You are on page 1of 17

Home About Submission Guidelines    

Open Dialogue Research Journal



The Geopolitical
Strategy Of The
US’ Global
Hegemony By A
Written by Vladislav B. SOTIROVIĆ on 20/11/2018

More in Balkans:

If we have to use force, it is because we are


We are the indispensable nation.

On The Origins Of Proto-
Croats And Proto-Serbs
(Madeleine K. Albright, February 1998)[1]

Madam Secretary
As a matter of very fact, regardless to the reality in global
politics that the Cold War was over in 1989, Washington
continued to drive toward the getting the status of a
global hyperpower at any expense for the rest of the
world. The Balkans undoubtedly became the rst victim in
Europe of the old but esthetically repacked American
The Basic Guidelines
Through The Kosovo global imperialism. The US’ administration is a key player
Question during the last 25 years of the Balkan crisis caused by the
15/11/2018 bloody destruction of ex-Yugoslavia[2] in which
Washington played a crucial role in three particular
historical cases:

1. Only due to the US’ administration (more precisely due

to the last US’ ambassador to Yugoslavia, Warren
Zimmermann), a Bosnian-Herzegovinian President Alija
Izetbegović (the author of the 1970 Islamic Declaration)
The Origins Of Pan-
rejected already agreed Lisbon Agreement about
peaceful resolution of the Bosnian crises which was
signed by the of cial representatives of the Serbs, Croats
and Bosniaks in February 1992. Alija Izetbegović was one
of those three signatories. The agreement was reached
under the auspices of the European Community (the EC,
later the European Union) that was represented by the
British diplomat Lord Carrington and the Portuguese
ambassador José Cutileiro. However, under the US’
protection, a Bosnian-Herzegovinian Bosniak-Croat
Government declared independence on March 3rd, 1992
which local Serbs decisively opposed. Therefore, two
warmongers, Warren Zimmermann and Alija Izetbegović
pushed Bosnia-Herzegovina into the civil war which
stopped only in November 21st, 1995 by signing the
Dayton Accords in Ohio (Slobodan Milošević, Bill Clinton,
Alija Izetbegović and Franjo Tuđman).[3]
2. It was exactly the US’ administration which crucially
blessed the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs from the
Republic of Serbian Krayina committed by Croatia’s police
and army forces (including and neo-Nazi Ustashi
formations) on August 4−5th, 1995. For the realization of
this criminal operation (under the secret code
Storm/Oluja) Washington gave to Zagreb all logistic,
political, diplomatic and military support. As a
consequence, around 250,000 Croatia’s Serbs left their
homes in two days which were quickly occupied by the
3. South Serbia’s Autonomous Province of Kosovo-
Metochia was rstly occupied in June 1999 by the
NATO/KFOR’ forces and later in February 2008 politically
separated from its motherland when Albanian-dominated
Kosovo’s Parliament proclaimed the formal independence
primarily as a direct consequence of the Serbophobic
policy by the US’s administration of President Bill Clinton
and his warmongering hawk Secretary of State Madeleine
K. Albright. Today, Kosovo, except its northern part, is
ethnically cleansed from the Serbs[5] and transformed
into a ma a state with a silent blessing by Washington and
the rest of the Western gangsters from the NATO and the
EU who recognized its quasi-independence.[6]

Here is very important to stress that, basically, during the

Bill Clinton’ administration, the US’ foreign policy in regard
to the Balkans (ex-Yugoslavia) was primarily designed and
directed by Madeleine K. Albright who became a chief US’
war criminal at the very end of the 20th century. Who was
Mrs. Albright – the author of Madam Secretary: A Memoir,
New York: Talk Miramax Books, 2003, 562 pages.[7]
Madeleine K. Albright was born in Czechoslovakia in 1937.
She was con rmed as the 64th US’ Secretary of State
from 1997 to 2001. Her career in the US’ government
included positions in the National Security Council and as
US’ ambassador to the United Nations. The highest-
ranking warmonger female hawk in the history of the US’
Government was telling an unforgetable whitewashed
story of lies in her memoirs of the US’ imperialism at the
turn of the 21st century. She was the rst woman in the
US’ history to be appointed to the post of Secretary of
State (Minister of Foreign Affairs). For eight years during
the rst and second Bill Clinton’s terms, she succeeded
drastically to ruin America’s image of a democratic and
freedom ghting country mainly due to her direct and
crucial involvement into the US-led NATO’s aggression on
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the FRY) in 1999
composed by Serbia and Montenegro that was the rst
aggression of this organization in its 50 years long history
of the preparation for the invasion of Russia. The
aggression lasted for 78 days from March 24th to June
10th, 1999 and was one of the most brutal and barbaric in
the modern history of the world breaking all international
laws, rules of war and, most important, the Charter and
principles of the UNO. Madeleine K. Albright tried in her
memoirs to whitewash her extremely important and even
crucial participation in the post-Cold War US’ policy of
imperialism but primarily her focal role in the preparation
and conduction of the US/NATO’s unprecedented war on
the FRY as being one of the most in uential policy-makers
in her adopted country. The Madam Secretary’s memoirs
are rstly the story of a woman of great warmongering
character with a fascinating talent to lie and whitewash
the truth. Her memoirs are surely a valuable contribution
to the political history of aggressive diplomacy of the
project of the US’ global hegemony after the collapse of
the USSR. But who was her mentor?

Former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright

If we are speaking about the US’ foreign policy, the

fundamental question is what are the US policy’s interests
and its implications in both the Balkans and Europe.

The US’ involvement in the Balkans

and Europe
The achievement of a New World Order after 1990 is
being tested for some time in Washington. We have to
keep in mind that for some rst 20 years after the end of
the Cold War, the strongest military and economic power,
the leaders of the NATO and the UNO, the initiators of the
international peacekeeping missions and negotiations in
the regions of „failed states“ in which they provoked the
crises and wars, especially at the Balkans, the champions
against the international terrorism and crime that was a
reaction to their dirty foreign policy of unmasked
imperialism and global hegemony, were the USA.[8]
Nevertheless, the US’ interests in the Balkans cannot be
understood apart from a larger picture of the American
interests in Europe in general.

There are many American scientists and politicians who

argued that a leadership in Europe will either be American
or it will not be, since France and Germany (the axis-
powers of the EU) were not too strong to take over and
Germany was still in the 1990s too preoccupied with the
consequences of its reuni cation (i.e., the absorption of
the DDR). However, the recent (on November 11th, 2018)
French President Emmanuel Macron’s initiative to create a
joint European Army shows that probably the Europeans
nally became enough matured to maintain security in
their own home by themselves but not anymore under the
umbrella of the US-led NATO. The question, in essence, is
not if, but what kind of leadership the US has and will have
in the case that the current post-Cold War’s international
relations are not going to be drastically changed? In this
respect, the US need to be aware that the best leadership
is the one shared with other partners, in this case with the
EU/NATO, more speci cally France, Germany, and Britain
but, of course, Russia have to be seriously taken into the
consideration too. With the involvement of Russia into a
common European security system on the bases of equal
reciprocity, friendship and partnership, the nal aim will be
to obtain a common vision and an ef cient coordination in
con ict management, as well as in political and economic
cooperation. At such a way, the cases of violent
destructions and civil wars, for example on the territory of
ex-Yugoslavia, will be avoided for sure.

U.S. Marines escorting Yugoslavian soldiers in Kosovo to be

handed over to Yugoslavian authorities

The US’ political analysts are keen to suggest that the

American presence in Europe should not be regarded as a
competition, but rather as a part of the transatlantic
partnership between the two continents, as well as a
necessity demonstrated by the sad experience in the
former Yugoslavia. According to of cial Washington, the
NATO’s intervention in both Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995
and Kosovo in 1999 (in both cases against the Serbs)
under the US’ leadership was the only credible action
along with many initiatives taken by the international
community.[9] However, on the other side, military
intervention is in many cases creating more political and
security problems for a longer period of time. It is
understandable that the US cannot assist apathetically to
the collapse of countries vital to their own interest but
such principle is valid to be applied for any great power
too. Besides, regional instability only expands, engaging
other areas and creating new confrontations. Thus, the
economic support offered to some countries, and the
military one offered to others shows that the US formally
believe in the regional stability as an enforcer of the
international stability but in reality only if such stability is
put under the umbrella of Washington’s interests and
bene ts. The case of Kosovo is, probably, the best
example of such practice: by bringing a formal stability
this province of Serbia is put at the same time under the
full Western (primarily American) political control and
economic exploitation.[10]

In supporting the NATO’s expansion, there is a hesitation

in treating all aspirant countries in a non-discriminatory
fashion. And that, because interests are more important
than global security, can be the reason. The advocates of
the „Pax Americana’s“ view of the global security would
publically say that they are not propagating the US as the
savior of the world, or the world’s policeman, but they are
just the most fervent supporters of the global peace and
stability. However, in the practice they are working
oppositely: as many as con icts and insecurity issues in
the world, there are more chances and practical
opportunities for Washington to become the regional
policeman and global savior of the order.[11] In their
relationship with other NATO’s countries, the USA regard
the process of integration in the Euro-Atlantic space (i.e.,
the area of the US’ control and administration) as a two-
way street in which each partner needs to accomplish its
tasks. An addition to those is, of course, the geostrategic
position (Turkey instead of Greece, for instance, in the
1974 Cyprus crisis) and short, medium and long-term
declarative promises like the economic grati cation of
security which can at the end to be turned to its opposite
side. For instance, the US’ offering military, political and
nancial assistance to the countries of East-Central and
South-East Europe as a mean to build up their security
shield against „aggressive“ Russia can be easily
transformed into their very insecurity reality coming from
the US’ imperialistic policy toward Russia as there were
already the cases with Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in
2014 as the „Pax Americana’s“ approach in international
relations is as its countereffect just provoking the Russian
(and Chinese) counteraction in enhancing its own nuclear
and other military potentials as Vladimir Putin exactly
stressed during his electoral campaigns.
The US’ geopolitical strategy by Zbig
(Vietnam) war criminal Henry Kissinger (ex-US’ Secretary
of State), summarized the post-Cold War’s international
relations from the American geopolitical viewpoint:

„Geopolitically, America is an island o the

shores of the large landmass of Eurasia,
whose resources and population far exceed
those of the United States. The domination
by a single power of either of Eurasia’s two
principal spheres – Europe or Asia –
remains a good definition of strategic
danger for America, Cold War or no Cold
War. For such a grouping would have the
capacity to outstrip America economically
and, in the end, militarily“.[12]

It is not surprising that in the 1990s there were raised

voices in Washington which required that the US has to
nd a way of dominating Eurasia at any reasonable cost.
The US’ neocon warmongering hawks, like Zbigniew
Brzezinski, recognized that the area of the enlarged
Middle East (with the Balkans, North Africa, and Central
Asia) is from the strategical viewpoint, economically,
ideologically and above all geopolitically at the center of
the Eurasian issue. However, the US’ neocon hawks’ much
wider global geopolitical aims which were coming closer
to the aim to continue domination in the Middle East were
launched during the Bill Clinton’s presidency as a result of
a wider shift in the American foreign policy’s pro le led by
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright (“Madam
Secretary”) and her extremely Russophobic mentor
Zbigniew Brzezinski (known as Zbig).

Warsaw-born Zbig (1928−2017) was a focal personality in

the US’ foreign policy’s elite establishment since
President Jimmy Carter’s administration in which he was a
National Security Advisor. During the Ronald Reagan’s
administration, Zbig was the main mediator between
Washington and its clients in Afghanistan – the anti-
Soviet Taliban forces and Osama bin-Laden with whom
Zbig has several common photos (in 1979) on which he is
training Osama to operate with just donated American
guns to ght the Soviets. Further, Zbig has a great
in uence on the rst Bill Clinton’s administration and he
was at the same time an early advocate of the NATO’s
eastward expansion (started in 1999). It is assumed that it
was exactly Zbig who was instrumental in getting the US’
President Bill Clinton to commit himself to this course of
the American imperialism in 1994. Furthermore,
Brzezinski’s in uence on the US’ foreign policy became
stronger during the second Clinton’s administration
through a Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright – his
former pupil at Columbia University. It is worth to note that
Albright was working under his supervision in Carter’s
administration. If we have to summarize Zbig’s chief
imperatives of the US’ imperialistic global policy and
geostrategy of the making America world’s hegemon,
they are going to be as follows:

1. To prevent collusion and maintain security among the

US’ vassal states (the NATO/EU).
2. To keep tributaries pliant and protected.
3. To keep the barbarians (the Russians and their
supporters) from coming together.
4. To consolidate and perpetuate the prevailing
geopolitical pluralism in Eurasia by manipulation in order
to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could
nally attempt to challenge the US’ supremacy in the
5. Those that must be divided and eventually ruled are
Germany, Russia, Japan, Iran, and China.[13]

Former US national security advisor Zbigniew Former US national

security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski

The American direct and infamous participation in the

destruction of ex-Yugoslavia in 1991−1995 followed by
the 1998−1999 Kosovo’s War can be understood,
therefore, as the steps in the realization of Zbig’s
geopolitical strategy of making America global hegemon.
The US-led bombing of Serbia and Montenegro from
March to June 1999 (78 days) was carried out by enlarged
NATO and the UNO was only called at the end to sanctify
the resulting colonial policy of Washington. The
aggression on Serbia and Montenegro was formally
justi ed by a reference to the TV-show plight of Kosovo’s
Albanians, developing at the same time the new doctrine
of the „humanitarian imperialism“. We have to keep in
mind on this place that the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s
were fought in a geographical area which is the crucial
courtyard of the Eurasian continent that is as such
opening a direct way to the ex-Soviet republics on the
shores of the Caspian and the energy sources they
control.[14] Nevertheless, Kosovo’s War became for the
US the genuine precursor of its later invasion of Iraq in

„Madam Secretary“ was a rm advocate of bombing

Serbia and Serbs in Washington primarily due to the direct
in uence by notorious Russophobe Zbig who saw the
Balkan Serbs as „little Russians“ and the Balkan wars of
the destruction of ex-Yugoslavia as a testing ground for
the US’ policy throughout the whole Caspian and Central
Asian area. However, in addition, being an advocate for the
US’ oil companies wishing to establish their business on
the territory of ex-Soviet Union in the Caucasus and
Central Asia, Zbig regarded the American political and
geostrategic supremacy in this region as a crucial aim of
the US’ foreign policy in the 1990s. In order to accomplish
his aim, among other manipulations and instruments, Zbig
championed the American support to the Islamic
Pakistan, the Taliban Afghanistan (till 9/11) and the Islamic
resurgence in Saudi Arabia and even Iran.[15]

Multidimensional aspect of security

It is true that globalization, stability, and security offer to
the countries a greater capacity to cooperate and focus
on the economic prosperity of its citizens but in practice,
this particularly means much more important businesses
and more money for the US’ economy and citizens. Today,
security has multidimensional aspects. If during the Cold
War security only had a military-political component,
today it has gained a new aspect – the economic one. The
non-military aspects of security comprise everything from
macroeconomic stability to environmental health. The
proponents of the US’ global hegemony will all the time
argue that where there is a harmony (established by the
US) and well-being the chances of con icts to erupt are
smaller and the gain is exclusively nancial and economic
(primarily for the US).

There is, of course, a combination between interest per se

and their consequences. To illustrate, the case of
Macedonia could be interesting. Macedonia at the rst
glance bene ts of the US’ military presence on her
territory since 1991 as it is a geostrategic spot in the
Balkans of the highest importance. As a matter of fact,
this military presence maintained Macedonia’s economic
level at a higher standard than some of the other
countries in the area up to 2001, despite the fact that was
still the poorest of the former Yugoslav six republics
affected by two economic embargos by Greece in
1991−1993. Macedonia was illustrated till 2001, especially
by the Western media, as being a success story in con ict
prevention and peace maintenance primarily due to the
presence of the US/NATO’s military troops. However, in
2001 erupted inter-ethnic con ict between the Slavic
Macedonians and the local Albanians (supported by the
Kosovo Liberation Army) what brought the question of the
US/NATO’s ef ciency in the region.

The NATO’s eastward expansion is a particular story of

Zbig’s geostrategic designs against his eternal enemy –
Russia. It is a fact that just before the NATO’s aggression
on Serbia and Montenegro in 1999, this military
organization accepted as the member states three East-
Central European countries: Poland, Hungary, and the
Czech Republic (the next eastward enlargement was in
2004). Therefore, the southern ank of the NATO
between Hungary and Greece became now interrupted
only by the territory of ex-Yugoslavia. Subsequently, such
situation gave NATO a considerable strategic interest in
controlling the Balkans where the Serbs were the most
numerous and geostrategically important nation.
However, as a direct effect of the NATO’s eastward
enlargement, the Iron Curtain was moved further to the
east and closer to Russia’s borders with all spectrum of
the expected and unexpected consequences of such anti-
Russian Drang nach Osten. Now, the Iron Curtain, once
dividing Germany, it came in 1999 to run down the eastern
borders of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary,
ending on the state-borders of the ex-Yugoslav republics,
now independent states. The crux of the matter is that a
decade-long process of the NATO’s eastward
enlargement became at the beginning of 1999 blocked in
the Balkans by the Serbs – the only ex-Yugoslav nation
rmly opposing a NATO’s membership. Subsequently, it
was exactly Washington to assume the role of leading the
NATO to the new anti-Russian front and borders. That was
the crucial reason why the Serbs had to be bombed in
1999 and Kosovo occupied by the US-led NATO’s troops in
the form of the UNO KFOR. What regards this issue, both
Zbig and „Madam Secretary“ were clearly speaking
through the mouth of the US’ President Bill Clinton: the
stability (the US’ control) in the Balkans could only be
established if the EU and the USA do for this region what
it was done for Europe after the WWII and Central Europe
after the Cold War – occupation and economic- nancial
exploitation within the formal framework of the NATO’s
and EU’ (the USA) enlargement.

The brutal expansion of the NATO is very visible since
1999 and even expected if we are taking into
consideration the nal aims of the US’ foreign policy in
Eurasia framed by a notorious foreign policy gangster –
Zbigniew Brzezinski. As a consequence, the EU is going to
continue to be America’s main colonial partner in the
NATO’s preparations for the war of aggression against
Russia and most probably at the same time China.
Subsequently, there will be a need for much work and a
common will to overcome violence, injustice, and suffering
in order to achieve a global security without the
hegemonic dominance by any great power.[16]

Reposts are welcomed with the reference to ORIENTAL REVIEW.


[1] Andrew J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities

and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy, Cambridge,
Massachusetts−London, England: Harvard University
Press, 2002, the page before 1.

[2] On the Western approach about a modern Yugoslav

history, see in Allcock B. John, Explaining Yugoslavia,
London: Hurst & Co, 2000; David Gowland, Richard
Dunphy, Charlotte Lythe, The European Mosaic:
Contemporary Politics, Economics and Culture, Third
Edition, Harlow, Essex, England: Pearson Education
Limited, 2006, Section 5.3 Yugoslavia.

[3] About the destruction of ex-Yugoslavia and particularly

on the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, see in Jelena
Guskova, Istorija jugoslovenske krize 1990−2000,
Beograd: Izdavački gra čki atelje “M”, 2003.
[4] Вељко Ђурић Мишина (уредник), Република Српска
Крајина. Десет година послије, Београд: „Добра воља“,
2005, 48.

[5] On this issue, see more in Zoran Anđelović, Miroslav

Marković (eds.), Days of Terror (In the Presence of the
International Forces), Belgrade: Center for Peace and
Tolerance, 2000; Dragan Kojadinović (ed.), March Pogrom
in Kosovo and Metohija (March 17−19, 2004) With a
Survey of Destroyed and Endangered Christian Cultural
Heritage, Belgrade: Ministry of Culture of the Republic of
Serbia−Museum in Priština (displaced), 2004.

[6] Pierre Pean, Sébastien Fontenelle, Kosovo une guerre

“juste” pour créer un etat ma eux, Paris: Librairie
Arthème Fayard, 2013.

[7] This article is a constructive-critical contribution to the

new, revised and updated edition of the memoirs of the
“Madam Secretary”.

[8] About the post-Cold War’s US’ foreign policy,

especially through the prism of the “Bush Doctrine”, see in
David P. Forsythe, Patrice C. McMahon, Andrew Wedeman
(eds.), American Foreign Policy in a Globalized World, New
York−London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2006.

[9] About a typical American approach on the case of

Yugoslavia’s destruction in the 1990s, see in Susan L.
Woodward, Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution after
the Cold War, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution,
1995. However, the focal lack of such books is the fact
that a crucial US/EU/NATO’ role in creating Balkan tragedy
and Yugoslavia’s chaos is omitted.

[10] Hannes Hofbauer, Eksperiment Kosovo: Povratak

kolonijalizma, Beograd: Albatros Plus, 2009.

[11] There are well-known words by Theodor Roosevelt

uttered in December 1899: “Of course, our whole national
history has been one of expansion”.

[12] John Rees, Imperialism and Resistance, New

York−London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2006,

[13] Ibid., 19−20.

[14] About the issue of a strategic environment from the

Adriatic to the Caspian, see in Stefano Bianchini (ed.),
From the Adriatic to the Caucasus: The Dynamics of
(De)Stabilization, Ravenna: Longo Editore Ravenna, 2001.

[15] Differently to all other American warmongers and

imperialistic hawks, Zbig favors the alliance with the Shia
Islamic Republic of Iran.

[16] On global security, see in Peter Hough, Understanding

Global Security, Third edition, New York−London:
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2005.

Share this:

Share 65 Tweet  Email


The US Foreign Policy: Banditry as Did The Cold War Ever Really End? Making Balkan Caliphate: The
a „Business as Usual“ Wahhabies – A New Danger for the
Balkan and European Security

Afghanistan Balkans Carter Clinton gangsters Iraq

Kosovo Madam Secretary Madeleine K. Albright Talibans

warmongers Washington Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski

Vladislav B. SOTIROVIĆ  
Founder & Editor of POLICRATICUS-Electronic Magazine On
Global Politics Since 2014 ( Contact:


20/11/2018 at 12:27 PM
Zbig & Madam Pig are classical American garbages. It would be
interesting to release their national identity.

21/11/2018 at 9:19 AM


Madam Pig is of the same nationality as Henry Kissinger, Vladimir

Ilich Lenin, Theodor Herzl, for instance. About Zbig I cannot say the
same but I would not be surprised if yes.

21/11/2018 at 7:23 PM

Brzezinski, Albright, Clinton and Soros are members of the

Rockefeller CFR, which has dominated US policy since WW2. Both
NATO and the UN were organized by CFR members. See lists in
the CFR annual report.

Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here...


The Highest Degree Of Certainty:

The New Evidence In The
Downing Of Flight MH17 (6,570)

The Peace Treaty of Westphalia

(1648) and its Consequences for
International Relations (5,574)

Grandmaster Putin’s Trap (3,899)

NATO’s Manipulation Of The
Macedonian Vote Exposes Its
Modus Operandi (2,840)

The Unpleasant Truth About The

1941 Parachuting Of Rudolf Hess
In England (I) (2,172)

Our top contributors




Vladimir KOZIN




Fr. Lawrence FARLEY


Fr. Stephen FREEMAN

Michael AVERKO


Fr. Andrey TKACHEV

Nauman SADIQ



Leonid SAVIN


Nafeez AHMED

Subscribe to OR Journal

Please enter your email address to subscribe

to ORIENTAL REVIEW and receive free and
immediate noti cations of our updates.

Email Address


Support our contributors

ORIENTAL REVIEW reckons on your

donations to develop the project into the
global online Research Centre. All
accumulated funds to be forwarded monthly
to our outstanding authors. Thank you in

Calendar Join our Facebook page Follow us on Twitter

Oriental Review
Tweets by @orientalreview
November 2018


Oriental Review
  1 2 3 4 Like Page Sign @orientalreview

5 6 7 8 9 10 11
On The Origins Of
Be the first of your friends to like this
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
And Proto-Serbs
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30   018/11/23/on-…
« OCT    

Embed View on Twitter
Home About Submission Guidelines

Copyright © 2010-2018 Oriental Review