29/11/2022 thesaker.is  8 min 🇬🇧 #219864

Will the Us try to pull off a « grenada » in Serbia?

🇫🇷

Remember the 1983 US invasion of Grenada aka "Operation Urgent Fury"?

It all began on October 23, 1983 when two truck bombs blew up the buildings housing the US and French "Multinational Force in Lebanon". This attack resulted in 307 people killed including 241 U.S. and 58 French military personnel. Following the bombings, US diplomats engaged in their usual frantic flag-waving and promises to never ever give in to terrorism. The biggest problem for the US was that it had no way to retaliate in a way which would satisfy the flag-waver's desire for blood. Just blowing up random buildings in Lebanon made very little impact, as for the promises to stay for as long as needed, it was obvious PR - it was clear to everybody that the time to pack and leave had come.

Of course, this was very humiliating for the wannabe "indispensable nation" cum "city upon a Hill",,,

So Reagan, with his undeniable genius for PR and optics, ordered the invasion of Grenada just two days after the bombings in Beirut.

Why Grenada?

Well, for one thing it was barely defended (mostly by Cuban engineers and locals with small arms) and truly tiny (so tiny, in fact, that the overwhelming majority of US Americans had no idea where it was or why there was suddenly an urgent need to invade.

Second, it was very close to the USA, so everybody could get a slice of the cake, including the 1st and 2nd battalions of the US Army's 75th Ranger Regiment, the 82nd Airborne and the Army's rapid deployment force, U.S. Marines, Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs, and ancillary forces totaling 7,600 troops. In terms of hardware, the US brought in 7,300 troops, 4 tanks, 1 LHA (USS Saipan LHA-2), 1 aircraft carrier, 3 destroyers, 2 frigates, 1 ammunition ship and even 27 F-14A Tomcats ( source).

All that against a few hundred construction workers armed only with small arms!

I won't go into all the details here, but let's just say that this invasion was one of the worst and most poorly executed operation in the history of warfare: a truly HUGE US force was brought in to strike at a basically defenseless tiny island nation with the sole purpose of changing the optics of the disaster in Lebanon. But, no to worry, the Pentagon handed our more medals than the number of participants, while some US special forces who wanted to press charges against helicopter pilots for cowardice (who abandoned the SOF on a runway because of small arms fire) were "counseled" against the idea.

Bottom line is this: after the epic disaster in Beirut, the US wanted to quick and easy war to restore the "prestige" of the US armed forces, only to end up with yet another epic disaster, but at least in the case of Grenada, it was simply impossible to fail no matter how inept and incompetent the entire invasion was.

Now let's fast forward by 40 years and look at the current situation.

First, there is the abject failure of the USA in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and the KSA. Then there is the humiliating Iranian bombing of CENTCOM bases which the "these colors don't run" had to suffer without being able to do *anything* to save face. And then they had to run :-)

And now there is a brewing disaster in the Ukraine which will make even the fall of Kabul look like a great success in comparison to comprehensive whopping of all NATO efforts by Russia (reminder: it took Russia less than a month to basically destroy the first iteration of the "Ukrainian" army and another six months to bring the NATO forces to a standstill).

Now try to imagine that you are a hate-filled Neocon sitting in the White House and you are desperate to change the optics of the Brandon Administration.

Would it not be nice to find another "Grenada" somewhere?

Also, would it not feel good to wipe the smile off Putin's face?

Even better - how about making Putin really unpopular in Russia by making him look weak, indecisive or maybe even an agent of the West?

I submit that the US is more or less done with the Middle East. Venezuela is an option, but with no imaginable exit strategy, it would be the proverbial "easy in, no way out" thing the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq and could, potentially also bleed into Colombia.

I remember how during the vicious bombing of the Serbian people by the US/NATO/EU Strobe Talbott made no secret of the fact that this "execution of Serbia" was a "message" sent to Russia: see what we can do to your ally? if you don't behave, you will be next.

After Kabul, threats against Russia look funny. But what about Serbia?

So here are the reasons why Serbia might come under attack (again):

  • Like Grenada, Serbia is completely surrounded by the Hegemony.
  • Serbs (and I am referring to the people, not their leaders) are probably the most pro-Russian and even pro-Putin people on the planet.
  • The Hegemony can constantly engage in provocations (say in Bosnia or Kosovo) to humiliate the Serbian people over and over again and provoke them to take action and then get a pretext to strike (For example, Ursula von der Lugen already made direct threats against Serbia).
  • While the Serbian military is much more capable that the tiny Grenadian security forces, compared to NATO it simply is no match, especially if, like the last time around, the Hegemony chooses to use missile and bomb strikes and does not put "boots on the ground".
  • In Russia Serbs are often perceived as the only true friends of Russia.
  • Russia still does not have the means to protect Serbia though this might change in the future (more about that below) so now is the time to act.
  • Serbia is an Orthodox country and the Serbian nation is composed of those whom neither the Latins nor the Ottomans could force into converting to Latin Christianity or Islam. Just for that they are hated by the western ruling elites (not to mention the Croats and Bosnian Muslims).
  • While this is rarely admitted in the West, in spire of the absolutely terrible correlation of forces the Serbs basically fought the US/NATO into a draw in Bosnia and they are still unwilling to give up on Kosovo (I am talking about the people here, not Serbian politicians.

There are plenty more reasons which I could list, but I think that the image is clear.

Translation: Vladimir, save Serbia!

I would also note that I don't see the US/NATO actually invading Serbia, that would be way too messy and would require even more US/NATO forces than are currently deployed in Europe.

Besides, the 5th column in Serbia and Montenego is so powerful that there is absolutely no need to invade either one of these two supposed nation (they are one in reality, of course!).

Instead, what I see as the biggest risk is that the US might decide to do with Serbia what the Zionist entity (aka "Israel") is doing in Syria: I call it "psychotherapeutic strikes".

Psychotherapeutic strikes are not designed to achieve any tangible military success. The Israelis have been bombing Syria for YEARS now and all of these strikes have had exactly *zero* military impact: if anything, the Syrian authorities, backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah remain firmly in control of the situation. But it makes Jewish supremacist feel good about their putative racial superiority and it feeds their illusions about their military being as formidable as ever (heck, they even fly F-35s! what could possibly go wrong?).

And here is the key factor to consider: just as the Israelis are never told that their strikes against Syria are, at best, useless, so does the US propaganda machine hide the magnitude of the US defeat in Grenada from the people of the USA. Hollywood even made sure to sell the heroic version of this shameful invasion :-)

In other words, if the US/NATO were to strike Serbia, they would not need to achieve any tangible military result. Such a strike(s) would only serve PR purposes and as a way to distract the public from the disaster in the Ukraine.

Then there is the argument that time is running out for the AngloZionist Empire: as soon as NATO is defeated in the Ukraine, you can expect a major political crisis for both NATO and the EU and the infamous " Camp Bondsteel" in Kosovo will be threatened (if interested, you can check out my article " Kosovo will be liberated" which I wrote in 2017). By the time NATO runs out of military hardware and the entire EU plunged into a massive economic and political crisis, Russia will have the means to provide some very real support to Serbia (assuming that by then Serbia is run by real sovereignists).

It is obvious that the  NATO plans to invade Crimea next year will now have to be shelved and quickly forgotten. Ditto for the planned " Operation Storm" but this time against the Donbass (don't take my word for it, see  here). These ships have sailed.

[Sidebar: the fact that the Ukie Nazis were so inspired by Croatian Nazis is, of course, not a coincidence. Both nations are the creation of the Vatican and the follow the ideology common to Pavelic and Bandera and, for that matter, Pilsudski, Franco or Mussolini]

So will we see another "Grenada" against the Serbian people? If by that we mean a fullscale invasion, then no. But Israeli-style "psychotherapeutic strikes" are a very real risk in Bosnia and Serbia (including, of course, Kosovo).

I would argue that as long as NATO and the EU exist, the Serbian people will be living with a gun to their heads. In fact, NO truly sovereign nation on our planet is safe as long as NATO and the AngloZionist Empire have not been de-fanged. Once western Europe is denazified and demilitarized, along with whatever remains of Banderastan, then peace and security (which is *always* collective!) will return to Europe and Serbia. And then both Bosnia and Kosovo will be liberated.

Andrei

 thesaker.is

 Commenter