The developed countries of Europe and the USA need object of large-scale and effective investment. This requirement amplifies, on the one hand, expansion of investment resources after reduction of internal bank reserves of the Eurozone, caused by transition to euro, and with another - reduction of the sphere of potential investment after destabilization of developing countries.

In these conditions realization new "the plan of Marshall" - large-scale investments in destroyed (that is ideally prepared for modernization) economy at complete political control and fabulous low cost of the qualified labor, is for the developed countries of Europe and the USA exclusively favorable prospect. And to realize the plan of Marshall in any country, it needs to be prepared as appropriate for it, and the mechanism of such preparation half a century was created by the USA - carpet bombings of Germany and Japan back. On this blazed way which has proved the historical expediency, modern Europe also moved - and voices about need new "the plan of Marshall" for post-war Yugoslavia already sound.

It is essentially important for understanding of modern policy of the USA nuance - for them the relations not alliance, but the global competition are primary. According to the provision of a super state they are inclined to consider the alliance relations mainly as the tool allowing them randomly and with impunity to infringe upon interests of the younger partners, ensuring, thus, unconditional advantage over them in the international competition. The infringement if it is carried out in the course of achievement of "the general tasks" is especially effective.

So, in the Yugoslavian conflict, the USA, continuously increasing blows, passed from destruction of easily restored information infrastructure to elimination much more capital-intensive transport, and then and even more expensive of power and municipal infrastructures that rejects Yugoslavia in a cave century and significantly reduces its post-war investment appeal, undermining thereby essential interests of the European part of aggressors.

Only costs of restoration of the Yugoslavian infrastructure at least by 10 times will exceed expenses of the USA on Kosovo war. Today the damage of Yugoslavia is estimated at 126 billion dollars. [8]

The most striking example of similar activity, along with purposeful decrease in post-war investment appeal of Yugoslavia, it is necessary to recognize hacker war of the USA against the largest European banks, launched under the pretext of destruction of accounts of Milosevic. It is same (and so effective) the act of the international competition which is carried out by discredit of the European banks, daring to compete with American, as well as large-scale campaign for disclosure of secret of deposits of the Swiss banks (undermined ideas of their reliability by means of perfectly moral search of deposits of victims of Nazism). Not to mention campaign for charge of Japanese financiers in communications with a mafia (upon completion of scandal accused financiers were employed in the American banks - competitors of those banks in whom they worked). [3: 26]

1.4 Updating of arms

Disposal of outdated ammunition

One of the reasons why NATO began bombardments of Yugoslavia - refusal to sign the Agreement in Rambouillet. According to representatives of NATO, bombardment will proceed until the Agreement won't be signed. Need to note that we deal with very strange diplomacy: whether it is possible to consider as diplomatic methods of threat, what if one of the parties won't sign the Agreement, it will raze to the ground? Whether it is similar to a situation when to you suggest signing the contract, holding the charged gun at your temple? Legally such documents are considered as the absolutely invalid. But the main thing, for the general public very hardly noticeably there passed actually the text of this agreement. Excerpts from it, quoted mass media, don't reflect neither all aspects, nor the real purpose of this document. Some points of the Agreement, are given below.

"1. "NATO" designates the Organization of the North Atlantic contract (NATO), the organizations subordinated to it, its military headquarters, any headed elements or the divisions supporting NATO if they work for execution of conditions of this Agreement, irrespective of, whether they belong to the country entering NATO, whether there are they under team of NATO or under NATO control".

I. e., anyone can be called as "NATO", even those countries which aren't included into this organization. For example, Albania, Bosnian Muslims or Croats.

"3. The parties recognize need of acceleration of procedures of arrival and departure of employees and employees of NATO. Such employees will be exempted from requirements of presentation of the passport and receipt of a visa, and also from any registration which is required for foreigners".

I. e. to the country absolutely uncontrolled entrance of any persons under NATO cover is possible.

"4.military personnel of NATO in normal circumstances will wear a military uniform; also the staff of NATO can have the weapon and carry it with themselves if they obtain on it the order of the administration".

"5. NATO will be allowed to place a flag of NATO or national flags of all national elements entering it and divisions on any military uniform of NATO, on vehicles, in rooms or the fenced space". "NATO" and its employees (employees) are absolutely free from any form of prosecution for any their acts.

"6. (a) NATO will receive legal immunity from any prosecution: civil, administrative or criminal.

(b) The employees of NATO in any circumstances and will be exempted at any time from jurisdiction of the parties signing these agreements concerning any civil, administrative, criminal or disciplinary violations which they can make, being in FRY".

"8. Staff (employees) of NATO together with the vehicles, vessels, avianforces and the equipment receives free and nothing the limited right to pass and take place in any places of FRY, including in its air space and territorial waters. This right includes, but isn't limited to the rights: to break camp, to maneuver, take place on apartments and to use any districts and territories which are required for support, preparation or activity".

"9. NATO will be exempted from payments, taxes and other collecting, and also from checks and customs inspections, including from providing ordinary customs declarations and consignment notes. This right extends on employees (employees), vehicles, vessels, avianmeans, the equipment, supplies, provisions and spare parts during their entrance/departure (import/export), and also transit drive/transportation on FRY territory if it is connected with performed Operation".

I. e. full economic absence of control.

"15. The parties recognize that use of channels of communications is necessary for carrying out Operation. NATO will be allowed to use own internal post service. The parties by the first simple inquiry are obliged to provide to NATO any telecommunication services, including broadcasting services which are necessary for carrying out Operation and this need are defined by NATO. It includes the right absolutely free of charge to use any means and services which are required for providing unlimited opportunities of communication and the right to use for this purpose all electromagnetic range".

I. e. absolute monopoly in mass media and communication

"16. The parties gratuitously provide to NATO any state or public places or services which NATO for preparation and carrying out Operation" will demand.

"All citizens of Yugoslavia (for example, fighters from "Liberation army of Kosovo") who will be employed by NATO, are released from observance of the labor legislation, they are released from any form of prosecution for the acts made by them, they are exempted from a military appeal, and received by them from NATO earnings are exempted from taxes.

"20. NATO has the right to engage employees from among locals. The locals employed by NATO, will be: a) are exempted from legal prosecution concerning the words said or written by them, and also concerning any actions which they will undertake as obliges; b) will be exempted from the civil duties and/or from obligatory military service; c) will be subject only to the conditions of the working contracts offered by it NATO; d) will be exempted from taxes on a salary and on other payments received by them from NATO". [9]

It is necessary to add still that under the terms of the Agreement foreign occupational forces get the right "to make such amendments to infrastructures" Yugoslavia what they will consider necessary, and is explained that under infrastructures mean including roads, bridges, the railroads, waterways, messages, etc. It is clear that the term "make amendments" can include, for example, destruction, overlapping, control, etc.

It is obvious what voluntary to agree on these conditions meant to agree on occupation of the country by the foreign state or group of the states.

It is also necessary to mean that some of the states entering into NATO are historical opponents of Serbia. For example, Germany within the last century occupied Serbia twice, and Turkey historically throughout many centuries was her main enemy and the oppressor. There is a possibility of use of NATO of Croats and the Bosnian Muslims who were already arranging genocide of the orthodox Serbian people in this century.

Why Serbians had to sign such agreement and why many colonial authorities, having very long lists of human rights violations (we will remember continuous slaughter which Turkey carries out against the Kurdish population), now united under the flag of NATO, have the right to attack the independent state which itself anybody didn't attack? It is important also that the Agreement speaks about conditions which Serbia is forced to accept, obligatory to application in all territory of FRY, and not just in Kosovo. Whether somebody can present any independent state which accepts similar conditions? For example, whether it is possible to imagine Israel which agrees to provide to tens of thousands of armed foreign armies in full military uniforms, under national flags unlimited access on all the territory (including to governmental buildings and military bases), control over the air space and radio waves, opportunity to maneuver and break camp where they want, and the right to occupy any building or the room which they will wish. Would allow the USA or any other country of NATO to apply such conditions at home? [5]

From everything given the simple conclusion above follows - the USA didn't want that Milosevic signed this Agreement. The weighty occasion was necessary to them to justify the aggression against the non aggressive state before the world community and to begin active operations which actually and were their ultimate goal.

The USA, judging by Iraq and now across Kosovo, took advantage of very perspective way of justified invasion into any unsuccessful country - technology of the ultimatum which can't be accepted.

Military aspects

The main official goal of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia was protection of the Albanian population of Kosovo against oppressions of Serbians and prevention of "humanitarian accident" which allegedly could result from these oppressions. Falsity of such motivation as a whole is already clear even to the public of the NATO countries; however it is useful to emphasize the most important points once again:

Oppressions from Serbians were provoked by NATO countries, first of all the USA which consistently warmed up activity of ordinary separatist movement of Kosovar Albanians.

Much more serious oppressions against ethnic or religious minorities of the countries carried out and carry out many countries of the world, including members of NATO - Great Britain (Ulster) and Turkey applying (as well as Saddam Hussein's mode) against Kurds even the chemical weapon. In the territory of the former Yugoslavia much crueler, than to Kosovo, methods applied, for example, the authorities of Croatia. However discontent of the USA (not to mention aggression) was caused only by Serbians.

NATO aggression not that didn't prevent, and, on the contrary, in itself became main, if not the only reason of humanitarian accident in Kosovo. In any degree without justifying practice of ethnic cleanings, it should be noted that heads of the USA are better than others had to understand inevitability of ethnic cleanings concerning the people who have been officially called aggressors the reason of attack.

The USA was the first country which has applied this technique. After attack of Japan to Perl Harbor all Japanese living in the USA, regardless of nationality were thrown into concentration camps where were until the end of war.

The fact of really large-scale ethnic cleanings in Kosovo raises doubts. Messages on them are based in words the Kosovars connected by breeding solidarity, dependent on NATO and intimidated by narcoterrorists from supported NATO of groups. The facts speak about other: 120 thousand Kosovar Albanians ran on the territory of Yugoslavia! Their bigger quantity ran only to Albania. It is impossible that victims of ethnic cleanings ran to the executioners. Therefore, people ran not from cleanings, and from NATO bombardments which intensity was the greatest in Kosovo. Thus, on the Balkans criminal aggression untied by the USA and NATO is the main reason of humanitarian accident, and humanitarian accident was one of the purposes of aggressors (differently intensity of bombings of peace objects wouldn't be maximum in the "saved" Kosovo, and NATO officials wouldn't interfere with Albanians to come back to the villages). The probable explanation of the last consists in marginalization of Kosovar Albanians as people which will provide fast inflow of tens of thousands in normal conditions of peace people in the militant groups, called partially to replace NATO armies in overland invasion, especially in the most dangerous operations, and thus qualitatively to lower level of their losses.

Thus, the proclaimed purposes of aggression had no relation to reality. The provisions given above convincingly prove that aggressors are indifferent to character of the Yugoslavian authorities and use references to their actions only for a justification of own actions and masking of own interests. [7]

2.3 Conclusions for the conflict reasons