France Becomes Constant Subject of Jihadists

The US will squeeze NATO to the end, at which point the Alliance will fall apart

Image: Life.ru

Interview conducted by Antoinette Kiselincheva with Boyan Chukov, a former two term adviser to the former Bulgarian Prime Minister on issues of security and international politics. Originally appeared at A-specto, translated by Borislav exclusively for SouthFront

Mr. Chukov, why did France once again became the object of terror? Can we look for systematic targets in the actions of terrorists?

France is in one of the top places in the statistics, when it comes to this. Very close to it ranks Belgium. Brussels and Paris are like “chained vessels” in terms of European jihadists. These are two countries in Europe that have huge and uncontrolled by the Special Forces, Arab diasporas. They are irradiated by the propaganda of the Islamic State and many other radical Islamist organizations. Belgium is a “rear base” of jihadists operating in France. Some time ago, al-Qaida had a branched network on French territory, which gradually transformed into the Islamic state. The personnel is the same. Jihadists in France have well-organized “affiliates” in the Maghreb and the Levant. France made a fatal mistake. Under external pressure, Paris refused to be a full partner of Moscow in the battle against jihadists in Syria. But France and Russia are in similar situations. An alarming number of Russian and French citizens have joined the ranks of the Islamic State. Many of them returned with the refugee flow back to their countries. French security should have preventatively acted on Syrian territory. Remember that initially after the frequent terrorist attacks in France last year, the French aircraft carrier “Charles de Gaulle” went to the Syrian coast to join the war with the Russian Aerospace Forces against the Islamist thugs . Publicly, President Francois Hollande gave an order for a comprehensive and close cooperation with the Russians. Then under US pressure Paris quietly “moved backwards” and the pathological French Russophobes began to accuse Vladimir Putin as the cause of terrorism in France. In our country there were also such “analysts” who participated in the “campaign of defamation.”

Serous results can not be accomplished with such an approach and lack of genuine cooperation of those interested in really combating terrorism. Obviously, the French special services can also be accused of not working professionally and efficiently enough. But for purely political reasons, do they have the opportunities to cooperate fully with the Russians, Chinese and others? No, they don’t! In recent years the longstanding cooperation between Russian and French security structures was interrupted, due to pressure from the Americans through NATO. Senior French military personnel publicly complained about it. Another logical question arises. Can France and Belgium be in Schengen, if in fact they have shown that their territories can not provide the required security? It is obvious that the battle against terrorism has huge obstacles at the political level and at the level of geopolitical strategy. Did the last NATO summit in Warsaw show that the North Atlantic alliance is playing the role of “commissioner” in the cooperation of member states in combating terrorism with many important partners such as Russia, China, Iran, Syria and others. Is it normal to impose sanctions on someone and lead hybrid wars against them, and then use them as a partner in the anti-terror war as is most convenient for the “leader” of NATO, the “leader” that aims to serve only their national interests. It is obvious that the national interests of various countries of NATO are at variance with the interests of the hegemonic country in the North Atlantic Alliance. There is no need to be too intelligent to grasp that the NATO-led foreign policy of the members of the union, is in complete variance with an effective war against terrorism. Instead of countries like France focusing all its power resources to neutralize the jihadists in France … French institutions are dealing with “neutralizing” the mythical Russian threat hanging over Europe. This is a huge “crack” in NATO, and it will continue to expand. It will contribute to the collapse of the North Atlantic Alliance.

Do you think there is something in the politics of France, which causes external forces to use the method of terrorism as a form of correction?

Terrorism in France strengthened when the “ghost of the General” increasingly began to appear. Ideas for an independent and strong France began to rise up again. Francois Hollande increasingly began to include events related to the anniversary of the life and work of Charles de Gaulle, in his official program. He recently bowed to the tomb of the General, located at Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises.

Boyan Chukov

Paris objected strongly to transnational corporations when it opposed the TTIP. France is trying to emerge from its role as a vassal. “At the moment the country of Voltaire is a great power with mediocre leadership” – said Jacob Kedmi, former head of the Israeli special service “Nativ”. Each time when France tries to restore its former grandeur as an independent great power in the world … it becomes a subject of jihadists. Which organization will take responsibility for what happened in Nice is not the main issue. Every terrorist “label” may be taken as a franchise from anyone, like a “McDonald’s.” What they call the driver of Franco-Tunisian origin, who ran over innocent people in the streets of Nice, is not particularly important. Such events are a “red light” for the French government. As the French say, this is a hint that il y a quelque chose qui cloche (something is wrong) in French foreign policy, according to the powers that be …

Mr. Chukov, let’s talk about NATO-Russia Council. In view of the cooling between the West and Russia, do you think that this is a format that could lead to a positive development of relations between the two countries?

The NATO-Russia Council is a format that allows for communication between the two countries. That alone is enough to take efforts to maintain this formula. After the meeting of the North Atlantic alliance in Warsaw on July 8 to 9 it became clear that we can not expect a “breakthrough” in NATO-Russia relations. I would like to digress. It is necessary to clarify what is meant by the term “both sides.” In commentaries on the subject, there is talk about NATO-Russia. In reality its about relations between Moscow and Washington. I remember ten years ago, I had the opportunity to visit the headquarters of NATO in Brussels. With me was a very good friend and colleague, a former Belgian intelligence. We entered the cafeteria of the administrative complex and sat down at a table to drink coffee. I was impressed by the colorful crowd of soldiers from various countries in the spacious room. Proud men in the prime of their lives passed around us, dressed in their national military uniforms. Naval officers had the best uniforms. Periodically, a beautiful girl in a military uniform with a mini skirt walked by us. Usually these girls were from the Baltics. The men seated at the tables usually took a good look at them … I had the same feeling when I first went to Paris on the Champs-Elysees to drink coffee at the sidewalk tables, watching passersby on the sidewalk. It was the same in the headquarters of NATO in Brussels at 11:00 am, and no one was in a hurry to go to their jobs.

I looked puzzled at my Belgian friend. He smiled and said, “Look, this is not NATO. This is a talking shop, in which part of the preferred military personnel nomenclature, mostly from the new member states of NATO are having a fun at their service. What you see is a picture for the general public. Nothing depends on the political structure of NATO. So it has all characters from all member states, including the NATO Secretary General and his deputies. This is a mock-up. The real part is NATO’s military structure, and that is governed and managed entirely by the Americans. It realizes US geostrategic plans. NATO acts as the commercial agent of the US military-industrial complex. Eastern Europe is forced into this scheme only to buy American weapons at the expense of European arms manufacturers. So, this is the situation. I apologize for this digression, but it gives an opportunity to see another perspective of the commented story. Years ago, during the Cold War, a right wing French politician argued: “Its better to discuss things, otherwise we have to expose ourselves to fist on faces.” So the NATO-Russia format is helpful. As long as it is really there.

Are the possibilities of a diplomatic resolution of tensions exhausted, or can these two sides converse as partners?

Your question can be answered only if we projected onto the current geopolitical situation in the world. Otherwise we risk being inaccurate, even worse, my answer may sound quite annoying with propaganda undertones. The moment someone begins to present themselves as a person who thinks that Putin is a “dictator” and “terribly bad” but that he loves Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Tchaikovsky, then his “analytical” international tirade is the type of the famous lecturers from the fellowship “Georgi Kirkov”. They vehemently condemned “American imperialism” at the time of the developed socialism. Its funny that these same people who “pummeled” “the terrible American imperialists” agitate against the Kremlin, Putin, “Putinists” and the “terrible Russians”, in exchange for grants. Russia until about 2008 was devoid of sovereignty. Russia at the time of Boris Yeltsin was “ideal”, “democratic” and “beautiful”, but only as a natural resource donor of the West. Then, especially after 2012, when Russia almost restored its geopolitical strength under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, the global media serving the Atlantic geopolitical side, started “screaming” the Kremlin is on a “bad path”. Very bad!

The ghost of the Eurasian Union showed up, and Russia no longer wants to be a resource donor to the West. So if Vladimir Putin stays in power, then Russia becomes a more formidable enemy than DAESH. However if power in Moscow shifts, and head of the Russian Federation becomes someone like Khodorkovsky, then … hurray! Russia again becomes “democratic”, a “strategic partner” and all that. This time, the Russian Federation is unlikely to remain within the same borders and will not fall apart. The results of diplomatic negotiations are the result of actual power relations between the two countries. They fix the current “snapshot” of the established balance in all directions, in this case between the US and Russia. The military potential of Moscow is comparable to that of Washington. They outline the contours of a real parity between the US and Russia. Moreover, with their policy in the Asia-Pacific, the Americans push the Chinese towards an ever more serious alliance with the Russians. I will not be surprised if in some time the SCO as an organization also acquires a purely military projection. The US is trying to mobilize within NATO, allies to realize the long-term US strategy against its main geopolitical enemy – the Russian Federation. This was the main objective of the meeting in Warsaw. But after the meeting in the Polish capital, NATO looks like an elderly man who is stuffed with Viagra in order to look “updated” and “full of life” in relation to the most beautiful part of humanity. This is like lashing a scraggy jackass that is pulling a cart beyond its strength. It will run 100-200 meters and then collapse.

That’s what will happen with NATO. US will squeeze the last drops vitality out of the North Atlantic alliance, then the alliance will fall apart. Consider the last 20 years, NATO systematically takes effort to bankrupt all aviation factories of the Member States of the Union. At the same time Russia restores its defense industry, and China is catching up. NATO acts as a racketeer who works for the US military-industrial complex. Whatever the speeches in Warsaw say, the cracks in NATO worsen. London as we saw, refused to increase its participation in NATO and to compensate its efforts in the composition of the EU. It is important to emphasize one more milestone. Ever since the time of the Maastricht Treaty, there is talk of the “Natovization” of the EU. Today, under the enormous pressure from the United States, we have almost 100% overlap between the EU and NATO. This is a ticking time bomb that Brussels accelerates every day, with its Euro-bureaucracy, corruption and selfishness. The decisions of the NATO summit suggest that the world remains in a state of war. Whether we call it a network, hybrid, proxy war or otherwise doesn’t matter, because we are talking about a war in the XXI century. The Pope confirmed this several times.

A number of analysts say the idea of ​​a NATO fleet in the Black Sea region is in conflict with the Montreux Convention. Is a circumvention of international law possible, and is the creation of a fleet in the Black Sea realistic?

I think it’s time to say it honestly. What “international law” are we talking about for nearly a quarter century ?! Is it not clear ?! For nearly 25 years, every time US national interests, face “international law” … nothing remains of said law. And US national interest are located n every point in the world. The law is crushed and everyone pretends not to notice it. I ask a rhetorical question: Where is the “international law” in these cases: In Yemen during 2015-2016, the US Air Force bombed positions of the Yemeni rebels. Did someone invite them? Is there a resolution of the United Nations Security Council? The invasion of Iraq in 2003. The war in Afghanistan in the period 2001-2014, the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. They were using bombs with depleted uranium there. Operation “Support for democracy” in Haiti in 1994-1995, the invasion of Panama in 1989-1990. Grenada in 1983? The presence of NATO forces in Syria? With the exception of Russia, invited by the government in Damascus, are the other there based on some “international law”?! The economic sanctions against Russia, do they have something to do with the UN? On which “international law” are they based? Today everyone is concerned about the Montreux Convention! If Russia has the military capability to oppose the militarization of the Black Sea, the militarization will not happen. If not, US warships with the Aegis system will be crossing the Black Sea, despite the Montreux Convention.

Obviously the participation of Bulgaria has an important geo-strategic importance in the plans of NATO in Eastern Europe. In this regard, a clear and firm Bulgarian position is paramount. Whose opinion did Plevneliev express at the summit? How do you explain the fact that Boyko Borisov had to give a parallel explanation?

The picture described above shows where is Bulgaria. Our country is a pawn in the global strategy of Washington against Moscow. Bulgaria is in an extremely difficult and delicate situation. There is a huge gap between the Bulgarian people and the government. The majority of Bulgarians for purely historical and civilizational reasons, can not be against the Russians. The discrepancy between the government and the people in the nation’s foreign policy, creates an increasingly clear tension within our country. The fact that between the ruling party GERB, and the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs there is an even greater gap, sound insane. Who in the Foreign Ministry is appointed by GERB? No one! All of them are “boys and girls” of “Kozyak, 16” (the American embassy). Incidentally, the US ambassadors are perfect, they very effectively defend the national interests of their country. Bulgaria played the German theater scene that we observed in Berlin. Merkel cursed Moscow and Steinmeier did the opposite. A classic good and bad cop, to deceive the public. In Bulgaria Boyko Borisov played the “good cop.” It fits him. He has extensive experience in this role. And the other side is the “bad cop” in the face of Plevneliev, Mitov and Nenchev. As the saying goes … “ours and yours” The fact that Plevneliev, Nenchev and Mitov are overzealous is another matter. Its an illusion that Bulgaria has a position different from the “captains” in Brussels and Washington. As the famous satirist Stanisław Jerzy Lec says: “When a chameleon is in power, its environment changes its color.” Did anyone not understand?

Actually, what should the Bulgarian position be, so that it protects the national interests in the current confrontation between NATO and Russia on the eastern flank of the Alliance? What is your opinion about the idea of ​​Boyko Borisov for the demilitarization of the Black Sea?

We have to explain the love of many people towards “neutrality” and “demilitarization”. This is a way to hide and not take a clear position. Whether its possible, is another matter. Take a look at how many political parties who want to control in the future, pretend to be distracted and do not take a clear position, but make only roundabout speeches at a “semi-expert” level, waiting for the pancake to flip over. Switzerland has always been given as an example of neutrality. But it was neutral because the big players in the international field had a benefit of it being neutral, as a financial platform that serves them. Otherwise they would have smashed it long ago. So neutrality is not a national position but a role designated by the powers that be. Bulgaria is in a complex and turbulent period of its history. The government should “transport” the Bulgarian people from point A to point B wth the least amount of loses. It is obvious that our current path is fatal for the Bulgarian nation. The fiasco is visible in all sectors. As for the idea of ​​Boyko Borisov for the demilitarization of the Black Sea; in light of the above, I find it to be wishful thinking. A line from the role of the “good cop.”