NATO, Migrants in the EU and the Coming War in Moldova

On October 18, an Italian court invalidated the possibility of transiting through a third country twelve Bengali and Egyptian migrants who had been rescued at sea and were claiming the right to asylum. Politically, this decision seems to bring down the scaffolding imagined by Boris Johnson for the relocation of migrants. The British wanted to send them thousands of kilometers away, to Rwanda, the Italians were "content" to transport them a few dozen kilometers away, to Albania.

The court based its decision on a judgment of October 4, 2024, not of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), known as the "Strasbourg Court", which is part of the Council of Europe, but of the Court of Justice of the European Union, known as the "Luxembourg Court", which the United Kingdom no longer recognizes. This distinction may seem pointless to many. However, it reveals that the migration issue, until now dominated by the "progressive" thinking of the ECHR judges, financed by George Soros, is now subject to another logic.

The ECHR stated that migrants must be able to benefit from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CSDHLF) when the courts of the continent examine their case. Consequently, it refused to allow people rescued at sea to be disembarked at the nearest port as indicated by the law of the sea, but made it obligatory to take them in transit in the EU. Thus it considers their transit through Rwanda as illegitimate, but cannot oppose their transit through Albania, which has signed this Convention.

The Court of Justice of the EU does not rule on human rights issues. It simply verifies the application of EU directives [1]. It is an administrative court. However, Directive 2013/32, which sets out the procedures in force, repealed Directive 2005/8. The old text included a clarification that the European Commission removed from the new one. The Court concluded that it is not possible to designate as “safe”, and therefore as a destination for migrants ordered to leave the territory, States where part of them is not “safe”. At the time, the idea was to prohibit the repatriation of Syrians to their country, even if part of it was peaceful. Indeed, the European Union had aligned its policy with that of the United States and Israel. It wanted to deprive Syria of its population in order to weaken it, militarily speaking, against the jihadists.

This is the application of a NATO military theory: “migration as a weapon of war”. This concept was implemented for the first time during the Yugoslav wars. The CIA had managed to convince Kosovars to leave their country to escape the fighting that Belgrade was waging against the KLA terrorists. A long column of civilians had then joined Macedonia by following a railway line. A little taken aback, the Macedonians had welcomed them. The images of this exodus had been used by NATO communications services to ensure that President Slobodan Milošević was repressing the Kosovar minority and thus justify his illegal invasion of Yugoslavia.

This concept was studied by Kelly M. Greenhill [2]. It was used by the CIA to try to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro by causing more than 5 million Venezuelans to flee [3]. We can therefore see two possible military uses of migration: either to accuse a government of repression, or to deprive it of its population. It is important to understand that, contrary to what we think a priori, these migrations are not intended to escape war, but that they are war. Often, they precede military operations.

It is important to understand that, contrary to what we think a priori, these migrations are not intended to escape war, but that they are war. Often, they precede military operations.

This concept should not be confused with that of capitalism expressed by Peter Sutherland, on June 21, 2012, during a hearing at the British House of Lords [4]. He had declared that every individual must have the opportunity to study and work in the country of their choice, which is incompatible with all policies restricting migration; and that migration creates a crucial dynamic for economic development, regardless of what the citizens of the host countries say. Consequently, he concluded, the European Union must undermine the homogeneity of its nations.

This is the economic vision that Ulrich Grillo, President of the Federation of German Industry, had developed on 22 December 2014, to call on Chancellor Angela Merkel to bring 800,000 immigrants into her country [5].

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, defended this economic vision. To do so, he was advised by Peter Sutherland. Presenting her draft Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, his Special Representative, Louise Arbour, declared: “Demographic data suggest that if they want to maintain their current economic levels or even grow their economies, [rich countries] will have to receive well-trained foreign workers to meet the demands of the labour market. [6] »

For years, this vision of migration has been supported by George Soros through his influence on the ECHR [7]. For him, it was about destabilizing states in the name of his conception of “open societies”.

The decision of the Court of Justice of the EU has nothing to do with the political cycle that preceded it, but exclusively with NATO’s experiences in Yugoslavia, in the Great Lakes region, in Libya, in Syria, in Venezuela and, very soon in Moldova.

The Court relied precisely on its reading of the situation in this country. Moldova gained its independence when the USSR dissolved on 27 August 1991, eight days after the declaration of independence of Transnistria (19 August). This small republic was successively considered Ukrainian, then after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, merged by Stalin into part of Romania under the name of Moldova. For thirty-three years, the two entities have been absolutely distinct, however, the United Nations registered Transnistria as a region of Moldova in 1991. The Court of Justice considered that Moldova is not "safe", on the grounds that Transnistria would be a "rebel" region, although totally independent even before the independence of Moldova.

It so happens that Transnistria, today the Dniester Moldavian Republic, had to face NATO during a war falsely presented by the West as the "Moldovan Civil War" (sic), even though the Moldovan army never took part in it. On September 17, 2006, this small republic asked by referendum to join the Russian Federation with 97.2% of the vote. It asked for it again in 2014, when neighboring Crimea was admitted to the Russian Federation [8].

When the Rand Corporation, the think tank of the US military-industrial lobby, presented its plan for Overextending and Unbalancing Russia to the House of Representatives on September 5, 2019, its members insisted on launching a war in Ukraine, or failing that, in Transnistria [9]. Given the military failure of the fundamental nationalists in Ukraine, Washington quickly thought of going up a gear and launching a war in Transnistria/Moldova [10].

After the RAND Corporation’s plan was drafted, small-time hands created pages in 43 languages ​​devoted to the 1992 “Dniester War” on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. This is an excellent illustration of how Atlantic propaganda works. The presentation of events ignores the CIA’s role in the fighting. NATO forces are described as “Moldovan,” when they were Romanian. Compare these pages with the article I wrote on the subject seventeen years ago [11]. Check the references. This fanciful narrative will be taken up in good faith by all Western journalists.

On October 20, 2024, Moldovans were to elect their president and decide whether to include their application for membership in the European Union in the constitution. Surprise: they chose to re-elect pro-EU Maia Sandu as president, but voted against their country’s membership in this supranational organization. Washington’s plan envisaged a sort of remake of the 2014 Maidan coup. This time, it was not about putting “integral nationalists” in power, but about provoking a war with Transnistria. The Court of Justice of the EU had taken the lead by prohibiting the return to Moldova of citizens who refused to participate.

Initially, President Maia Sandu denounced “an unprecedented attack on democracy”. “Criminal groups, acting in concert with foreign forces hostile to our national interests, attacked our country with tens of millions of euros, lies and propaganda” to “trap our country in uncertainty and instability”, she specified. Then, in a second phase, the Electoral Commission announced a victory for the "Yes" vote of 50.28%, after counting the votes of Moldovans abroad; a result widely denounced as fraudulent in Moldova, but applauded by the Western press.