Let’s think logically: how do the main countries-actors of destabilization in the world act?
If it were the work of “specialists” from criminal structures or terrorist organizations, the most they would do would be rudimentary acts of terrorism, explosions and hostage-taking. Spot-on, uncomplicated and primitive. The logistics will be organized, the men will be gathered – but the “specialists” would hardly think of using cover squads, Marxmen or snipers to support the advancing groups.
Of course, there are intelligent specialists in logistics, but they are a piece-good commodity. The probability that some large criminal organization of the type of conditional “triad” or terrorist organization in the manner of “Islamic state ” acted independently in Kazakhstan is extremely low. They could be used as group commanders or more intelligent cannon fodder. That is all.
China’s operations have not proved interesting in terms of destabilising the world. Counterintelligence and industrial espionage are the main areas of activity for the Celestial Empire.
If it was an arm of the US, then the US style of operation is predominantly provocative. Blow up their own facility, frame their own ship and aircraft, sacrifice their own citizens. And blaming it on a third party is a typical CIA handwriting. It is crude, clumsy and effective – clumsy not because it is stupid, but because they are acting in Washington from a position of strength and economy. Why waste extra money and overwork if it will work anyway?
Next on the list is Britain. At one time, the British Empire had 108 times the territory of its own centre as colonies. Acting with their own forces and their own troops, the Anglo-Saxons would never have held on to their colonies. The limey’s modus operandi was to pit everyone against each other.
In their own territories the Brits pitted everyone against each other – Irish and Scots alike. And in foreign lands, the most striking example is how they tore India in two. While Muslims and Hindus were killing each other in internecine strife, the British were smuggling out everything they saw fit.
But the British did not hesitate to act by force: remember, for example, the First Opium War. The British did not turn on anyone and simply massacred the Chinese. In their world view, the Anglo-Saxons believe that their role is to be the arbiter of battle or war. And the aborigines’ lot is to kill each other. This is the basis of English colonial policy.
All of the above methods are combined and used successfully by the Israeli intelligence services. Their level of professionalism takes them out of the equation. If something happened somewhere, and it is not at all clear who did it, and the truth about what happened can be discovered after a certain amount of time, it is most likely a Mossad operation.
The simplest example is the complex and multi-stage complication of Iran’s nuclear programme. The key scientists who have been turned over and dead will not lie.
In Kazakhstan, the policy of pitting everyone against everyone else has worked.
Thus it is safe to assume that Britain is behind the current events in Central Asia.
Rybar