Josip Glaurdic responds to a review of his new book, ‘The Hour of Europe: Western Powers and the Breakup of Yugoslavia’, by David B. Kanin, whose own response is also presented below.
By Josip Glaurdic
The twentieth anniversary of Yugoslavia’s breakup came and went without nearly the attention it warranted in the West. Perhaps that is fitting for the crisis which was originally allowed to simmer and boil over by the neglect of the Western powers. My book, ‘The Hour of Europe: Western Powers and the Breakup of Yugoslavia (Yale University Press, 2011)’, was an attempt to change that trend of indifference, so I am particularly grateful to Prof. Kanin for “lending me a hand” with his thoughtful and knowledgeable review. I am also grateful for his praise, but – in the good tradition of review responses – I have decided to move straight to his substantive critique. After all, that is the best way we can build a constructive dialogue and learn from each other.
It would perhaps be most useful to begin with Prof. Kanin’s suggestion that my analysis lacks “an assessment of why whatever forces – whether military, liberal, or ideologically ‘Yugoslav’ – failed to coalesce as events spun downward.” This is a very good question, which we can answer only after answering two related questions – which (credible) forces are we talking about and when?
If we are talking about the period between the decision of Slobodan Milosevic to marry his brand of socialism with Serbian nationalism sometime in mid-1987 and the collapse of the League(s) of Communists and its/their various defeats at the polls in 1990 – then my book answers that question at least implicitly because it deals extensively with the only credible force that could have stopped Milosevic’s march: the League of Communists itself. The book, thus, discusses the reasons why the rest of the Communist elite failed to collectively respond to Milosevic’s ousting of Ivan Stambolic (they did not want to meddle in Serbia’s internal affairs and they thought Milosevic was just a grey, controllable bureaucrat); it explains why nothing was done once the rallies of the “anti-bureaucratic revolution” started in Serbia (again, because it would have been meddling in the internal affairs of Serbia, because all republican Communist elites used their own nationalisms for the purposes of mobilization, and ultimately because some of them – like the JNA and Macedonia, for example – actually agreed with Milosevic); it suggests a set of plausible explanations for why what was done was done once the “anti-bureaucratic revolution” started to spill over beyond the borders of Serbia (new and weak Communist leaderships in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, miscalculations and spinelessness on the federal level, etc.).
Ultimately, however, the main point is that the Yugoslav Communists were deeply divided over what really constituted a “Yugoslav” platform and, besides, they derived their legitimacy from within their republics. For, say, the Croatian Communist leaders of 1989 – who were all of clearly Yugoslavist orientation – to reach out to someone beyond the borders of their republic in order to build an anti-Milosevic coalition, they would have needed courage, enough likeminded partners, an institutional pathway to oust Milosevic, and real payoffs for such a move in the form of increased legitimacy of their rule. They had none of that. As my book demonstrates, their feeble – but still clearly Yugoslavist – response to Milosevic’s campaign was actually the reason for their electoral defeat.
If, on the other hand, Prof. Kanin’s question is referring to the period between the downfall of the League of Communists in early 1990 and the breakup of the country and war in the second half of 1991 – then the answer is slightly different, partly because we are dealing with different actors, and partly because of increased importance of international signals to the Yugoslav players. As my book argues, the only scenario for a possible survival of the Yugoslav state during this period was dependent on the success of the federal government of Ante Markovic, which commenced its program of shock therapy in December 1989, and the success of the plan for the Yugoslav confederation officially proposed by Slovenia and Croatia in the fall of 1990. Since Prof. Kanin devotes some attention to my treatment of both Markovic and the confederal proposal, it may be useful if I answer his aforementioned question by responding to his critique of how these two episodes were dealt with in my book.
Prof. Kanin suggests that I am minimizing the role Ante Markovic played during this period, that I am ignoring his popularity, devaluing the success of his reforms, and taking him to task for “joining Milosevic in condemning Slovene and Croat movements toward independence after the disastrous Congress of Yugoslavia’s League of Communists in January 1990.” However, none of those suggestions are correct. Ante Markovic gets an extensive treatment in my book, from his appointment in early 1989 and the creation of his economic program (pp. 61-66), to his failure to get Western support (pp. 67-69, 80-81, 121-122), his participation in the elections of 1990 (pp. 102, 115), or his role in the war in Slovenia (pp. 169-170, 173, 177-178, 191-192). I also explicitly mention the level of his popular support (p. 120, p. 344n3). And I treat his reforms fairly, in light of their actual success as measured by a variety of economic indicators (presented in Table 5.1 on p. 122) and in light of the response they garnered in the West. Interestingly, I am not the one who termed Markovic’s reforms “illusory”, as Prof. Kanin suggests. It was the CIA, whose National Intelligence Estimate from October 1990 (and which I quote on p. 109) claimed that the reform achievements of Markovic’s government were “mostly illusory”.
As far as taking Ante Markovic to task is concerned, I take Yugoslavia’s last prime minister to task for three things: for harbouring irrational hopes throughout the crisis that the West would bail him out (p. 68), for aiding and abetting the Yugoslavist wing of the JNA in the war in Slovenia, and for the obstructive role his government played in early Western diplomatic efforts during the war in Croatia (as, for example, in the efforts of the CSCE, p. 187). Those criticisms aside, however, I clearly acknowledge the federal prime minister as “the only political actor who presented a pan-Yugoslav alternative to Milosevic” at the turn of the decade and as someone who may have had a chance to neutralize the Serbian leader (p.69). The problem for Markovic, however – and here lies the answer to Prof. Kanin’s question of why pro-Yugoslav forces did not coalesce around the federal prime minister – is that his reforms were doomed to fail without real financial assistance from the West – assistance Markovic never received.
One could also take Ante Markovic to task – though I do not do that in my book – for failing to support the confederal proposal of Slovenia and Croatia, which was officially presented in October 1990. Prof. Kanin suggests that the confederal proposal was not a truly workable plan, but merely a “slogan” which fooled some Westerners. He also suggests that the Slovenes were not intent on reforming Yugoslavia into a confederation, but were only interested in keeping their money. Moreover, Prof. Kanin questions not only whether the Slovene Communist leadership was committed to the idea of a Yugoslav confederation, but also whether it was committed to the idea of liberal democratization, and he asserts I provide no evidence for such claims in my book.
It is certainly true that the bulk of national/nationalist mobilization in Slovenia in the late 1980s, which was condoned and even fostered by the republic’s Communist leadership, was centred on Ljubljana’s financial contributions to the federal budget. This is hardly surprising, considering the economic environment of extreme austerity akin, perhaps, to what Greece has to go through today. To say, however, that the Slovenes wanted to keep more of their money and that they were committed to the idea or reforming Yugoslavia along confederal lines is not mutually exclusive. On the contrary: the confederation was exactly the institutional device which was – among other things – to allow the Slovenes to keep more of their earnings at home. Whether the confederal proposal of October 1990 was practicable or, as Prof. Kanin suggests, “there is no evidence the Slovenes or anyone else actually considered how such a construction would work” is debatable. The proposal was modelled on the European Community and contained a number of different options which were ultimately to be agreed upon in peaceful negotiations of all six republics. The main point is that this platform for negotiations did not “fool” any Westerners, as Prof. Kanin suggests. As my book demonstrates, the confederal proposal was met with basically uniform derision and disregard from the West in late 1990 and early 1991 (pp. 123-124, 137). Only after the Belgrade protests of March 1991 and the violence in Croatia later that April and May, did the Western governments begin to signal their possible acceptance of a confederal reformation of Yugoslavia, but by that time it was too late. It is rather ironic that a number of provisions of the confederal plan found their way into the proposals of the Carrington Conference in the fall of 1991 – after thousands of dead and wounded, and several hundred thousand refugees in the war in Croatia. Had the confederal plan received Western backing and diplomatic involvement in the fall of 1990 when it needed it, it is entirely possible that war could have been avoided, and that some semblance of a common Yugoslav structure could have been preserved.
When it comes to the question of evidence of Slovenia’s commitment to liberal democracy and to Yugoslavia’s confederal future, I can only recommend that Prof. Kanin re-reads the relevant chapters of my book. Is the fact that the leaders of the Slovenian League of Communists took Mladina’s side in its clash with the JNA in 1988 (pp. 27-29) not evidence of their clear choice to defend that quintessentially liberal idea of the freedom of the press? Are the Slovenian constitutional amendments of 1989, which abandoned the Party’s leading role in society and extended the rights of Slovenian citizens in areas such as freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, right to privacy, and freedom for organized participation in politics (pp. 54-56), also not evidence of a commitment to a liberal-democratic transformation? Is the fact that the Slovenian state-run media and the still ruling League of Communists supported Markovic’s reform program in spite of, as the Ljubljana daily Delo put it, the federal prime minister’s “inability to resist the discreet charms of centralization” (p. 65), not evidence of Slovenia’s commitment to a common Yugoslav future? Is the official platform of the League of Communists of Slovenia for the Fourteenth Congress of the federal Party organization, which – in the words of Milan Kucan – was the platform “undoubtedly for Yugoslavia: a voluntary state of equal republics, free and equal nations, a democratic community of free citizens which measures its socialist content and existence by the criteria of a European quality of life… not a Yugoslavia as an extended Serbia to which – according to its wishes – others can be joined” (p. 70) – is this platform not evidence of a still-present commitment to Slovenia’s future in a reformed and democratized Yugoslavia? Are the proposals put forward by the Slovene delegation at the Fourteenth Congress, which included a series of human rights amendments such as the ban on political trials and torture, and which were defeated by Milosevic’s sizeable bloc in the Party (p. 71), not a sign of the commitment of Slovenia’s Communists to liberal democratization? Last, but not least, is the fact that Slovenia was the first republic to call and hold democratic elections, after which the ruling Communists peacefully surrendered their political offices, not evidence of a commitment to liberal democratization? Prof. Kanin is certainly correct in stating that the Slovenes used their financial upper hand in an attempt to negotiate a better deal with the federal centre and that they had used it for years. They were, however, hardly alone in employing such methods.
The case of Slovenian liberalization and democratization is a good introduction to my response to another important critique by Prof. Kanin – the one regarding my supposed inaccurate use of the term Realpolitik to describe the policies of the Western powers. Prof. Kanin uses the example of Bismarck and his ability to mould the European order according to Prussia’s interests to draw a distinction with the Western leaders of the 1980s and 1990s who were operating “in the thrall of inertia”. None of them, as Prof. Kanin argues, deserve the same label of Realpolitiker that belonged to a statesman such as Bismarck.
It is interesting that Prof. Kanin uses Bismarck’s example to challenge my use of the term Realpolitik, because it was exactly the old Chancellor who was often quoted by the Western anti-interventionists who argued – as he did a century earlier – that “The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.” This quote indeed captures the essence of Western Realpolitik when it comes to the breakup of Yugoslavia. Political realism in international relations is primarily concerned with power (derived from military or economic capacity) and the pursuit of stability. It has no place for ethical or ideological concerns. So, what would the quintessential Realpolitiker have done, had he been in some position of power in the West and confronted with the Yugoslav crisis? Well, he would most likely have noted the dwindling importance of Yugoslavia in the European geopolitical system of the late 1980s and he would have wanted it to remain quiet in order to devote his attention to more pressing interests further up north. He would have had little understanding for the liberalization and democratization agenda of Yugoslavia’s north-western republics, or for the clamouring for human rights by the Kosovo Albanians. He would, on the other hand, most likely have supported those who claimed to be fighting for the country’s preservation and centralization, especially since they happened to be wielding the biggest stick.
As my book repeatedly demonstrates, that was exactly the policy pursued by the Western powers until real war broke out in the summer of 1991. Inertia did play a large role, as Prof. Kanin rightly points out, but it was not the only, or even the most important, factor explaining Western policy. To get back to the case of Slovenian liberalization and democratization – inertia alone obviously cannot explain the fact that the Yugoslav Army received Western signals of support for its possible (and contemplated) intervention in Slovenia at the peak of the Mladina affair in 1988 (p. 28-29), as well as during the crisis with the Slovenian constitutional amendments in 1989 (p. 60). Just as inertia alone could not explain a host of other Western policies toward Yugoslavia during the period covered in my book: from the lack of real Western condemnation of the violence against the Kosovo Albanians in early 1989 (with the notable exception of the US Congress) (pp. 39-42); to Cutileiro’s and Carrington’s blackmail of Alija Izetbegovic with the military might of Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs, and with the withholding of the international recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in March 1992 (pp. 294-300).
The important thing to note is that the foreign policy apparatuses of all Western powers – including Germany – subscribed to this rationale until real war broke out in the summer of 1991. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung may have been making a clear distinction between Yugoslavia’s “democratic northwest” and “Communist Belgrade” (as did a number of other press houses elsewhere in the West), but such distinctions did not have any real effect on Germany’s policy toward Yugoslavia. What changed Bonn’s outlook on the crisis were the extreme violence and the clear aggression, first of the JNA on Slovenia, and then of Serbia on Croatia. As I argue in the concluding chapter of my book (p. 307),
The nature and the aims of the Serbian aggression galvanized some of the most deeply ingrained principled ideas within the German foreign policy community: the idea of peaceful self-determination (which had been the basis for Germany’s reunification), the idea of strong anti-expansionism and anti-irredentism (which stemmed from Germany’s own World War II traumas), and the idea of a strong commitment to the growing capability of European multilateral institutions (which was the foundation of Germany’s post–World War II foreign policy). It was Milosevic’s challenge to these three principled ideas which shifted the spotlight of German foreign policy makers away from their material interests in the continuing existence of Yugoslavia – and if any country had real material interests in the perpetuation of the Yugoslav federation, it was Germany – to the moral interests of self-determination for Yugoslavia’s republics and Europe’s strong resistance to Serbia’s expansionism.
The point is that Germany’s policy shift cannot be, as Prof. Kanin does, viewed outside the context of the extreme violence which was unleashed on Croatia and was threatened to be unleashed on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Prof. Kanin’s suggestion that Germany pursued the policy of recognition of Slovenia and Croatia without consideration for what would happen for the rest of the federation is false. As my book shows, Germany had a clear preference for the recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Slovenia and Croatia, but was forced to take a back seat due to the intense criticism it was subjected to, primarily by Britain and France. Unsurprisingly, and unfortunately, the Western diplomatic, humanitarian, and military effort in Bosnia and Herzegovina thus reverted back to the very same mistakes which marred its inglorious beginnings in Slovenia and Croatia. Had my book been longer than the already lengthy 432 pages, and had it continued into the Bosnian war, the analysis would have not only shown Milosevic repeatedly hoodwinking the Westerners, as Prof. Kanin suggests. It would have shown a long record of ultimately unsuccessful Western struggles to shake off their impulses of Realpolitik and appeasement – impulses which culminated with what Prof. Kanin rightfully labels the needless mistake of Dayton.
Dr. Josip Glaurdic is Junior Research Fellow at Clare College, University of Cambridge. He earned his PhD in Political Science in 2009 at Yale University.
An immediate response by David B. Kanin:
Josip,
Thank you very much for taking the time to consider my review and respond to it. I am just about to get on a plane to Istanbul and then other places, so I hope you will not be offended by this very quick response.
First, you mischaracterize just a bit my comments on your treatment of Ante Markovic. In fact, I believe you gave him the right amount of attention and only would quibble with minor points of what you say about him. In fact, I meant to use your appropriate consideration of his shortcomings and failures to take a shot at those who have built up a mythology that he was a would-be liberal alternative to Milosevic and the others who brought Yugoslavia down.
When it comes to Slovenia, the issue is not whether its leaders were sincere about a society more open than Milosevic’s Serbia. The issue is whether – even before Milosevic came to power – they were sincere in their commitment to maintaining Yugoslavia at all. I believe they were not – they knew no re-tinkered “confederation” would hold together and prepared the ground carefully and over time to get out. You believe otherwise – I look forward to more exchanges with you on this point. In my view, part of the problem here is – as I wrote in my review – your narrow focus (1987-1992) just does not cover enough ground to consider the context and follow-on impact of your spot-on assessment of Western disarray and contradictory policies.
As to Bismarck – I agree he knew little about the Balkans, which is why he kept his country out of the region and worried about the implications of how Russia and Austro-Hungary played out their rivalry in the region. I must confess a little disappointment that your comments focused on Bismarck more than my critique of your treatment of Genscher and German policy in 1990-2.
On the later issue, I agree with you entirely that Germany’s policy shift cannot be considered separately from the context of the violence unleashed on Croatia (but not just Croatia). I disagree with your book’s contention that the Germans put the same priority on Bosnia’s independence as on Croatia’s – if that were the case they would not have been ready to drop the issue in reaction to the chaos in the policies of other Europeans until the Americans belatedly stepped in.
These are details, albeit not all minor ones. I want to stress again how valuable I believe your book is – I very much look forward to learning from the fruits of your future research. If I can ever be of any assistance to you, please let me know.
David B. Kanin is an adjunct professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University and a former senior intelligence analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Stefan, I wholeheartedly agree with your opinions, and I applaud your passion for a strong and non-servile Serbia with clear interests in its legal southern province and brothers in BiH and Croatia. This current quisling government is betraying the interests of the srpski narod through its policy of “EU or bust”. Now, EU representatives like Ulrike Lunacek are explicitly stating that Serbia will have to recognize an independent and multi-ethinic Kosovo, but we all know that “multi-ethnic” would be a loose term in any sense of meaning. It should not deal with the criminal Albanians who parade around as legitimate politicians in a fake state created through terrorism and NATO aggression which lead to the near cleansing of the Serbian population from KiM.
The EU’s blackmail is now reaching new heights while at the same time Tadic and Co. pushes the country along a path which may very well end in a dead end. “Arrest Mladic and Hadzic”; “you are not doing enough to find them”; “you must recognize Kosovo”; “ditch the excise tax”; “privatize and liberalize”; “enact controversial anti-discrimination laws”; “protect your gays”…when does it end for these people in Brussels? Despite Dr. Keil’s “run of the mill” response to your piece on this site, Serbia has alternatives to the EU and a chance for self-preservation. Dr. Keil, I do not see how other current EU member-states have had to sacrifice as much as Serbia has and will have to to abide by the EU’s acquis and the endless instances of conditionality imposed on the side. The acquis is an ever-growing corpus juris which has been largely proposed by the original EC/EU countries, and in that fact one can see that they had a much easier time in meeting rules while promulgating newer, more stringent and ridiculous ones along the years for prospective new members. This is a club of elites which has opened itself so it can lord over the “lower caste” of members in a revival of their extinct empires. The current Commission President, Barrosso from Portugal, even compared the EU to an empire. He did this with a straight face. Serbia may not be Switzerland, Dr., but it can exist within the gray margins of Europe if it finds a truly reliable partner in Russia; Russia is much more reliable than the EU’s system of demands and disregard for national sovereignty.
I want to say that there is nothing racist in this comment, even though the usual suspects will try to label it like that.
Racism is a Fact of life, and it is a topic that needs to be discussed in a proper manner in any Democracy that values Freedom of Speech.
This comment is a discussion on how others could use Racism to further their evil goals, and it is only by knowledge that we can be ready to handle matters sensibly and correctly.
There could be some People who think that certain People have been Blackmailed to say that the Kosovo Albanians are pure.
We know this because Anglo-America and the Nazis of Europe under Anglo-American Supervision will use Wikileaks to publish lies for them when it needs those lies published from a possible credible source.
People know that Anglo-America will Blackmail whoever they need to say what America wants to be said, or to refrain from saying what Anglo-America does not want said.
I want to say that much of the Cables that were given to Wikileaks are the correct wording; however, a few lies could have been slipped in if Wikileaks was a CIA front to begin with.
It needs to be said that even if Wikileaks is pure, this of itself does not mean that everything that is dumped there and published is true.
America just does not care what the Cables say, because Puppets are Puppets; they will be ordered to continue to be Puppets, and they will continue to obey orders.
If the Wikileaks Cables can publish lies to divide Anglo-America’s enemies, then it is a definite asset to Anglo-America.
Wikileaks has conveniently been given Data on Secret Swiss Bank Accounts, which could even be false Data on Secret Swiss Bank Accounts, either from an honest source, or from a CIA approved source.
If the Kosovo Albanians are said to be Criminals and Terrorists, by Europeans, then many People think that the European Union should impose a fair Autonomy on the Kosovo Albanians.
If the Kosovo Albanians are said to be Pure, then many People think that they should immediately start Proper Negotiations in order to Prove that Purity.
It could be that with all that Purity, the Serbian Citizens of Albanian Ethnicity, will be able to Negotiate a Fair Autonomy to prove to the entire World that different Races can live together in the same Country.
There has been many conversations and in many Countries concerning the role of Jews in their Countries.
We have how seen how Prominent Jews like Boris Berezovsky have been accused of stealing Russia’s money and fleeing to Britain and other corrupt Countries that will not extradite them, to answer the charges against them.
It is interesting how Transparency International says that Russia is a very corrupt place to do Business, and yet somehow Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who became the Richest Man in Russia, is Supposedly Pure.
We all know that a Corrupt Business Environment is like a septic tank where the solids will always rise to the top.
The Media and much of the Stolen Wealth in Russia is mainly Foreign Owned, even though it is owned by Russian Jews.
It is just like saying that Kosovo Albanians are Serbian Citizens whose first loyalties are to Serbia rather than to Albania.
We know that Hitler was unjust to the Jews, because the Jews of Germany did not have, and could not have any loyalty to the Modern Nation of Israel, because the Modern Nation of Israel was only created after the Second World War.
Today, it could be true that the loyalty of some Jews is only to Israel rather than to the country that they are Citizens of.
Many People blame the Jews for stealing Russia’s Wealth; and they say that Jews are Foreigners who are not loyal to the country of their Citizenship, but are working for a Foreign Country, Israel, at the Expense of the Country of their Citizenship.
If the Kosovo Albanians are said to be Criminals and Terrorists, by Europeans, then many People think that the European Union should impose a fair Autonomy on the Kosovo Albanians.
If the Kosovo Albanians are said to be Pure, then many People think that they should start Proper Negotiations in order to Prove that Purity.
It could be that with all that Purity, the Serbian Citizens of Albanian Ethnicity, will be able to Negotiate a Fair Autonomy to prove to the entire World that different Races can live together in the same Country.
I wrote a comment at least a year ago, where I discussed how the Opposition of a country can know how much electoral support they have, and all Anglo-American Politicians know of the scheme.
I will neither confirm nor deny that I am a Secret CIA Agent, because if I say one way or another, then some will think that I am lying regardless of my answer.
However, I will just say truthfully that the Anglo-American Politicians and their Think Tanks have access to whatever I write.
I am not surprised in the least that Nazi Germany is implicated in this, but I am saddened to think that Poland may have been corrupted because of bad association with Nazi Germany.
We all know that the Media in the West is just a willing and compliant tool of their Government’s, and the German Speigal Online had the Headlines: Tunisia has become North Africa’s Belarus.
History has shown on many occasions that Britain and America have engineered the overthrow of Democratically and Popularly Elected Governments.
We know the recent and regrettable turmoil in Tunisia, and Germany wants to make a comparison with Belarus, in a hope to overthrow a Popular and Democratically Elected President of a European Country.
I hope that Germany and Poland did not plan the Katyn memorial service plane crash to help a Puppet of their win the Election in Belarus to give up Belarusian territory for free to Poland so that Germany could pay Poland to sell Germany, German land that Poland now controls.
Another thing that people need to know is that if Anglo-America sees a good scheme; then, BE CERTAIN that they will use it to further their Evil Schemes.
It would require that they send their people to conduct Proper Scientifically Based Polls Discreetly among their people and ask them how they intend to vote at the next Election.
If you had the country divided into three hundred survey sectors, then the Western Sponsored Opposition could secretly, discreetly, and informally ask 50 people in each sector how they intend to vote at the next Election.
This information is then collected, processed, and analysed to see what the Election Day result will be.
I want to mention that the West does not use Colours in their Colour Revolutions, because people are wise to it, but it is the same as a Colour Revolution, and for the sake of convenience, I will refer to it as a Colour Revolution.
If the Opposition Parties know that the Incumbent will comfortably with 65% of the vote, even after they have done their best at campaigning, then they know that they can only become the Government if they steal it.
They could ask their supporters to vote tactically for the Incumbent Candidate, even though he is not their preferred Candidate, because if you are going to lose the Election, then it does not matter by how much you lose the Election.
This will result in the Incumbent Candidate receiving a huge percentage of the vote, and it will be used by the Opposition as justification to attempt a Colour Revolution.
This is because the Western Sponsored Opposition will falsely use this as some type of evidence that the Election was rigged, by saying that no one could win that big, and using that false assumption as justification for their Terrorism.
The Opposition knows all along that it would loose the Election, because this is the Western Sponsored Plan.
However, the Opposition will try to become the Government by claiming Election Fraud, and they will do this by means of a Western Sponsored Colour Revolution.
The Fact that many votes were cast by Opposition Voters with Conspiratorial Motives does not alter the fact that they are formal and legal votes that need to be legitimated counted, and awarded accordingly.
We all know that Anglo-America and the Nazis of Europe will always find people who lust for MONEY to be their Puppets.
The Nazis of the European Union have shown once again to care nothing about human rights of their victims in Europe, and this is seen with the persecution of the Nazi favourites who are Gypsies, Jews, and Slavs.
This is because to the Nazis of the European Union, the fundamental things apply as time goes by.
All Decent and Honest People know that Alexander Lukashenko is the duly elected President of Belarus, regardless of the recognition or non-recognition of this fact in some Western Capitals.
Another major reason why the Honourable President of Belarus was overwhelmingly re-elected was because the Voters of Belarus know him to Wise and Kind.
Nazi Germany wants Belarus to have another Election, because they want a Puppet in Mink who will give away Belarusian Land to Poland, so that Poland can give German land back to Germany.
The 15% of Voters who voted for the Incumbent President will now not vote for him, and the fact that he could lose another 30% of the vote because people do not like early elections, and because many will now think that the first Election was rigged because of the need for having the second Election, and because of Constant Nazi Lies.
This will mean that the Incumbent President could very easily lose the second Election, and the Lying Scheming Nazis will falsely claim that an Election loss is proof that the First Election was rigged.
If the Incumbent wins the second Election with a lower majority, then the Nazis of Europe will say that he again rigged the Election.
The Free, Fair, and Democratic Election Result in Belarus will Stand; and those who are charged with crimes will have a fair trial, because this is the Rule Of Law.
If the original Election was rigged, it was tactically rigged by Opposition supporters voting for the Incumbent President, because they knew he would win the First Election with or without their votes.
There is a story about a young child of Opposition Protestors that will have to go to what is incorrectly called an orphanage because his live parents who should have exercised parental responsibility are in jail for terrorism, and the Nazis are making a sob story over it.
I do not minimize the situation in the slightest, but it would be interesting to know the number of orphans that the West has deliberately created of children with dead parents who were innocent in Iraq alone, just to put this into some proper perspective.
There has been much needless discussion debating the fact that anyone who manages the economy as expertly like the Democratically Elected Honourable President of Belarus does, will naturally be very popular, and will obviously be comfortably Re-Elected.
I know there are people who want Belarus to join up with Russia, and then there are some European Union Countries who want Belarus to be an Independent Country.
The European Union probably will not that they do not want Belarus and Russia to join up and be one Country.
They will more than likely say something cunning and deceptive like; some people think that two minds are better than one.
They may succeed in convincing Russia and Belarus to be two different Countries; because, Britain and America are the Masters of the Divide and Rule Tactic.
I will not offer an opinion, because that is a matter for the People of Belarus and the People of Russia to decide.
I will just say that I will be happy with either decision, because both of them have their advantages.
I really have not given it any thought, and I do not want to give it any thought, because it is not my business.
There are People in Germany and Poland who would like to change the borders of their countries, as long as it is done by agreement.
They want to change the borders of their Countries in accordance with International Law, and in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
Any proposed Negotiations would involve talks between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Romania, Moldova, and Germany, because these are the countries that need to be discussing this matter.
I do not know the History of the region, and I think it is better to be more generic, and say that the Countries in these discussions would includes Russia, Germany, Poland, and some countries of Eastern Europe, the Baltic States, and the Balkans.
Poland would return German land back to Germany for the agreed swap of Belarusian Territory that Poland considers to be Polish Land.
Moldova would grant Transnistria, also known as Trans-Dniestr its Independence, and Germany pays money for the Compensation to Moldova and Belarus for the loss of their Territory.
It could be that the Ukraine may have to give some territory to Belarus, or Belarus to Ukraine depending on what the situation is.
Germany will pay all Financial Compensation that cannot be covered by Territorial Compensation.
Each of the interested Countries should create a Committee of Experts to share the initial proposition with the other Countries at the Discussions.
The new Moldova could then be in a better position to join the European Union if it wanted to, or it could join Romania if Romania leaves the European Union.
History has shown that it is in Anglo-America’s interest to have a divide Europe, but I think that this proposal could speed up European Integration.
Belarus has a Peaceful and Legal System in place that would examine any dispute of the Election Result, and any deviation from that could be classed as Terrorism.
Moldova’s recent Election Result was disputed, and the Peaceful and Legal System that Moldova had a recount, and found that no voting irregularities of fraud were found, and that the first counting of the votes is correct.
The European Union should have waited a few days, and asked for an enquiry from all Parties, and the testimony of Genuine Investigative Journals who know German and Polish History to provide documentation for impartial consideration.
The Presidential Election in Belarus resulted in an obviously predictable victory for the country’s revered leader Alexander Lukashenko, who, according to official results, won an overwhelming majority of the vote.
I do accept the Official Results as being both accurate and credible given the known circumstances.
We all know that in difficult Global Financial and Economic Times, the people will vote for the person who has a proven track record of cushioning the effect of a Global Recession on his country.
The President of Belarus has experience in managing the Economy, and it was his experience that was a very desirable quality that impressed the voters to vote for him.
This is the main reason why the Democratically Elected Honourable President of Belarus won the confidence overwhelming majority of the Voters.
It should not be overlooked, nor should it be underestimated that the Opposition did poorly because it was fragmented, divided, and especially it was inexperienced for the economic challenges in this difficult Global Economic Situation.
What was not completely unexpected; however, was the probability of interference from the Nazis of Europe who always attempted a Colour Revolution, even after a Perfected Free, Fair, and Democratic Election based on the Highest possible Standards of any Democratic Country.
I am not surprised in the least that Nazi Germany is implicated in this, but I am saddened to think that Poland may have been corrupted because of bad association with Nazi Germany.
We all know that the Media in the West is just a willing and compliant tool of their Government’s, and the German Speigal Online had the Headlines: Tunisia has become North Africa’s Belarus.
History has shown on many occasions that Britain and America have engineered the overthrow of Democratically and Popularly Elected Governments.
There is an old saying that says: If you do not stand for something, then you will fall for anything.
Belarus stands for Democracy and the Rule of Law, and Belarus is determined to ensure that there are no more Nazi Sponsored Colour Revolutions for Europe.
I want to say that there is nothing racist in this comment, even though the usual suspects will try to label it like that.
Racism is a Fact of life, and it is a topic that needs to be discussed in a proper manner in any Democracy that values Freedom of Speech, and seek solutions to problems.
This comment is a discussion on how others could use Racism to further their evil goals, and it is only by knowledge that we can be ready to handle matters sensibly and correctly.
There could be some People who think that certain People have been Bribed or Blackmailed to say that the Kosovo Albanians are Pure.
We know this because Anglo-America and the some European Union Countries under Anglo-American Supervision will use the Gosip Pages of Wikileaks even unwittingly to publish lies for them when it needs those lies published from a possible credible source.
People know that Anglo-America will Bribe or Blackmail whoever they need to say what America wants to be said, or to refrain from saying what Anglo-America does not want said.
I want to say that much of the UnDiplomatic Cables that were given to Wikileaks are the correct wording; however, a few lies could have been slipped in if Wikileaks was a CIA front to begin with.
It needs to be said that even if Wikileaks is Pure, this of itself does not mean that everything that is dumped there and published is true.
Wikileaks has just been given Data on Secret Swiss Bank Accounts, which could even be false Data on Secret Swiss Bank Accounts, either from an honest source, or from a CIA approved source.
There has been many conversations and in many Countries concerning the role of Jews in their Countries.
We have how seen how Prominent Jews like Boris Berezovsky have been accused of stealing Russia’s money and fleeing to Britain and other Countries that will not extradite them, to answer the criminal charges against them.
It is interesting how Transparency International says that Russia is a very corrupt place to do Business, and yet somehow Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who became the Richest Man in Russia, is Supposedly Pure.
We all know that a Corrupt Business Environment is like a septic tank where the solids will always rise to the top.
Russia has just cleaned up Corruption in the Business Community, and is now an ideal place to invest money.
The Media and much of the Stolen Wealth in Russia is mainly Foreign Owned, even though it is owned by Russian Jews.
It is just like saying that Kosovo Albanians are Serbian Citizens whose first loyalties are to Serbia rather than to Albania.
We know that Hitler was unjust to the Jews, because the Jews of Germany did not have, and could not have any loyalty to the Modern Nation of Israel, because the Modern Nation of Israel was only created after the Second World War.
Today, it could be true that the loyalty of some Jews is only to Israel rather than to the country that they are Citizens of.
Many People blame the Jews for stealing Russia’s Wealth; and they say that Jews are Foreigners who are not loyal to the country of their Citizenship, but are working for a Foreign Country, Israel, at the Expense of the Country of their Citizenship.
If the Kosovo Albanians are said to be Criminals and Terrorists, by Europeans, then many People think that the European Union should impose a fair Autonomy on the Kosovo Albanians.
If the Kosovo Albanians are said to be Pure, then many People think that they should start Proper Negotiations in order to Prove that Purity.
It could be that with all that Purity, the Serbian Citizens of Albanian Ethnicity, will be able to Negotiate a Fair Autonomy to prove to the entire World that different Races can live together in the same Country.
I wonder if this is why America did not have Oil which is called Black gold as a Gold Standard during the Days of the USSR, because it would have allowed the USSR to have a Reserve for its Printed Currency.
We know that the Metal Gold, is kept in vaults, and the Oil or Black Gold is kept in an underground safe.
Perhaps they were waiting for Mikhail Khodorkovsky and others to control much of the Oil and Gas industry before America went to the Oil Standard.
If others do not want to by or sell in Russian currency, then perhaps the Barter System can be used as a type of Reserve Currency for Russia’s trading partners.
Perhaps Ukraine should default on all its loans, and borrow from Russian Banks that are backed up Natural Resources at a fair interest rate.
There would need to be a Truth and Reconciliation Process with immunity for those who confess to purge Corruption in Business Practices.
There would also need to be proper Economic Policies, but I cannot say what they are, but if you want to be successful, then COPY successful People.
I want to say that I know very little on the subjects of Economics, Banking, and Finance, but I do have some thoughts on these matters.
We know that the Gold Standard was used for Banking as a security for the printed Bank Notes, and perhaps this is what America was planning with their Puppet Khodorkovsky.
We know that Oil is called Black Gold, and possibly the Entire Known Oil Reserves of a country can be used to back up the value of their Printed Currency.
I think that the only country that could go to the Oil Standard is Russia, because America might consider invading and occupying Muslim Countries that tried it.
If Russia did go to the Oil Standard, then it could change the attitudes some Oil Producing countries in the Middle East toward Russia.
Again, I want to say that it is only a suggestion from a person who is a novice as regards to Economics, Banking, and Finance, and that is why it should only be done if it is recommended by Impartial Experts.
The only problem with Experts is the fact they many Experts may have vested interests, rather than examining the suggestion only on its Merits.
I think that Ukraine should threaten to default on all IMF, World Bank, and EU Loans if the Nazis of Europe do not give the SAA money in a reasonable time.
After the Nazis of Europe give the SAA money, then Ukraine should Blackmail the Nazis of Europe for something else, until the Nazis of Europe cannot give anything more to Ukraine.
After that, Ukraine should default on all IMF, World Bank, and EU loans and borrow money from Russia.
An International Summit Conference on the Topic of how Business is Corrupt will help Business Investment to Ukraine.
This is because Investors will be Confident that Corruption has been cleaned up like it has in Russia, and Ukraine will have Foreign Investment and Full Employment.
We have just seen another example of how intelligent the English are because the want a Northern European Alliance.
It is a fact that the English usually accomplish several policy objectives with the same policy.
I do not think that anyone European should be Politician unless they are a Good Student of The British Empire.
This is because they should know how a small group of intelligent people created the Largest Global Empire that has ever existed.
There are several policy objectives, and I will not put them in order of importance, because to the English, they are all of them are important.
Britain would like to keep America in the fold for a yet, rather than America and China becoming Military Allies, which the English and the North Europeans have suspected for quite some time.
America does not do things for no reason, and America did destroy deliberately destroy its economy to help China, unless there is a good reason for that.
The North European Alliance may make America delay a formal Military Alliance with China for a while because America needs the European Union, but not for long.
The English want the Southern Europeans, who are known as Blacks to be puppetized to the White Northern Europeans.
They want them to know that they will be Puppets until America, China, and Israel will occupy Southern Europe using Camp Bondsteel and the Albanians.
They will cleanse much of the Balkans to put Arabs there that the Israelis do not want in their neighbourhood.
After that they will be thinking of Russia’s Resources, regardless of what lies are spoken.
The British will not care what Continental Europe is like, because they are an Island, and this may make the Irish want to become a part of Britain.
Britain and America will always be allies, or at least they will not be enemies at the very least, and the Irish will want to join up with Britain like it was in the old days.
The British are wanting to appease Belarus, because Germany, Poland, and possibly other Countries want to discuss borders, and these just happen to be in Northern European.
Britain and America wants to break up The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and the BRIC arrangement, and anything else that Russia is a part of including the State Union with Belarus, and the CIS.
It all hinges on Camp Bondsteel and Kosovo’s Independence, and Russia should just say that they will exercise their Rights at the United Nations Security Council, and that an Independent Kosovo cannot exist before Camp Bondsteel has been reduced to Rubble, and America has Completely and Permanently left Continental Europe.
The Continental Europeans and even the British want America to Completely and Permanently leave Continental Europe.
The Americans should not view Politeness for lack of Resolve, neither should they view it as a licence for slowness in complying with European Aspirations for Freedom and Security.
I am certain that there are other Policy Objectives that the English have, but other can consider them, as I have just mentioned the main Policy Objectives.
If the Kosovo Albanians are said to be Criminals and Terrorists, by Europeans, then many People think that the European Union should impose a fair Autonomy on the Kosovo Albanians.
If the Kosovo Albanians are said to be Pure, then many People think that they should start Proper Negotiations in order to Prove that Purity.
It could be that with all that Purity, the Serbian Citizens of Albanian Ethnicity, will be able to Negotiate a Fair Autonomy to prove to the entire World that different Races can live together in the same Country.
It needs to be asked if China, Britain, America, Israel, and the Albanians planned long ago to invade Continental Europe after Britain left Hong Kong.
The plan is to use Camp Bondsteel and the Northern European NATO to conquer Southern Europe.
Britain always knew that they would have to leave Hong Kong in 1997, and that was two years before NATO’s Illegal and Criminal War of Aggression against Serbia.
We have just seen another example of how intelligent the English are because the want a Northern European Alliance.
It is a fact that the English usually accomplish several policy objectives with the same policy.
I do not think that anyone European should be Politician unless they are a Good Student of The British Empire.
This is because they should know how a small group of intelligent people created the Largest Global Empire that has ever existed.
There are several policy objectives, and I will not put them in order of importance, because to the English, they are all of them are important.
Britain would like to keep America in the fold for a yet, rather than America and China becoming Military Allies, which the English and the North Europeans have suspected for quite some time.
America does not do things for no reason, and America did destroy deliberately destroy its economy to help China, unless there is a good reason for that.
The North European Alliance may make America delay a formal Military Alliance with China for a while because America needs the European Union, but not for long.
The English want the Southern Europeans, who are known as Blacks to be puppetized to the White Northern Europeans.
They want them to know that they will be Puppets until America, China, and Israel will occupy Southern Europe using Camp Bondsteel and the Albanians.
They will cleanse much of the Balkans to put Arabs there that the Israelis do not want in their neighbourhood.
After that they will be thinking of Russia’s Resources, regardless of what lies are spoken.
The British will not care what Continental Europe is like, because they are an Island, and this may make the Irish want to become a part of Britain.
Britain and America will always be allies, or at least they will not be enemies at the very least, and the Irish will want to join up with Britain like it was in the old days.
The British are wanting to appease Belarus, because Germany, Poland, and possibly other Countries want to discuss borders, and these just happen to be in Northern European.
Britain and America wants to break up The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and the BRIC arrangement, and anything else that Russia is a part of including the State Union with Belarus, and the CIS.
It all hinges on Camp Bondsteel and Kosovo’s Independence, and Russia should just say that they will exercise their Rights at the United Nations Security Council, and that an Independent Kosovo cannot exist before Camp Bondsteel has been reduced to Rubble, and America has Completely and Permanently left Continental Europe.
The Continental Europeans and even the British want America to Completely and Permanently leave Continental Europe.
The Americans should not view Politeness for lack of Resolve, neither should they view it as a licence for slowness in complying with European Aspirations for Freedom and Security.
I am certain that there are other Policy Objectives that the English have, but other can consider them, as I have just mentioned the main Policy Objectives.
If the Kosovo Albanians are said to be Criminals and Terrorists, by Europeans, then many People think that the European Union should impose a fair Autonomy on the Kosovo Albanians.
If the Kosovo Albanians are said to be Pure, then many People think that they should start Proper Negotiations in order to Prove that Purity.
It could be that with all that Purity, the Serbian Citizens of Albanian Ethnicity, will be able to Negotiate a Fair Autonomy to prove to the entire World that different Races can live together in the same Country.
It needs to be asked if China, Britain, America, Israel, and the Albanians planned long ago to invade Continental Europe after Britain left Hong Kong.
The plan is to use Camp Bondsteel and the Northern European NATO to conquer Southern Europe.
Britain always knew that they would have to leave Hong Kong in 1997, and that was two years before NATO’s Illegal and Criminal War of Aggression against Serbia.
We have just seen another example of how intelligent the English are because the want a Northern European Alliance.
It is a fact that the English usually accomplish several policy objectives with the same policy.
I do not think that anyone European should be Politician unless they are a Good Student of The British Empire.
This is because they should know how a small group of intelligent people created the Largest Global Empire that has ever existed.
There are several policy objectives, and I will not put them in order of importance, because to the English, they are all of them are important.
Britain would like to keep America in the fold for a yet, rather than America and China becoming Military Allies, which the English and the North Europeans have suspected for quite some time.
America does not do things for no reason, and America did destroy deliberately destroy its economy to help China, unless there is a good reason for that.
The North European Alliance may make America delay a formal Military Alliance with China for a while because America needs the European Union, but not for long.
The English want the Southern Europeans, who are known as Blacks to be puppetized to the White Northern Europeans.
They want them to know that they will be Puppets until America, China, and Israel will occupy Southern Europe using Camp Bondsteel and the Albanians.
They will cleanse much of the Balkans to put Arabs there that the Israelis do not want in their neighbourhood.
After that they will be thinking of Russia’s Resources, regardless of what lies are spoken.
The British will not care what Continental Europe is like, because they are an Island, and this may make the Irish want to become a part of Britain.
Britain and America will always be allies, or at least they will not be enemies at the very least, and the Irish will want to join up with Britain like it was in the old days.
The British are wanting to appease Belarus, because Germany, Poland, and possibly other Countries want to discuss borders, and these just happen to be in Northern European.
Britain and America wants to break up The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and the BRIC arrangement, and anything else that Russia is a part of including the State Union with Belarus, and the CIS.
It all hinges on Camp Bondsteel and Kosovo’s Independence, and Russia should just say that they will exercise their Rights at the United Nations Security Council, and that an Independent Kosovo cannot exist before Camp Bondsteel has been reduced to Rubble, and America has Completely and Permanently left Continental Europe.
The Continental Europeans and even the British want America to Completely and Permanently leave Continental Europe.
The Americans should not view Politeness for lack of Resolve, neither should they view it as a licence for slowness in complying with European Aspirations for Freedom and Security.
I am certain that there are other Policy Objectives that the English have, but other can consider them, as I have just mentioned the main Policy Objectives.
If the Kosovo Albanians are said to be Criminals and Terrorists, by Europeans, then many People think that the European Union should impose a fair Autonomy on the Kosovo Albanians.
If the Kosovo Albanians are said to be Pure, then many People think that they should start Proper Negotiations in order to Prove that Purity.
It could be that with all that Purity, the Serbian Citizens of Albanian Ethnicity, will be able to Negotiate a Fair Autonomy to prove to the entire World that different Races can live together in the same Country.
I know that the Anglo-American Politicians have been reading my comments, and I am Certain that they have gleaned anything of Use.
Logic strongly tells me that Britain and America have been Blackmailing their Puppets who Lust For MONEY to be first Secretly Filmed in Acts of Paedophilia or Bestiality.
Many Serbs have long wondered if Boris Tadic and other Leading Puppet Politicians in Serbia, have been Secretly Filmed in Acts of Paedophilia, or Bestiality, before receiving Money from Britain and America.
There are many People who think that the People who attended the Secret Nazi Summit made a pact between each other by being Secretly Filmed in Acts of Paedophilia or Bestiality to prove their Puppet Credentials.
For the sake of minimizing ambiguity, and for maximizing clarity, I use the terms Soviet Union 1 or SU 1 for the Soviet Union before WW 2, and Soviet Union 2, or SU 2 for the Soviet Union after Germany surrendered.
I also use the more generic term Soviet Union in this comment for the time that Mikhail Gorbachev was President of the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union 2 was in a time of transition.
I do not minimize or ignore the oppression that was associated with occupation, because oppression at home and in other countries is an unavoidable of occupation.
Even America with its lies of pure motives has not been able to have a lovely occupation as Wikileaks has shown us, and common sense should tell us.
Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Serbian Province of Kosovo are some Perfect Examples that even the ‘Purity’ of American Occupation is not pretty.
Soviet Union 1 is smaller in land mass, because Soviet Union 2 includes several countries of Eastern Europe and includes the Baltic States.
For the sake of convenience, I refer to the Baltic States and Eastern Europe collectively as Eastern Europe.
This vital clarification method is employed in order assist Scholars and Historians grasp True Historical Facts.
All Scholars and Historians realize that we should only believe approximately 50% of what we see, hear, or read in any year.
We must not blame Joseph Stalin to the same extent as we must blame Britain and America for the need of Soviet Union 1 to occupy Eastern Europe, and then become Soviet Union 2.
The British Empire and America could have easily won the War in Europe in by 1942, and done this without allowing the Soviet Union 1 to annex any Eastern European Countries.
The British Empire and America convinced Joseph Stalin and other High Officials of SU 1 that it was good for their HEALTH to occupy and rule Eastern Europe.
Otherwise, the Soviet Union would be occupied by Anglo-America and Eastern Europe and the HEALTH of Soviet Leaders would become a matter of discussion.
The Soviet leaders knew it to be a rare but vital truth from Anglo-America, and they knew that they had no choice other than to be a Puppet to Britain and America as far as reluctantly occupying Eastern Europe was concerned.
The Tehran Conference was the first of three meetings between the leaders of the Soviet Union 1, The British Empire, and America, and was held between November 28 and December 1, 1943, most of which was held at the Soviet Embassy in Tehran, Iran.
Britain and America did not want to make all of Europe Democratic, Prosperous, and Free, because it would be a rival and a threat to their Global Hegemony.
The leaders of the Soviet Union 1 and the Soviet Union 2 knew that Britain and America would always put their own interests first, and that they had to look after the interests of the Soviet Union 1 and the Soviet Union 2.
Britain and America kept the Europeans fighting hard against each other in order to weaken Europe and strengthen Anglo-America in comparison to Continental Europe.
Anglo-America did this by dividing and puppetizing Western Europe in order to Directly Rule Western Europe, and effectively ‘rule’ Eastern Europe to poverty and insignificance for their Evil Goal of maintaining their Global Hegemony.
Britain and America made a ‘deal’ with the Soviet Union saying that they would not expand NATO if the Soviet Union withdrew from Eastern Europe.
Joseph Stalin and other High Officials of SU 1 were told in no uncertain terms that if they did not occupy Eastern Europe, then Anglo-America and the rest of Continental Europe would invade and occupy Soviet Union 1.
The Soviet leaders were made an offer by Anglo-America they simply could not refuse, and History should make a note of that Fact.
Britain and America created NATO in 1949 not to prevent the Soviet Union 2 from taking more of Europe, but Soviet Union 2 was told again that if it did not continue to occupy Eastern Europe, then Eastern Europe would join NATO against Soviet Union 2.
Anglo-America and the Russians both knew that SU 1 and SU 2 had to occupy lands of their fellow Slavs, or be conquered and occupied by the West.
The Soviet leaders had no choice in implementing this policy that was designed to cause disunity among the Slavic Peoples, until Michael Gorbachev became President of the Soviet Union 2.
President Mikhail Gorbachev was a completely new and different post World War 2 Soviet Leader who would not be Anglo-America’s Puppet under any circumstances.
President Mikhail Gorbachev had the policy of Fairness, Justice, and Equity toward Eastern Europe.
Anglo-America was naturally extremely furious that the Soviet Union rejected the policies of occupying Eastern Europe, and was preparing to leave Eastern Europe.
Britain and America did love a divided Europe where they could be the Puppet Master, and call others an Evil Empire; while they were the Britain and America were the ones who engineered the occupation of Eastern Europe.
Britain and America told Western Europe that if they did not like it, then they would get there Puppet, Soviet Union 2 to conquer and occupy Western Europe.
Of course, Britain and America could not, and would not publicly express their anger, and so they had to pretend to be the friend of Soviet Union while plotting its demise.
The Soviet Union would have wanted Anglo-America to keep their part of the ‘deal’ to Not expand NATO, but the Soviet Union was determined to pursue the Policy of Fairness, Justice, and Equity toward Eastern Europe regardless of what Britain and America were scheming.
We see how the West was really planning the encirclement of Russia, regardless of the lies Zionist Controlled America spoke.
China has seen how the West uses Democracy to break up the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and how the Jews nearly stole Russia with their long planned CIA scheme.
As far as China is concerned, they have all the Democracy they will ever want or need, and if America does not like it, then they can Whistle Dixie.
This is because the occupation was expensive, and it kept Eastern Europe poor, and it kept the Soviet Union from attaining its economic potential.
The leaders of Soviet Union starting with Joseph Stalin and including Mikhail Gorbachev could not bring themselves to tell anyone of their Puppetship to Anglo-America.
Even though President Boris Yeltsin was the President of Russia rather than the Soviet Union, it is only logical that Boris Yeltsin was a Puppet of Anglo-America.
Even today, this is a Carefully Guarded Russian Secret, but it can be reasoned on, and the Truth is known to Many People.