By blowing their horn the aggressors actually make it known to the world that they do not even consider a political settlement of the Kosovo and Metohija crisis, and that they do not even think of stopping the bombing of Yugoslavia. Instead of all this, the aggressors, as almost all European political analysts agreed today, go to any lengths to prevent a political and peaceful settlement of the crisis.

And while the western media, at the beginning of the aggression, discussed mostly the targets that had been hit and the types of fighter planes that kept their ruthless bombing of mainly civilian targets in Yugoslavia, today almost everybody asks the question:

Why have we started this dirty war and how are we going to stop it?

The pretexts used by the aggressor regarding the aggression against Yugoslavia are well known. Today, no one believes in them and the majority of analysts are convinced that what is concerned are much bigger games that have left Yugoslavia holding the bag.

The only realistic chance of getting out of that "game" as soon as possible is "a new alliance" between Russia and China, which is giving a big headache to the NATO aggressors. It is, however, interesting that certain individuals among the ranks of the aggressors have expressed their hope that the "alliance" will bear fruit and that the Alliance might even pull itself out of the Balkan bloody adventure.

It is for this reason that all the eyes have been directed at the special envoy of the Russian president, Victor Chernomyrdin, who is taking an increasing initiative, as the western media claim, and turning into an "independent player" in a certain way.

The greatest rise to dilemmas in the West has been given by Chernomyrdin's visit to Beijing. Despite Cheromyrdin's "good relations" with the West and his "American friendships", his departure for China, irrespective of the Balkan peace initiative, is regarded as an "important and challenging" event.

The political approximation of Moscow and Beijing is something the West would least be happy about and something it fears most of all, to put it in simple terms.

Although little is known what Chernomyrdin has agreed upon in Beijing, Western diplomatic circles believe that the topic that has been discussed apart from the Balkans was that of much broader and more important strategic redeployments.

An additional problem for NATO is also the fact that judging by all, Chernomyrdin's visit to Beijing is backed not only by Russia but also by some other, very important NATO countries, Western diplomatic circles have been quoted as saying. It is considered that that might deepen the already existing split between the allies and threaten the political perspective of the leaders of the countries heading the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia.

The problem is in the fact that NATO countries are going to do all they can to drag on with the whole process which is going to prolong the aggression, despite the fact that everyone is clear about the inevitability of a political settlement.

This view has been backed by the recent decision of the Supreme Command to partly withdraw its forces from Kosovo and Metohija. According to the statement of the columnist in the Paris Le Monde, this Yugoslav initiative has not yet been followed by concrete acts (by the Alliance), however, it could change the course of the war, open the road to a diplomatic settlement or cause differences among the allies regarding whether it is necessary to go on with the bombing or not.

Evidently, the key strategists of the Alliance in current circumstances, Washington and London more than anyone else, are now trying to draw at least some benefits from the recent bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. In a way, that is normal, otherwise, why would they have decided to bomb that embassy.

The benefit for Washington and London might be achieving a complete blockade of the United Nations and the Security Council, respectively. If that should happen, the USA and Great Britain would have free reign, according to their understanding of the position they have in the Alliance, not only in the aggression against Yugoslavia but also in their new "activities" on the international scene.

The NATO aggressors, however, are faced with an increasing resistance in the world because of such policy as well as with a growing dissatisfaction with the Alliance, particularly with the USA. Testifying about this are not only the mass demonstrations in many countries against the dirty war, but also the numerous comments, particularly in the so-called countries of the Third World.

The Indian Organizer newspaper states that the "courage and wit of the small, but brave people of Yugoslavia in the war against the Alliance is an example, although not unprecedented".

The mentioned newspaper reminds that the USA was a defeated nation in Asia as well, and goes on to add: "Soon it is going to be a defeated aggressor in Europe as well".

Vietnam has given its historical lesson to America, The Organizer states in one of the commentaries and reminds:

"Not a single American was willing to die in an Asian country. Bill Clinton was also afraid he might die in Vietnam. He fled from his country to England in order to avoid being drafter to the army where he could have lost his life because of the dignity of his country. That same timid "patriot" has now become the most arrogant and the most powerful man in the world. These stories are dishonest historical stories".

According to the latest estimates, the end or the prolongation of the war now depends mainly on the "harmonization" of the views between the Washington-Moscow-Beijing triangle.

Nevertheless, certain unnamed American officials fear that Beijing will not forget the anger it feels because of the bombing of its embassy so soon. They have expressed concern over the fact that the bombing could inflict a long-lasting damage to the American-Chinese relations.

Supporting their apprehension is the statement by James Rubin at the press conference in State Department, where he underlined that the Chinese leaders even refused to talk to Clinton and the State Secretary Madeleine Albright by phone.

"We have clearly expressed our readiness for telephone contacts. We have addressed them also several written communications. They have evidently chosen not to talk to the State Secretary Albright, and President Jiang has done likewise, refusing to talk to President Clinton. That is the decision they have made.