforcers’ - to smear or defame anyone who dared to come  to 
the defence of the target states, or who said that they should be left alone.


The pro-war, finance-capital-friendly, faux-left was at the forefront of the 
media campaigns against the countries concerned. This was to give the regime 
change/destruction project a 'progressive’ veneer, and to persuade or 
intimidate genuine ’old school’ leftists not to challenge the dominant 
narrative.


To place them beyond the pale, Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria were all labelled 
’fascist,’ even though their leadership was socialist and their economies were 
run on socialistic lines. Meanwhile, genuine fascists, like anti-government 
factions in Ukraine (2013-14), received enthusiastic support from NATO.


The fifth step was direct US/NATO-led military intervention against 'the 
regime' triggered by alleged atrocities/planned atrocities of the target state. 
At this stage, the US works particularly hard to sabotage any peaceful solution 
to the conflicts they and their regional allies have ignited. At the 
Rambouillet conference in March 1999, for example, the Yugoslav authorities, 
who had agreed to an international peace-keeping force in Kosovo, were 
presented with an ultimatum that they could not possibly accept. Lord Gilbert, 
a UK defence minister at the time, later admitted "the terms put to Milosevic 
(which included NATO forces having freedom of movement throughout his country) 
were absolutely intolerable … it was quite deliberate."


In 2011, the casus belli was that ‘the mad dog’ Gaddafi was about to massacre 
civilians in Benghazi. We needed a ‘humanitarian intervention’ to stop this, we 
were repeatedly told. Five years later, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs 
Committee report 
<https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/119.pdf>
 held that "the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the 
massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence."


In 2013, the reason given for direct military intervention in Syria was an 
alleged chemical weapons attack by 'Assad's forces' in Ghouta. But this time, 
the UK Parliament voted against military action and the planned ‘intervention’ 
was thwarted, much to the great frustration of the war-hungry neocons. They 
still keep trying though.


The recent claims of The White House, that they had evidence that the Syrian 
government was planning a chemical weapons attack, and that if such an attack 
took place it would be blamed on Assad, shows that the Empire hasn’t given up 
on Stage Five for Syria just yet.


Stage Six of the project involves the US continuing to sabotage moves towards a 
negotiated peace once the bombing started. This happened during the bombing of 
Yugoslavia and the NATO assault on Libya. A favoured tactic used to prevent a 
peaceful resolution is to get the leader of the target state indicted for war 
crimes. Milosevic was indicted at the height of the bombing in 1999, Gaddafi in 
2011.


Stage Seven is ‘Mission Accomplished’. It’s when the target country has been 
‘regime-changed’ and either broken up or transformed into a failed state with 
strategically important areas/resources under US/Western control. Yugoslavia 
was dismantled and its socially-owned economy privatised. Montenegro, the great 
prize on the Adriatic, recently joined 
<http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_144647.htm> NATO.


Libya, hailed in the Daily Telegraph as a top cruise 
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/cruises/7881259/Exotic-cruises-six-of-the-best.html>
 ship destination in 2010, is now a lawless playground for jihadists and a 
place where cruise ships dare not dock. This country, which provided free 
education and health care for all its citizens under Gaddafi, has recently seen 
the return of slave 
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/10/libya-public-slave-auctions-un-migration>
 markets.


Syria, though thankfully not at Stage Seven, has still been knocked back almost 
forty years. The UNDP reported: "Despite having achieved or being well under 
way to achieving major Millennium Development Goals targets (poverty reduction, 
primary education, and gender parity in secondary education, decrease in infant 
mortality rates and increasing access to improved sanitation) as of 2011, it is 
estimated that after the first four years of crisis Syria has dropped 
<http://www.sy.undp.org/content/syria/en/home/countryinfo.html> from 113th to 
174th out of 187 countries ranked in the Human Development Index."


Of course, it’s not just three countries which have been wrecked by the Empire 
of Chaos. There are similarities too with what’s happened to Afghanistan and 
Iraq. In the late 1970s, the US started to back Islamist rebels to destabilise 
and topple the left-wing, pro-Moscow government in Kabul.


Afghanistan has been in turmoil ever since, with the US and its allies 
launching an invasion of the country in 2001 to topple a Taliban 'regime' which 
grew out of the ’rebel’ movement which the US had backed.


Iraq was hit with devastating, genocidal sanctions, which were maintained under 
US/UK pressure even after it had disarmed. Then it was invaded on the deceitful 
pretext that its leader, Saddam Hussein, still possessed WMDs.


The truth of what has been happening is too shocking and too terrible ever to 
be admitted in the Western mainstream media. Namely, that since the demise of 
the Soviet Union, the US and its allies have been picking off independent, 
resource-rich, strategically important countries one by one.


The point is not that these countries were perfect and that there wasn’t 
political repression taking place in some of them at various times, but that 
they were earmarked for destruction solely for standing in the way of the 
imperialists. The propagandists for the US-led wars of recent years want us to 
regard the conflicts as ‘stand alones’ and to regard the ‘problem' as being the 
‘mad dog’ leadership of the countries which were attacked.


But in fact, the aggressions against Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and 
Iraq, and the threatening of Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela are all 
parts of the same war. Anyone who hasn’t been locked in a wardrobe these past 
twenty years, or whose salary is not paid directly, or indirectly, by the 
Empire of Chaos, can surely see now where the ‘problem’ really lies.


The ‘New Hitlers’ - Milosevic, Hussein and Gaddafi - who we were told were the 
‘biggest threats’ to world peace, are dead and buried. But guess what? The 
killing goes on.


Follow Neil Clark on Twitter @NeilClark66 <https://twitter.com/neilclark66>






Rispondere a