Chapter 5 - Geopolitics of the Yugoslav Conflict

5.1 Symbolism of Yugoslavia

It is well known that Yugoslavia is the territory in Europe with which the most serious and large-scale European conflicts begin. At least that was the case in the 20th century. The Balkans is a knot in which the interests of all the main European geopolitical blocs converge, and that is why the fate of the Balkan peoples symbolizes the fate of all European peoples. Yugoslavia is Europe in miniature. Among the peoples inhabiting it, one can find exact analogues of the largest continental forces.

Serbs represent Orthodox Russia (= Eurasia) in the Balkans. Croats and Slovenes Central Europe (i.e. Germany, Austria, Italy, etc.). Muslim Albanians and Bosnians are remnants of the Ottoman Empire, which means Turkey and even the Islamic world as a whole. And finally, the Macedonians are a mixed Serb-Bulgarian ethnos, which is a symbol of the Great Orthodox Yugoslavia (based on the unification of Serbia and Bulgaria), which failed to develop historically, despite the Serbo-Bulgarian projects that existed at the beginning of the century.

5.2 Three European forces

In the most general terms, we can say that the geopolitical map of Europe is divided into three fundamental areas.

The first range is the West. The continental West proper is represented primarily by France and Portugal. In a broader sense, it includes England and the transatlantic non-European USA. Although there may be internal contradictions between the continental West (France), the island West (England), and the transatlantic West (America), the West acts most often as a single geopolitical force in relation to other European geopolitical entities.

The second range is Central Europe (Mitteleuropa). It includes the states of the former Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations, the former lands of Austria-Hungary, Germany, Italy, etc. Central Europe is characterized by a geopolitical confrontation with both the European West and the East.

And finally, the third range is Russia, which acts in Europe not only on its own behalf, but also on behalf of all the Eurasian peoples of the East.

Generally speaking, one could single out the fourth Islamic geopolitical area from the Maghreb countries of North Africa to Pakistan and the Philippines, but this geopolitical bloc is non-European, and besides, in the 20th century its geopolitical influence on Europe was not too significant, although it is possible that in In the future, the Islamic world will again (as it was in the Middle Ages) become an important component of European geopolitics.

Three geopolitical European entities on the continent create permanent zones of tension that extend along the conditional and constantly changing borders between the European West and Central Europe (Mitteleuropa), on the one hand, and between Central Europe and Russia-Eurasia on the other.

Schematically, one can single out a certain number of geopolitical alliances or, on the contrary, confrontations that constitute constants of European international politics.

The European West can confront Central Europe as its closest neighbor to the East. Most clearly, this geopolitical tendency is embodied in the confrontation between absolutist France (Etat-Nation) and imperial Austria-Hungary. Later this contradiction was expressed in numerous Franco-German conflicts. On the other hand, there is a theoretical possibility of a Franco-German geopolitical union, the ideas of which inspired both Vichy and de Gaulle. It is significant that the West can sometimes in the struggle against Central Europe enter into an alliance with the European East (Russia-Eurasia). In other cases, it is Russia that becomes the main geopolitical adversary of both the European West and Middle Europe.

In relation to its eastern geopolitical neighbor, central Europe (Germany) can be both in a state of confrontation (which is always directly or indirectly beneficial to the European West), and in a state of union (which always creates a danger to the West).

And finally, Russia's geopolitical preferences in European politics can be oriented both in the anti-German vein (France, England and even the USA logically become allies in this case), and in the anti-Western (then the Russian-German alliance is inevitable).

These, in the most crude approximation, are the main geopolitical factors of European politics. They absolutely must be taken into account when analyzing the Balkan problem, since all three of these trends clash with each other in the Yugoslav conflict, creating a potential threat to a new major European war.

5.3 True Croats

The Croats (as well as the Slovenes) were traditionally part of Austria-Hungary, they were an ethnos fully integrated into the Catholic sector of German Central Europe. Their natural geopolitical fate is connected with this European bloc. Therefore, the Croatian attraction to Germany and Austria is by no means an accidental opportunistic arbitrariness, but the adherence to the logic of the historical existence of this people. The collapse of Austria-Hungary and the creation of Yugoslavia was the result of a long struggle of the European West against Central Europe, and this explains the pragmatic support of the Serbs by the French. (Option: West along with East versus Central Europe). Those Croats who welcomed the creation of Yugoslavia went, in a sense, against their geopolitical and religious tradition,and it is no coincidence that most of them, through Masonic institutions, were guided precisely by the "Great East of France" and its geopolitical projects aimed at the triumph in Europe of Western forces. During the creation of Yugoslavia, as in the entire balance of power during the First World War, the dominance of precisely the Western tendency is traced, which successfully uses the forces of the East (both Serbia and large Russia) against Central Europe.

The Croats during the creation of Yugoslavia became the first victims of such a policy, and it is not surprising that they later met the Germans as liberators (as, indeed, Ukrainian Catholics and Uniates, who always gravitated to the zone of Central European influence). But Western support by France for the Serbs (by the way, this support was also provided, first of all, through Masonic channels) was very ambiguous, since the Serbs themselves, in turn, became hostages of such a geopolitical formation in the Balkans, whose integrity could be preserved only by force control.

With the current crisis of the eastern bloc (i.e., the entire zone of influence of Russia-Eurasia) during the perestroika period, the integration forces in Yugoslavia somewhat weakened, and the Croats (along with the Slovenes) were not slow to declare their geopolitical alienness towards Serbian Yugoslavia, understood in two ways and as an artificial creation of the West, and as an outpost of the East in Central Europe.

Thus, the Croats at the geopolitical level uphold the principle that Central Europe should remain itself, i.e. an independent, independent and territorially united European region. Although it should be noted that the idea of ​​turning Croatia into an independent ethnically homogeneous dwarf Balkan State-Nation (Etat-Nation) of the French type already knowingly lays a mine under the geopolitical unity of the Central European space, which can harmoniously exist only as a flexible but integral structure, and not as a fractional one conglomerate of egoistic microstates. In other words, the geopolitical tendency of Croats will be complete only if it is supranationally oriented, and this also implies a peaceful solution to the problem of the Serb minority in Croatia. Croatian nationalism,going out of the geopolitical plane into a purely ethnic plane, loses its justification and changes its sign to the opposite.

5.4 True Serbs

The geopolitical perspective of the Serbs is clearly pro-Russian, Eurasian. Through the religious and ethnic factor, Serbia directly adjoins Russia, being its geopolitical continuation in the south of Europe. The fate of the Serbs and the fate of the Russians at the geopolitical level are one and the same fate. Therefore, in order for the Serbs to return to the origins of their European mission, they need to turn to the East, to Eurasia, to understand the meaning and goals of Russian geopolitics. At the same time, it is not naive and artificial pan-Slavism, the failure of which was perfectly demonstrated by the Russian philosopher Konstantin Leontyev, namely, the project of Great Eurasia with the axis of Russia, a kind of ecumenical-continental Orthodox neo-Byzantism, should be the guiding star of truly Serbian geopolitics.Only in this case, the Serbian tendency will return to its own roots and cease to play the role of a puppet in the hands of the Atlantists, used only for the struggle against Central Europe and the German world.

In the geopolitical history of Europe one can trace one constant trend, the clarification of which will help to understand what for Serbia is a positive decision. This trend is this: the union of the East and central Europe against the West is always beneficial to both sides. As well as beneficial to the continental West (France), an alliance with Middle Europe (Germany) against the West of the insular and transatlantic (Anglo-Saxon world). In other words, the priority given to the geopolitical East (even relative to the East because Central Europe, for example, is the East in relation to France) is almost always beneficial not only to the East itself, but also to the western participant of this union. And vice versa, a geopolitical alliance with a priority of the western trend (France with England and the USA against Germany, France with Germany against Russia, etc.) is tying the knots of more and more European conflicts and wars.

Given these considerations, we can say that the geopolitical orientation of the Serbs should turn as a guide to Bulgarian geopolitics, which almost always combined Russophilia with Germanophilism, creating in South Europe a space of political stability and harmony, which could gradually open access to Central Europe for the Muslim south, and therefore put an end to dominance in this region of the Atlanticist West. Moreover, Serbia must realize the ambiguity of the support that the West once provided to it and whose price is clearly visible in the anti-Serb sanctions of Western countries. Only geopolitical unity with other Orthodox Eastern European peoples (and, first of all,with Bulgaria) into a single pro-Russian and at the same time friendly Central Europe bloc will create a stability zone in the Balkans and will discontinue the shameful term "Balkanization".

Just as in the case of the Croats, the idea of ​​a purely Serbian State-Nation will also not solve any problems if this Serbian state adopts its Germanophobia and orientation towards the West created by the Freemasons of Yugoslavia.

5.5 True Yugoslav Muslims

The Yugoslav Muslims of Bosnia and Albanians are the Islamic, "Ottoman" geopolitical factor in Europe. It is important to note that Turkey, the influence of which is most felt among the Yugoslav Muslims, is certainly in Europe the spokesman of the extreme Western Atlantic tendencies. If the West, which tried to use the European East (Russia) against Central Europe, still could not completely suppress the independent geopolitical self-manifestation of this continental region and often faced, on the contrary, the expansion of Russia-Eurasia (either through the Russian-German Union, or directly through the creation of the Warsaw block), then secular pseudo-Islamic Lama Turkey became a reliable tool in the hands of atlantist politicians. And wider, the atlantic influence on the geopolitics of Islamic countries is extremely large.Therefore, the anti-Serb performances of the Yugoslav Muslims outline an incomparably more global continental conflict between Northern Eurasia (Russia and its geopolitical area) with the South. It is important to note that such a conflict is contrary to the interests of the South itself, since in this case it becomes the same tool in the hands of the Atlantic West as the Eurasian East (represented by Serbs) versus Central Europe (represented by Austria-Hungary and its representatives from Croats )what was the Eurasian East (represented by Serbs) versus Central Europe (represented by Austria-Hungary and its representatives of the Croats).what was the Eurasian East (represented by Serbs) versus Central Europe (represented by Austria-Hungary and its representatives of the Croats).

The only logical way out for the Yugoslav Muslims of Bosnia and Albanians would be to appeal to Iran and the continuity of its policy, since only this country is currently pursuing a geopolitics oriented towards independence, independence and continental harmony, acting in accordance with its own logic, regardless of the interests of Atlantis Stov in this region. Turning to Iran, Yugoslav Muslims will be able to gain a proper geopolitical perspective, since the radically anti-Western, continental, and traditionalist Iran is a potential ally of all Eastern European blocs from Russia-Eurasia to Central Europe. Moreover, the orientation towards Iran of the European eastern Greater Spaces could dramatically change the situation in the entire Islamic world and sharply weaken American influence there,which would not only be in the hands of the Europeans, but would liberate the Islamic peoples from the economic and military dictates of the Anglo-Saxon Atlantists.

Only with this orientation of the Yugoslav Muslims, their geopolitical presence in Europe could become harmonious, logical and conflict-free. We can say that this problem is divided into three stages. The first stage: the reorientation of Muslims from Turkey to Iran. Second stage: strengthening the geopolitical alliance of Central Europe with Iran and the Islamic world as a whole. And the third stage: the geopolitical Eurasian alliance of the East and Central Europe. Moreover, these steps can take place in parallel, each at its own level. It is especially important to understand here that the problem of the small Balkan people cannot be resolved geopolitically without the most serious and global geopolitical transformations. It should never be forgotten that it is with small in size, but gigantic in symbolic significance, local conflicts that all world wars begin.

5.6 True Macedonians

The Macedonian problem of modern Yugoslavia is rooted precisely in the artificiality of the really existing “Yugoslavia”, which was a “state of the southern Slavs” only by name. The Macedonians, who are an ethnic group intermediate between Serbs and Bulgarians and professing Orthodoxy, should have been included as a natural component in real Yugoslavia, consisting of Serbia and Bulgaria. But the existence of two Slavic states of the Jacobin type in the Balkans instead of one federal, "imperial", Slavic state of Eurasian orientation led to the fact that the small Macedonian people found themselves on the border between two political regions with rather different political specifics.

At the present moment, the matter is compounded by the fact that Jacobin nationalism is growing in today's Bulgaria, which has repeatedly clashed the Orthodox Balkan powers among themselves and hindered the appeal to the only true Neo-Byzantine geopolitics. Initially, the Atlanticist lobby (both Catholic and English) was also actively involved in this process, which makes itself felt in modern Bulgaria, although in different forms.

In essence, Western tactics here remain the same as at the beginning of the century. Then, having destroyed Austria-Hungary, the West did not allow the creation of a large Slavic community by playing the card of "Balkan nationalisms" of the Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian, etc. Today, the same geopolitical forces of the West again strike a double blow at Central Europe and Yugoslav unity, provoking Croatian separatism in the West and Macedonian in the East.

In the case of Macedonia, as in all other Balkan conflicts, a way out can only be found through the global integration process of organizing European Greater Spaces, and not through straightforward separatism and the creation of dwarf pseudo states. The accession of Macedonia to Bulgaria will not solve the problem in any way, but will only prepare a new, this time truly interstate, inter-Slavic conflict.

5.7 Priorities of the Yugoslav war

Being deeply symbolic and extremely significant, the Yugoslav conflict requires each country, each European political and geopolitical force to determine and identify its priorities in this matter. Here we are talking not only about the sentimental, confessional, historical, ethnic, or political leanings of various people, peoples, and states. It is about the future of Europe, about the future of Eurasia.

Supporters of the priority of Central Europe and the German philo initially took a pro-Croat position. This choice was based on a geopolitical analysis of the reasons for the creation of Yugoslavia, on the rejection of the Masonic policy of France in Central Europe, on the understanding of the need for a natural reconstruction of a single Central European space after the end of the "Yalta era", during which Europe was artificially divided into two rather than three geopolitical camps. This explains the presence among the Croats of many European national revolutionaries.

But the logic of preference in Middle Europe did not take into account one very important consideration. The fact is that in addition to the instrumental role of the geopolitical East in the execution of the West’s plans against Central Europe, there exists and always has existed a root, deep and soil proper Eurasian geopolitics of this Greater Space, the geopolitics of Orthodox Russia, focusing on its own continental interests, and in the distant future, on new holy union. When, in the course of a fierce internal conflict between Serbs and Croats, Serbian self-consciousness was fully awakened, when the blood of the Serbian people again caused the most ancient geopolitical, national and spiritual archetypes from unconscious depths, when the idea of ​​Greater Serbia, Spiritual Serbia became relevant, the instrumental mission of Yugoslavia endedand the Great Eurasian Idea, the Idea of ​​the East, took its place.

While the Serbs fought with Central Europe (represented by the Croats), the atlantists from Paris to New York applauded federal Yugoslavia everywhere, or at least reproached the Croats for “nationalism” and “pro-fascism”. As soon as the Serbs crossed a certain line, and their struggle acquired the character of a struggle against the very idea of ​​the West, with Atlantism, Serbia was immediately declared the main obstacle to the construction of a “New World Order”, and severe political and economic sanctions followed.

To make the final choice, we must again turn to the geopolitical law that we have already formulated above, according to which continental harmony is real only with the priority of the East, with Eurasia chosen as a positive orientation, since even the idea of ​​Central Europe, which is positive in itself, when opposing Russia, Eurasia is becoming negative and destructive, as it was clearly revealed in Hitler’s deep and tragic mistake, which began anti-eastern, anti-Russian expansion, which, in the end, turned out to be beneficial only for the Western, Atlantic bloc, destroyed Germany and gave rise to the embryos of the crisis in Russia. Therefore, in the Yugoslav conflict, the geopolitical priority should be given to the Serbian factor, but, naturally, to the extent that the Serbs follow the Eurasian, pro-Russian geopolitical tendency,gravitating towards the creation of a powerful and flexible South Slavic bloc, recognizing the importance of Middle Europe and contributing to the establishment of a German-Russian alliance against the West. Serbian Germanophobia, combined with the Masonic francophile, no matter what plausible pretexts they used to hide, can never provide a basis for a positive solution to the Yugoslav problem.

In other words, the greatest preference should be given to traditional Serbs, rooted in the Orthodox faith, conscious of their Slavic spiritual heritage and oriented towards creating a new harmonious pro-Russian geopolitical structure with a clearly anti-Western and anti-Atlantic orientation.

On the other hand, you should carefully consider the requirements of the Croats and their gravitation in the region of Central Europe. If they have anti-Atlantic tendencies, Croats can in the long run become a positive intra-European force.

The Bosnian factor in the reorientation of Yugoslav Muslims from Turkey to Iran must also be taken into account in order to "turn poison into a medicine" on this basis to begin a completely new European policy in the Islamic world, directly opposite to US economic and military imperialism in Islamic countries.

And finally, the Macedonians, instead of being the bone of contention of the southern Orthodox Slavs, should become the embryo of the Serbian-Bulgarian association, the first step towards creating a true Great Yugoslavia.

An impartial geopolitical analysis of the Yugoslav problem leads to such conclusions. Of course, in the horror of a fratricidal war, it is difficult to maintain common sense, the blood flows awaken in the hearts only rage and desire for revenge. But sometimes, perhaps only a cold, sensible analysis, taking into account historical roots and geopolitical patterns, can offer the right way out of the impasse of fratricidal war, while emotional solidarity with one or the other will only aggravate the hopelessness of a bloody nightmare. In addition, such an analysis clearly shows that the true enemy that provokes the entire intra-Slavic genocide remains in the background, behind the scenes, preferring to observe from afar how one Slavic people destroys another, sowing discord, blocking the possibility of union and fraternal peace for many years, the Great The spaces of the most powerful but now fragmented continent.

The true initiator of the Yugoslav massacre is the atlantic forces of the West , guided by the principle "in the camp of the enemy, one must be set against others and in no case should unity, union and fraternal unity be allowed." This must be understood by all participants in the complex Yugoslav war for Europe so that it does not become a final war against Europe.

5.8 Serbia is Russia

The importance of the Yugoslav events also lies in the fact that, as an example of a small Balkan country, the scenario of a gigantic continental war, which could break out in Russia, seems to be played. All the geopolitical forces participating in the Balkan conflict have their counterparts in Russia, too, only in an incomparably larger spatial volume. Croats and Slovenes, aspiring to enter Central Europe, have their geopolitical synonyms for Ukrainians, although the affinity of these latter with Great Russia dates back not several decades, but several centuries, and confessional friction, except for Uniates and Ukrainian Catholics, does not exist here. Be that as it may, judging by certain trends, some of Kiev’s forces are beginning to “be weighed down by the Russian East” and are striving to draw closer to the European space economically controlled by Germany.Russians and other nations living in Ukraine may become hostages to the “mid-European” policies of these republics, in which case their fate will be similar to that of the Serbs in Croatia.

Such a comparison, among other things, shows that in geopolitical and diplomatic relations with Ukraine and Belarus, Russia should be guided by its fundamental understanding of the problem of Central Europe, i.e. First of all, Germany. In order to be realistic in this matter, one should proceed from not pathetic slogans about the “unity of the blood brothers of the Slavs” (this “unity” can be seen from the example of the Serbo-Croat war massacre), but from an in-depth analysis of the logic of Russian-German relations since both Ukraine and even Poland are not independent geopolitical entities, but only the border regions of the two Great Spaces of Eurasia-Russia and Central Europe. We must not forget that the conflict in this border zone is extremely beneficial to another West geopolitical force.It is no coincidence that Anglo-Saxon diplomacy always regarded all territories from Romania to the Baltic states as a “sanitary belt” that protects the West (and especially the Anglo-Saxon world) from the Russo-German alliance that is extremely undesirable for it.

The Serbo-Muslim conflict is an analogue of a possible Russian-Islamic confrontation in Central Asia and the Caucasus, and it is important to note that in this case, the Muslim republics that were part of the USSR are a zone of competitive geopolitical influence of Turkey and Iran. As in the case of Yugoslav Muslims, this comparison shows that the republics oriented to Iran are more likely to come to geopolitical harmony with the main Russian bloc of the Eurasian continent. In contrast, the geopolitical factor of Turkey, which currently plays the role of a conductor of Atlantic policies in this region, is necessarily associated with dramatic and conflict situations.

The example of Yugoslavia shows that threatens Russia in the event of a similar course of events, and the fact that these events are really unfolding in the same direction today is no longer in doubt. The whole difference is only in speed, which is greater, the smaller the space and the smaller nations. In order to prevent a gigantic "Yugoslavia", monstrous in scale and consequences of a bloody massacre, in Russia, it is necessary to give an answer to fundamental geopolitical questions in advance, determine the Russian continental strategy, which should be guided by knowledge of the Russian political tradition and understanding of the main geopolitical tasks of Russia-Eurasia, " Geographic Axis of History. " Moreover, inertia, passive following the fatal course of events will not only be destructive for the entire system of continental security,but also fraught with the death of all mankind.