Kosovo: Back to Square One
The United States government and its West European partners have given up on calling a U.N. Security Council vote on their joint resolution supporting Kosovo’s independence. They will initiate direct talks between Belgrade and Pristina instead, as Serbia and Russia have demanded all along. U.S. Ambassador at the UN Zalmay Khalilzad said there would be four months of negotiations between the parties under the auspices of the Contact Group. “We hope that during the course of those negotiations, the parties will come to an agreement,” Khalilzad said; but no one is saying what would happen if no agreement is reached after those 120 days.
In other words, we are back at Square One on Kosovo—exactly where we had been at the end of 2005, before Marti Ahtisaari started his ill-fated mission to gerrymander an independent “Kosova.”
It would be amusing and instructive to compile a collection of quotes made since that time by assorted politicians, pundits, bureucrats, academics and legislators to the effect that Kosovo’s independence is inevitable and imminent. Amusing, because so many luminaries—Tom Lantos, Joseph Lieberman, Nicholas Burns, Daniel Serwer and Richard Holbrooke, among others—were so obviously wrong; and instructive because their single-minded push for Kosovo’s independence is turning into yet another foreign policy disaster for the United States.
But old habits die hard. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Daniel Fried went to Belgrade last month to tell the Serbs that the game was up:
Kosovo will be independent. That is not simply an opinion; it is also a statement of where we think the result will be. Serbia’s leaders need to get beyond denial. They need to stop telling the Serbian people that it will not happen. They need to tell the Serbian people the truth which is that Milosevic lost Kosovo when he went to war with NATO and committed atrocities against the Kosovars. I will tell the truth if the Serbian leaders cannot, and that truth is that Serbia will not rule in Kosovo any more than Hungary will rule in the Vojvodina. It’s gone. It’s over.
Fried’s shrill tone, bordering on hysteria, reflected weakness, rather than strength; it brought to mind Goebbels’s famous Totalen Krieg speech in the aftermath of Stalingrad. In a similar vein, at the end of June President George W. Bush was in Tirana, telling his enthusiastic hosts that America has made up her mind on this issue (“our support is solid, firm”); and only last week Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said, “We are committed to an independent Kosovo and we will get there one way or another.”
The time has come to shake Bush, Fried, Rice et al from their pseudo-reality and explain to them what they dare not tell themselves: “we” will not get there this year, or next, or any other, any more than “we” did in 2006. In other words, it is time to tell them that Kosovo will NOT be independent. That is not simply an opinion; it is also a statement of diplomatic and political reality. America’s leaders need to get beyond denial. They need to stop telling themselves and the world that it will happen. They need to tell the American people the truth which is that Bush lost his Kosovo gambit when he turned it into a test of Russian resolve, after all the atrocities his predecessor committed against the Serbs. Chronicles will tell the truth if the U.S. Administration leaders cannot, and that truth is that their proteges will not rule in Kosovo any more than America will rule in Vietnam. It’s gone, Mr. Fried, it’s over.
It is by now evident that independence will not be steamrolled through the Security Council, and no feasible scenario to bypass the UN is on the horizon. The time has come for some real negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina—with no time limits and no preordained outcomes.
What the advocates of Kosovo’s independence fail to grasp is that for the first time in two decades a great power is able, willing, and even determined to support and meaningfully defend a Serbian position in the mosaic of post-Yugoslav disputes. That power is Russia, and Putin’s motivation is not Orthodox or Slavic solidarity. It has little to do with Kosovo per se, or Serbia as such, and a lot to do with Russia’s return to the world stage as a self-confident great power that has had enough of American faits accomplis and dictates typical of the Yeltsin era.
Throughout those two decades the United States’ position has been admirably consistent. As Doug Bandow points out, successive administrations’ policy amounted to the question “What the Serbs want?” and, upon hearing the reply, a firm and unrelenting decision that they cannot have it and never will have it.
Franjo Tudjman’s ethnic cleansing of hunderds of thousands of Serbs from the Krajina was thus aided and abetted by the U.S. on the grounds that Croatia had the right to protect her sovereignty and territorial integrity against Serbian separatism. Islamic fundamentalist Alija Izetbegovic was supported on the absurd pretext that he wanted to build a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional, liberal-democratic Bosnia-Herzegovina. Albanian terrorists, war criminals and church-burning, dope-smuggling pimps were supported in Kosovo on the grounds that they had the right to self-determination.
UNDERSTANDING PUTIN’S GRIEVANCES
The Soviet Union came into being as a revolutionary state that challenged any given status quo in principle, starting with the Comintern and ending three generations later with Afghanistan. Some of its aggressive actions and hostile impulses could be explained in light of “traditional” Russian motives, such as the need for security; at root, however, there was always an ideology unlimited in ambition and global in scope. At first, the United States tried to appease and accommodate the Soviets (1943-46), then moved to containment in 1947, and spent the next four decades building and maintaining essentially defensive mechanisms—such as NATO—designed to prevent any major change in the global balance.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has been trying to articulate her goals and define her policies in terms of national interests: peace and prosperity at home, stable domestic institutions, secure borders, friendly neighbors. The old Soviet dual-track policy of having “normal” relations with America, on the one hand, while seeking to subvert her, on the other, gave way to naïve attempts by Boris Yeltsin’s foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev to forge a “partnership” with the United States.
By contrast, the early 1990’s witnessed the beginning of America’s strident attempt to assert her status as the only global “hyperpower.” This ambition was inimical to post-Soviet stabilization and kept Washington from entertaining the suggestion that Russia might have legitimate interests in her own post-Soviet backyard. The United States adopted her own dual-track approach. When Mikhail Gorbachev’s agreement was needed for German reunification, President George H.W. Bush gave a firm and public promise that NATO wound not move eastward. Within years, however, Bill Clinton expanded NATO to include all the former Warsaw Pact countries of Central Europe.
Another round of NATO expansion came under George W. Bush, when three former Soviet Baltic republics were admitted—and the process is far from over. Last April Mr. Bush signed the Orwellian-sounding NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007, which extends U.S. military assistance to such aspiring NATO members as Georgia and the Ukraine. The rationale for NATO’s continued existence was found in the nebulous (and revolutionary) concept of “humanitarian intervention” used against the Serbs in 1999. Further expansion, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, is “mandatory—historically mandatory, geopolitically desirable.”
In the wake of September 11, President Bush talked Russia into sanctioning the U.S. military’s presence in Central Asia and the Caucasus, but then, in the name of the “War on Terror,” tried to make that presence permanent. In 2002 President Bush unilaterally abrogated the ABM Treaty. His goal was to push forward elements of the U.S. anti-ballistic-missile system closer to Russia’s borders, with the spurious claim that radar stations in Poland or Bohemia will protect the West from Iran’s ICBMs.
The collapse of Russia’s state institutions and social infrastructure under Yeltsin, accompanied by a hyperinflation that reduced the middle class and pensioners to penury, was a trauma of incomparably greater magnitude than the Great Depression. Yet its architects—Anatoly Chubais, Yegor Gaidar, Boris Nemtsov, Vladimir Ryzhkov—were hailed in Washington as “pro-Western reformers,” and their political factions and media outlets were duly supported by the U.S. taxpayers, by way of a network of quasi-NGOs.
The wholesale robbery of Russian resources by the Moscow oligarchs and the fire sale of drilling concessions to the oligarchs’ Western cohorts became a contentious issue in U.S.-Russian relations only a decade later, with the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Those spewing furious allegations of “Putin’s revenge” and “heavy-handedness” against the Yukos boss disregarded the fact that, quite apart from his political ambitions, Khodorkovsky was guilty of fraud and tax evasion on a massive scale.
While never missing an opportunity to hector Russia on democracy and criticize her human-rights record, the United States has been notably silent on the discriminatory treatment of large Russian minorities in the former Soviet republics In Latvia and Estonia, the Russians are subjected to arguably the worst treatment of any minority group by a member of the European Union or (with the exception of Turkey) of NATO. The demonstrations in Estonia against the government’s provocative removal of a Russian World War II memorial from Tallinn were but a symptom of a deeper malaise. As Anatol Lieven of the New America Foundation wrote recently, Latvia and Estonia “have been allowed by the West flagrantly to break promises made before independence.”
Washington apparently still views Russia as a state with limited sovereignty even within her post-Soviet borders. Chechnya is the obvious example: The White House routinely condemns Russian “violations” while demanding “dialogue” and studiously refraining from designating the Chechen child-slayers as “terrorists”; but no other aspect of Russia’s domestic policies, from education (“ethnocentric”) and immigration (“restrictive”) to homosexual rights (“appalling”) and jurisprudence (“corrupt”), has escaped scathing criticism. On the eve of his G-8 meeting with Putin last May, Mr. Bush declared that “reforms that were once promised to empower citizens have been derailed, with troubling implications for democratic development.”
On current form, things will remain the same, or perhaps become worse, no matter who comes to the White House in 2008. Richard Holbrooke, the Democrats’ perennially designated secretary of state, wants a firm response to “a series of Russian challenges to the stability of Europe” — such as the refusal to accept Kosovo’s independence. He descries Putin’s “increasingly authoritarian, often brutal, policies,” yet cautions that, “until President Bush weighs in strongly with Putin (as President Bill Clinton did a decade ago with Boris Yeltsin), there is a serious risk Moscow will not get the message.”
MOSCOW STRIKES BACK
Far from being deterred by Mr. Bush’s apparent commitment to Kosovo’s independence, Russian President Vladimir Putin sees it as a God-sent chance to embarrass Mr. Bush and show the world that Russia can no longer be treated with the mix of disdainful arrogance and the way it was treated under Yeltsin. With the Administration’s options diminishing, Putin’s are increasing.
On the diplomatic front, Russia can and will veto any resolution presented to the Security Council that is based on Ahtisaari’s moribund plan and that assumes independence as the final outcome. Resolution 1244 cannot be legally bypassed, and it is unequivocal about Serbia’s sovereignty. If the European Union (under American pressure) tries to bypass the UN, however, Putin can retaliate by playing his energy card. According to Russian and global affairs analyst George Friedman of Stratfor,
The Russians would cut supplies if provoked. Kosovo really is that big an issue to them. If they gave in on this, all of Putin’s efforts to re-establish Russia as a great power would be undermined. Putin wants to remind Germany in particular—but also other former Soviet satellites—that thwarting Russia carries a price. If the European Union were to unilaterally act against Russian wishes, Putin would have to choose between appearing as if he is all talk and no action, and acting. Putin would choose the latter.
According to the same source, Putin also has a military option. Contrary to popular belief, the Russians retain increasingly effective military units. The Russian military retains an excellent core, particularly in its airborne regiments. The Russians could fly a regiment of troops to Belgrade, use Serbian trucks to move to the administrative line dividing Kosovo from the rest of Serbia, and threaten to move into Kosovo to take their place in KFOR.
The Europeans would protest, but they would not react. Western Europe is heavily dependent on Russian natural gas, and it cannot afford to follow Washington into an open-ended confrontation over a peripheral issue. Signals from Moscow indicate that challenging Kosovo’s independence militarily would prompt Russia to call NATO defense capabilities into question, which could leave the Europeans even more fractured. “Do not assume that the Russians would not dare try such a move,” the Russian source insists: “The Russians are itching for an opportunity to confront the West—and win. In the case of Kosovo, should they choose to make an issue of it, they have the diplomatic, economic and military options to force the West to back down. Condoleezza Rice has said that Kosovo will never be returned to Serbian rule. Putin would love to demonstrate that it doesn’t matter what the U.S. secretary of state wants.”b
In short, Kosovo is an asymmetric issue. Mr. Bush cares about it only as it relates to U.S. “credibility.” Accepting the assurances of inherited Clintonite bureaucrats of Mr. Burns’s ilk that the Serbs would cave in and that the Russians would budge may well prove to have been the second greatest blunder of his presidency.
If push comes to shove, Mr. Bush will face Moscow all alone. There is a great deal of dissent in Europe, from Madrid to Athens to Bucharest and Bratislava, but not even those Europeans who are nominally pro-independence—notably Germans—would not sacrifice a single day’s supply of natural gas over Albanian claims. By contrast, for Serbia this is an existential issue and for Russia it is a litmus test of her ability to be once again a great power, and to be seen and respected as one, after the dreadful Yeltsin interlude.
A NEW U.S. PARADIGM URGENTLY NEEDED
It is not prudent for the United States to insist that Kosovo should and will become independent—as President George W. Bush did in Tirana last June, followed by Dr. Rice and her aides on an almost daily basis—even as it is obvious that Russia will veto any attempt to achieve that goal through the United Nations’ Security Council, and even as the European Union is increasingly reluctant to participate in any scheme to bypass the UN. Statements by American officials that Kosovo’s independence is “inevitable” are a classic case of irresponsible policy-makers painting themselves into a corner on a peripheral issue, and then claiming that the issue had morphed into a test of American resolve.
A responsible leadership in Washington would never allow Kosovo to become such a test for three reasons.
1. Quite apart from historic, cultural, moral and legal aspects, the issue of who controls the southern Serbian province is perfectly irrelevant to American interests. It is a small, land-locked piece of real estate, of dubious “objective” value, away from all major Balkan transit corridors, and not nearly as rich in natural resources as both Serbs and Albanians like to imagine. If Kosovo were to disappear tomorrow, no ordinary American would be able to tell the difference.
2. The change of Kosovo’s status against the will of Belgrade, in addition to being a clear violation of the Law of Nations, would set a precedent potentially detrimental to U.S. interests. To enable an ethnic minority to secede from an internationally recognized state on the grounds of that minority’s numerical preponderance in a given locale would open Pandora’s box of claims all over the world, not least among Russian speakers in the Crimea, parts of Estonia and Latvia, northern Kazakhstan, and eastern Ukraine. It could also affect the future of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and perhaps even California, when Mexicans achieve simple majority in those states. (On current form the question is indeed “when,” not “if.”) State Department officials Nicholas Burns and Daniel Fried still insist that no precedent would be set by creating an independent Kosovo, but they cannot control reality and their assurances are nonsensical.
3. The likely cost of persevering will exceed any conceivable benefits of such policy to the United States. The Muslim world will not be appeased by Kosovo today any more than it was appeased by Bosnia a decade ago. America will not earn any brownie points among the world’s “Jihadists of all color and hue” (Rep. Tom Lantos) for creating a new Muslim state in the heart of Europe. Albanian “gratitude” would prove as valuable to America today as it has been, over the years, to Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China. On the other hand, the failure to create an independent, internationally recognized Kosovo would be yet another sign that Mr. Bush has no clothes and that America has no sureness of touch. Furthermore, favoring the imposition of a “solution” from the outside against the will of one of the parties could set a dangerous long-term precedent for Israel.
The U.S. policy is not sensible. It panders to the aspirations of a small and primitive, yet shrewdly opportunistic nation with territorial pretensions against all of her neighbors. Mr. Bush’s histrionics in Tirana were greeted almost as enthusiastically as Benito Mussolini, Nikita Khrushchev, and Chou En-Lai had been greeted by the Albanians over the decades. As Nicholas Stavrou noted in The National Herald, Mr. Bush fits into the Albanians’ talent for choosing patrons who fulfill three criteria: they must be big enough, far enough, and willing to offend the interests of Albania’s neighbors.
It is plainly irrational to insist on Kosovo’s independence, with all the risks such policy entails, while the United States faces so many other “unfinished businesses” around the globe. The list is well known, and depressing. Iraq is a disaster, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Afghanistan is a lesser calamity only when compared to Iraq. Any solution to the challenge presented by Iran will depend on Washington’s ability to have Russia on its side as a partner, which is impossible if Moscow’s concerns over Kosovo are treated as illegitimate. Russia is also an essential partner in helping control Kim Jong Il and devising a sustainable long-term energy policy for the Western world.
Geopolitical and pragmatic arguments notwithstanding, the most important reason the United States should not support Kosovo’s independence is, and always has been, cultural and civilizational; but trying to explain that to the chief executive who is fanatically supportive of a blanket amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens in the United States is as futile as trying to reform Islam.
Entries(RSS)
Emete..."foreign policy specialists"..."the Albanian issue"...blah, blah, blah...talking sense to you people is absolutely impossible!!! So I'll speak to you in a way you'll understand. No one gives a f..k about the Albanians! You've been used as a pawn in geo-strategic
face-offs by the big powers. You've greased the pockets of a lot of sleazy politicians (the Holbrookes, the Lantos' et al) and the fact that everyone hates you is due to your own actions, no one else's..."Noel Malcolm"..."Albanian issue"... "Illyrians"...blah, blah, blah...
Since 1999, not one single constructive comment or a forthcoming gesture only more crime (March 14-17 2005 culmination), of the continuous persecution of Serbians.
Albanain parasites are not nearly as stupod as they pretend to be. They are playing their last card now. There has never been a friend to that nation from a civilized world - and there never will be. Wait for the other 88% of Americans to hear about the Fort Dix plans, Suleyman Talovic and Albanian Pizza connection (all arnautic criminals in the United States). With induced stubborn and inflexible stand at negotiations, the only self evident answer is an outright military action - not so much against the Kosovars, but against all of Albania. The London's 1913 decission to grant Albanians Greek and Macedonian lands was a huge mistake. Those Arnauts who can prove they were born in Kosovo and had not committed any crimes should be allowed to stay - it's that simple, or condensed:
Ceterum censeo Albanium esse delendam
All of these subhumans here are one person. Look at the pattern, I get asked 3 questions - I answer three questions even leave my email address, while the parasites remain nameless - and fail to answer any of my questions in return.
Quid pro quo - either will never exist or it must be salt water animal related to a squid.
Meddling in the affairs of small countries can have all kinds of consequences. In recent interview with Der Speigel, Alexander Solzhenytsin suggests that NATO's attack on Serbia has helped to radically change Russian views of the west. No doubt it was only a mmater of time before their eyes were opened.
"When I returned to Russia in 1994, the Western world and its states were practically being worshipped. Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda.
This mood started changing with the cruel NATO bombings of Serbia. It's fair to say that all layers of Russian society were deeply and indelibly shocked by those bombings. The situation then became worse when NATO started to spread its influence and draw the ex-Soviet republics into its structure. This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country whose closeness to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties among our peoples, relatives living on different sides of the national border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn apart by a new dividing line, the border of a military bloc.
So, the perception of the West as mostly a "knight of democracy" has been replaced with the disappointed belief that pragmatism, often cynical and selfish, lies at the core of Western policies. For many Russians it was a grave disillusion, a crushing of ideals."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,496211,00.html
Nobody is loosing any temper, your destruction will be slow, painful and methodical. You don't deserve to live in Europe. Perhaps outer Mongolia will accept you among the camel herds - I don't think that the camels will be too happy - but such is life. You knew all along that most of your answers were outright lies, you never answered one single question, you always changed topics whenever you were forced to face the Arnauitic criminality. The speed (or lack of speed) is immaterial. What matters is that Albanians will be integrated into Europan soil only after they prove that they have no crimes in their past - that's being very generous. Don't kid yourself that you provoked anybody. Your provocations are way too stupid, visible and disclosed. Too bad that with the rest of you agit-prop Albanians there will be some innocent victims. I am truly sorry that some innocent and honest Albanians will be confused with your ilk. But let that be decided by those Albanians that you "clever" agit-prop produced. Wouldn't it be better to play your card honestly and negotiate in good faith as to gain some sustainable advantage, progress and eliminate bloodbath? Hell no. You'd rather stay untrue, deceptive, greedy, dishonest and bring ungodly wrath on all your people. So it shall be.
Ceterum censeo Albanium esse delendam.
I see this case being argued from 3 different perspectives:
1. Justice – Moral right of a certain group to a territory. Unfortunately right on a territory is a matter of perceptions. There is seldom a territory that at some point in history has not been populated by different ethnic groups.
If we do try to argue on this basis however, looking at historical maps of the territory in question Kosovo i Metohija up until 1945 ( I will explain later on why not later) there were 4 states in existence at different points in time namely Rome, Byzantium, Serbia, Ottoman Empire, again Serbia, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians and finally Yugoslavia.
Now I do not see anyone arguing that the region should become part Rome, Byzantium or Turkey which considering that Yugoslavia no more exists and that in it internally Kosovo I Metohija was part of Serbia it leaves us only with … hmmm Serbia.
I did leave a lit of details out deliberately because the discussion about who had more population leaving there at what time in history and was it a result of genocide or similar could go on forever…. Furthermore any argument and conclusion of that discussion could be viewed as totally irrelevant. This brings us nicely to the 2nd perspective.
2. Law – Well if I am correct after the bloodshed of 1939-1945 it was decided that for the wellbeing of all of us wars for territory should be stopped once and for all. Thus the borders of countries have been clearly defined and their protection documented in the UN Charter.
Now we could argue forever about the justice of such a law, but let us consider what is an alternative – Anarchy. I do hope nobody in their right mind would favour that way of handling international relation.
According to the UN charter the borders of Serbia are protected by the international law. Serbia by the way includes Kosovo (still). This was further reaffirmed by the UN Resolution 1244. Do I need to remind anyone that is a legal duty of every country in the world to respect UN Resolutions?
Ahhhh but we do know that powers (notably USA) do not respect International Law (Guantanamo, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Iraq just to name a few). That brings us to the 3rd.
3. Real politics (I am strong and powerful and do not care what anybody else thinks way of thinking). In this case powers in the world use the arguments from 1 and 2 as it suits them whit no respect to others and no consistency either. We give Croats the right for self-determination but when Serbs in Krajina want it we say that borders can not be changed and then when Serbs say you can’t take Kosovo because the borders can not be changed we say but Albanians are majority there they deserve the right for self-determination.
Well up until recently this was the only way I could see Albanians actually wining the argument because they had the backing of the only power at the time and it was very difficult for Serbs to resist (note that I did not say impossible since proper confrontation between Serbian forces and NATO never happened so at least for now we will not know).
But situation seems to have changed now. America looks tired, overstretched and in serious doubts over military involvement abroad while Russia is increasingly powerful and not ‘obedient’. And guess what Russia also seems to support Serbia (and no I do not think it does it for love and solidarity but because it has a clear interest in doing so).
It seems to me that power and strength card is increasingly on the side of Serbia (locally in Balkans not on the world stage). Do consider though that world powers come and go. Using this argument, as history has shown will never bring peace because there will always be someone to challenge the strength of the current empire and wars, uprising or revolutions whichever you wish to call them will never stop bringing misery to all people no matter their nationality.
As a continuation of the above 3 perspectives I see 3 different solutions:
1) Justice – If we all agree that current borders are not just lets sit down and divide the territory again, but please not selectively. If the ethnic majority is the key I am sure Serbs could (for the sake of peace because believe me do not like war) agree to give Albanians most of Kosovo keeping Metohija (mostly populated by Serbs). But also we should then do the same in Bosnia where 60% (both Serbs and Croats) of population do not support its existence, so lets give Croatian part to Croatia, Serbian part to Serbia. Also why stop there Krajina was overwhelmingly populated by Serbs so Croatia should give it to Serbia…. Where do we stop?
2) Law – in my view 1 and 3 take us to at least one round of bloody wars that will eventually bring us back to where we started. We could instead decide that we should respect the current law and not change any borders. Albanians will still have autonomy to run local matters as will Serbs in Bosnia and we all work together to pan European unity. At the same time we all together punish terrorists, nationalists, fascists…
3) Power – well we take up arms and see who prevails.
Which way the world will go is not in Serbs hands but one thing is certain: WE WILL NOT LIVE LIKE SLAVES
To Rodney King: Do not worry about the availability of soldiers. If you need a proof just look at the unity with which Serbs stood together when NATO started bombing. Even under the role of, at this time, very unpopular man, against an overwhelmingly more powerful military the people stood tall and united because She is dear to all of us.
Well spoken Aleksander.
I have an inborn fear that any ethnic group that was weened on freebies, handouts (deciji dodatak, socijalna pomoc, etc.) will not want to relinquish those same advantages under any new or different government. As long as there are two or three such albanian parasites, there will be unrest, sabotage, nepotism, forged deeds to local lands, blackmail, forced sales of most desirable lands for a dime on a dollar.....way too many instances of anti-social behavior, corrupt lifestyle that can not be changed. Bloodless solution is preferable as much as it is improbable. Albanains (and Serbians too for that matter) need to weed out any and all criminals and return the lands to their righful owners, while establishing a rule of Law - even a temporary elevated state of curfew, as long as things are this raw and as long as Albanians keep dodging all questions of importance. There is no country on earth where an anti Serb military leader in Croatia (Agim Ceku) would not be brought before a military tribunal. Short of a very strictly enforced book of Law, I foresee a massive military engagement, and I further foresee that NATO would not be so eager to flex their muscle - each of the stealth aircraft they lost was upwards of 2 billion dollars and the one tenth of losses were acknowledged at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/331074.stm
Let alone the silly conveyance of the stealth technology to the Russians. What are the odds that NATO will start a war on European soil any time soon? None. The parasites should brace for impact and start cleaning all the counterfit land deeds. Right now the silly balance of justice is in Serbian favor and not to use it to the fullest extent will be silly. Step 1. Agim Ceku to be extradited to Belgrade for his activities while wearing a uniform of a Croatian officer.
Ceterum censeo Albanium esse delendam.
If NATO feels compelled to restrict any ground campaign to Kosovo, the obstacles to deploying a massive force are immense and would take weeks or possibly months to overcome. Alliance planners are also aware that, while these troops were being built up, NATO's 12,000-strong, lightly equipped force in Macedonia would be vulnerable to attack by Yugoslav forces - a threat highlighted by the capture on 31 March of three US soldiers on the Macedonian border.
The Yugoslav army numbers some 90,000 men, with 400,000 reservists. There are also approximately 18,000 paramilitary police. Some 15,000 troops and 9,000 paramilitary police are now operating in Kosovo, with another 20,000 stationed nearby. NATO estimates that between 100,000-200,000 troops would be needed to ensure a relatively easy victory over Yugoslav forces in Kosovo.
The critical obstacle to a rapid deployment into the province is the lack of ports and roads for heavy equipment. The US has 70 air-transport squadrons with more than 800 planes, but only the US C-5 Galaxy and the new C-17 transport aircraft are capable of carrying main battle tanks, and there are too few of them to assemble a large contingent. It requires around 500 flights to put in place one lightly armed infantry division, without armour. Furthermore, the US could not commit all of its aircraft to establishing a Kosovo force, in case other states, such as Iraq or North Korea, decided to take advantage of the war to launch an attack of their own.
Moreover, Albania's only large airport is in Tirana. It has only one suitable runway and virtually non-existent facilities for unloading heavy freight. NATO has few engineering troops capable of building new airports. The UK's Royal Engineers are equipped only to repair existing airports, while the US has contracted out this kind of work to civilian companies whose capabilities in places like Albania are unproven.
By far the greater part of NATO's heavy equipment would therefore have to be moved by sea. During the 1990-91 Gulf War, 80 large ships were needed to transport one British division to Jubail in Saudi Arabia. The division consisted of 13,000 men, 5,000 vehicles, 14,000 tons of ammunition and 2,000 tons of materiel and stores - enough to supply the division for only about 30 days - and took almost three months to be fully moved into place.
The only Balkan port suitable for the disembarkation of a major NATO force is at Saloniki in Greece. This also has the advantage of being at the end of the main road and rail link through Macedonia to Kosovo and Serbia. Saloniki can handle vessels of over 500 feet in length, but its cargo pier is only 31-35ft long and its oil terminal 41-45ft. This compares unfavourably with Jubail, which has a cargo pier of 71-75ft and an oil terminal of over 76ft.
The problem with Saloniki is that a large part of the Greek population is traditionally hostile to the Albanians - with whom Greece had a longstanding territorial dispute - and is friendly to Serbia, which has been a close ally of Athens in six wars. Many Greeks also deeply distrust the US. Public opinion, which is also bitterly anti-Turkish, was inflamed recently by the Greek government's failure to protect Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan. This led to the forced resignation of three ministers and almost brought down Prime Minister Costas Simitis' government. NATO's air campaign has been publicly opposed by almost every section of Greek society, including the main political parties, the media, trade unions and the Orthodox Church.
There is every chance, therefore, that, if NATO requested the use of Saloniki, the Greek government would either have to refuse or would be forced to resign, amidst extreme political confusion and the complete alienation of Greece from the Alliance. Macedonia - with an ethnic-Albanian minority that may comprise as much as 35% of its population - has also refused to permit a build-up of NATO forces on its territory. Spoke fears an attack by Serbia, ethnic revolt by its own Serb minority and war on its territory between ethnic Albanians, Serbs and NATO.
No such political barriers prevail in Albania, which strongly supports the Albanian struggle in Kosovo and would welcome NATO forces. However, Albania's ports are all inadequate. Shengjin is the nearest port to Kosovo, but it has a cargo pier of 26-30ft and its cranes can only lift loads of less than 24 tons. Duress is of medium size: it has a cargo pier of 26-30ft, an oil terminal of 21-25ft and its cranes can lift more than 100 tons.
The other main obstacle is the mountainous terrain and the lack of roads and bridges suitable for heavy vehicles. Only one metalled road leads into Kosovo from Albania - along the valley from Kukes to Prizen - and it would rapidly disintegrate under heavy traffic. Weeks of work by field engineers would therefore be necessary to prepare for a ground offensive.
Ceterum censeo Albanium esse delendam.
>At first, the United States tried to appease and accommodate
>the Soviets (1943-46), then moved to containment in 1947, and
>spent the next four decades building and maintaining
>essentially defensive mechanisms—such as NATO—designed to
>prevent any major change in the global balance.
The US contained the USSR? Not to defend the Soviets but wasn't it the other way around? Now the US does what it please, though not for long as Trifkovic avers.
Correction: No I would not take up arms, I'd go empty handed, my son is armed to the teeth (NRA member),
Ilija you seem to have researched this War scenario very thoroughly, if the War Ministers in Serbia are even half as thorough they will know that they have the advantage of Speed, lay of the land and Spite to see them through what could be a very bloody affair that could draw the world attention or get swept under the rug depending on the result.
Ilija, Albanian minority in Macedonia has been vastly overblown for propogandistic purposes. A more realistic estimate is 19-22% of population, nowhere near hyper-inflated 35-40% often quoted by Albanians and their apologists. Can you confirm Scytale?
I took what I thought would be the most unfavorable outcome for Serbia.
Even under those unfavorable conditions Serbia has a tremendous advantage now. As far as I can see, Serbia has made the same mistake most of us made here, and that is to "negotiate" (speak, communicate) with these subhumans. They (Arnauts) have have been forced to the negotiating table by their sponsors (Germany, UK, USA) in order to avoid a complete disclosure of the absolute failure of NATO's needless attack on FR Yugoslavia. So, to save face the Western powers forced the Arnautic criminals to a negotiating table - but their behavour here (in this forum) and during the negotiations is identical - they have no intent of negotiating at any level and their sabotage of the process has been evident.
Solana and his EU Frankenstein contraption is counting on NATO's military muscle and Serbian fear. That's why Serbians have been so timid in negotiations.
NATO already learned that the war in Iraq is unwinnable. It can only be MORE unwinnable in Serbia.
Over the last 5 years Russian influence has tilted the balance of powers in Europe, while Muslims have shown their true face (Attocha in Madrid, London Transit system, WTC in NYC, riots in Paris, France, Fort Dix in N.J. etc. etc.). This is a uniquely ideal time for Serbia to walk away from the negotiating table and advise the Arnautic drug purchasers (the Germans, the French, the Dutch, the Austrians, etc.) that they would return to the table once there is any one (even most remotely) acceptable offer (sign of flexibility) from the Arnautic Muslims - short of that, proceed with joint Russo-Serbian military maneuvers. Such an opportunity will not present itself for decades to come. Arnauts have tipped their hand just enough, (March 17 to 19 2004 can be found at: http://www.kosovo.net/news_pogrom.html
All the above factors converge ideally to present a unique opportunity for Serbian government to proceed in a cleverly formulated fashion and secure a favorable outcome.
Typical behavior of the Arnauts has always been predictable (amply evident at this blog as well) rich with obfuscation, misdirection, change of venue, change of topics. Willing or not, the Arnauts here demonstrated the exact set of reasons why they should be eliminated from European soil (except those that can uphold the law, and those who never broke the laws during the chaos created by the same powers that have now forced the two parties to the negotiating table).
This negotiation is needed by the EU more than anybody else and they have been very clever of switching carrots to dangle in front of Serbian eyes for quite some time in order to induce such idiotic behavior. This is a unique opportunity to regain the lost lands, to partially right the wrongs done to the Christian Serbians who were victimized for decades.
P.S. If I am not mistaken there is a village name Obilic in Kosovo, my son's first name just happens to be Milos - that should be indicative enough that some Serbians will not abandon Kosovo no matter how much drug money is invested into the EU's corrupt system busy with erasing blame for their ugly, stupid, needless killings of Serbians - they asked for Milosevic, Serbians delivered Milosevic - that was supposed to be some sort of a condition to enable Serbian democracy to function better - instead it misfired Djindjic gets assassinated, economy crumbles, the list of "suspects" starts to grow and while Serbian suspects manage to die in custody - others walk away (Agim Ceku, etc.)
The EU never made it a secret that Serbian Eastern Orthodox Christianity is unwelcome in Europe. The division of the Roman empire is not quite finished yet.
If War Ministers in Serbia are even half as thorough they will know that they have the advantage of Speed, lay of the land and Spite to see them through
When will they ever learn? -- all this blather about 3rd Generation War blitzkrieg and 2nd Generation firepower. I should think that anyone with a memory of Yugoslav history before 1980 (or knew anything about Yugoslav terrain) should know the folly of such outmoded generations. Ol' Adi thought he knew the "lay of the land" of Yugoslavia in 1941; he also had plenty of "spite"; he also had plenty of "speed", and rolled completely though the country in a few weeks. He couldn't conquer the country. He killed a millon+ Yugoslavs. He still couldn't conquer the country. It was the first shot, so to speak, in 4th Generation War, followed by the British in Palestine, the French in Indochina and Algeria, Gringos in Viet-Nam, your prized Russians in Afghanistan, Israel last year in Lebanon, and Iraq now. I thank Martin van Creveld for this historical fact; listen to his lecture on the Mises Institute page, "media".
Better yet, you guys need to start with the basics in 4th Generation War and sit at the feet of the master. After looking at the Wikipedia article and its links, be serious and read Van Creveld's The Transformation of War, especially the subchapter on "Non-Political War: Existence", pp 142-149, the war for national survival. In the war you guys seem so eager to fight and yet so ignorant of what kind of war it will be, nothing, NOTHING that the Serbs can or could do to the Albanians in Kosovo -- no matter if Serbs leave no stone on stone, no matter how many Albanians they despoil or kill -- can be worse than the consequences of defeat for the Albanians: their enslavement, or their genocide (at least from their point of view).
Rather than Serbs just roughing up a few Albanians with minimal loss of life and limb to Serbs, and then fatuously thinking it will then be over, in fact the more Albanians they killed, the more the Albanians will fight on, for more will it be necessary that it all not be in vain. What is more, "fighting the weak demeans those who engage in it" (van Creveld, p 175); in the court of world opinion, everything will be allowed to the Albanian David, no matter how brutal, and nothing to the Serbian Goliath.
And that it might be July-August 1914 all over again, as View as suggested -- escalating to a war that extends from Vladivostok to Dakar, from Helsinki to Zanzibar , from Gibraltar to Darwen -- goes without saying. And if Americans think America blood will not be shed on America soil in this war, they've learn from Sept 11 zero.
Indeed, you guys make the same mistake of all Clausewitzians, not only in the tactics you propose, but also in your very understanding of what the logic of war itself really is (p. 166-167). The logic of war is not "the ground is consecrated; therefore let us shed our (children's) blood on it, and the enemy's." Instead it is "Our children's blood has been shed on this ground; therefore it is consecrated". Want proof? The Indians and the Pakistanis have been trading shots for years over a glacier at 20,000 ft. and of no practical value, all because the sacrifice of children's blood to the god Moloch has made it of sacred, inestimable value.
Make also William Lind's blog "On War" your weekly reader.
Hey, man, I an Alban'? No way, Jose; I'm from L. A. I thought everyone knew that!
This is when things get real funny. One of the brightest Arnautic parasites now questions Von Clausewitz? Why stop there?
How about all the mistakes Napoleon made?
Alexander the Great?
Arnautic parasites have noticeably toned down their rhetoric, since a more overt negotiating style has been proposed. They will never admit it, but this is a time of their biggest disadvantage (over the last 10+ years). Exactly as I thought, not only the parasites that walked into Kosovo from Albania but wipe the Albania proper.
I had a most pleasurable talk with General Mordechai Hod a few years ago, and he claimed that to this day in Israeli Military Academies Carl von Clausewitz is being taught on the example of General Zivojin Misic - so much for Arnautic military brains. Obviously the only viable solution is to exactly make serous efforts of getting rid of the usurpers (Alexander the Great had to do it too) - why live with this explosive element. They claim they have friends in other countries who "support" them. Let's see that support once the start to rob and steal the future hosts too.
One more proof that with the bullies of all kinds only a bigger bully makes sense. Thank God that Russia starts at the Northern Atlantic and ends at the Pacific. Even if by any chance some inequity would prevail, I am absolutely confident that Kosovo will not be in the terrorist's hands for too long. They were unable to hide their ugly unshaven face. Today I spoke to the NYU Law professor who is appalled that this is "still going on" in spite of fairly clear international laws. The poor man had no idea that the strings were being pulled from all sides - I am not the only naive observer - but I make up for it in ruthless militancy. When all else fails "Klin se klinom izbija".
Ceterum censeo Albanium esse delendam.
I have demonstrated several times that in Austria top 100 most wanted criminals have an ample Albanian representation (around 76% to 92% - since many of them list being citizens of Yugoslavia. How cute? Today's International Heral Tribune has a nice little clip from Austria at: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/28/europe/EU-GEN-Austria-Serb-Stabbed.php
Let me help you with the title of the article, in case the page doesn't open "Kosovo Albanian suspect arrested in stabbing of Serbian man during dispute at Austrian hotel"
Total and absolute removal of all criminal elements on the grounds of Serbia must the priority no matter what the nationality, but it will be practical to start with the Arnauts.
Ceterum censeo Albanium esse delendam.
Dr Trifkovic,
You write".. the discriminatory treatment of large Russian minorities in the former Soviet republics Latvia and Estonia, the Russians are subjected to arguably the worst treatment of any minority group by a member of the EU..."
Are Russians allowed to refer to themselves as Russians, speak in their mother tongue? Perhaps I could draw your attention to that bastion of democracy, "Greece", and its "Greek Acts Against the Macedonians" at http:/maknews.com/html/articles/medichkov_report.htm
Its surprising that Serbs,naturally, are against the partition of their country and unspeakable acts committed against its population and heritage by Albanians, but are unaware of Greece's behaviour and actions toward the ethnic Macedonians of Aegean Macedonia. The Albanians at least have no pretense at being something they are not, unlike today's 98.5% pure "Greeks", who drape themselves in a veneer of "democracy". Macedonians too, were a majority in Aegean Macedonia from the time of Greece's illegal and brutal annnexation of what were never Greek, but historically Macedonian lands, unlike today's Kosovo Albanians. How are the two morally different?
My point is that, in a warring universe, the moral argument is no argument at all. Might makes right! The Serbs united front with Greece, which desires the elimination of the Macedonian nation, state and ethnicity makes many Macedonians suspicious of Serbia's intent toward us. Macedonia, at the heart of the Balkans, in fact faces an existential threat from all of it's neighbours. What is necessary is the realisation from Balkan leaders that we're all going to be living together for a long time to come, and that steps should be taken to allow each people their beingness. Unfortunately, does anyone see this as a possibility in any real sense?
No there is no such sense Dimitar (or Emette or Dejavu - under another name). It is typical of Albanians not to sign their posts with a hyperlink or an email address, which leaves plenty of suspicion that you are an Albanian usurper masquerading as a Macedonian. There is absolutely no evidence that Serbia ever had any "designs" on Macedonia. As a matter of fact it the example of Macedonia's peaceful secession from Serbia/Yugoslavia which was cited in many sources foreign and Balkan. Greeks equally don't object to Macedonian existence except for the very name Macedonia. Ever since its newfound independence Macedonians are equally re-writing history with the self-martyrdom as a backbone, choosing to ignore many common bonds they have with all three segments of Macedon (Egejska, Pirinska and Vardarska Macedonia). Goce Delcev was a prominent Bulgarian whose work is proprietized by all nations in the Southern Balkans. There is no answer to your question because it's a trick question. My email is posted on several places, and if my view does not suffice, feel free to contact me, I'll be happy to answer any legitimate question, but not these cheap loaded questions.
Ilija, cheap loaded questions? I'm a Albanian masquerading as a Macedonian? Off the dial, my friend!!! I posted you an email, website and all. And if you think it's a trick question, think deeper! The answer lies in the difference between ethics and morals. One has it's origin in a pure spiritual region, ie; beyond duality, darkness and light, us and them... whereas," morals" is purely a social construct and used as a manipulating tool. Just as the Albanian and Serbian arguments repeat again and again and again. You know, you guys are the "bad ones".
There will be no solution to the Balkan ills. There needs to be an entirely new state of consciousness, and of course there will not be. As for your defense of Greece, you have no idea!!! I won't even go there with you! Finally, Goce Delchev Bulgarian??????????????? Well, you've just revealed yourself as a complete Serb nationalist of the first rank or totally ignorant (or both).
Your post reveals everything that is wrong with the Balkan mindsets. The Macedonian "question" is central to lasting peace, but is completely overlooked and downplayed. We are well aware of all of our neighbours appropriating our history, territory, culture etc. etc...As for Serbia's non-designs on Macedonia; leaked documents have revealed that in 1993 Greece was ready to invade Macedonia, and contacted Serbia as to whether they would be in on the party; you know- divide up the spoils. They needed to reply within 48 hrs. ( the Greeks were ready to go). The Serbs replied well within the time period that they were ready, however, plans were dropped as a casus belli could not be found!
Once again, the whole "trick question" thing. There is a way out of the loop of the mind. One technique is try putting yourself into another's shoes. And the way to rise above the intellect, is to not identify with one's own "intelligence". Detachment and indifference help.
To make something disappear, to make it an amorphous matter you take away it's name!
It's ability to self-identify, to define itself apart from those around it!
Macedonians are not "re-writing history with the self martydom as a backbone, choosing to ignore many common bonds with all three segments of Macedon (Egejska, Pirinska and Vardarska)"...We are writing our history for the first time! Everyone else but us has written our history for us. Self martydom? We had fun dreaming that one up!! Have you heard the saying, "Sloboda ili Smrt", "Freedom or Death"; this says it all does it not? It's not a martydom complex, it comes from being under occupation, something you Serbs should understand with Kosovo. By the way, Aegean Macedonians will tell you that being under the Greeks was/is far worse than being under the Ottomans. Wow, talk about Christian charity! We do not separate the "three segments of Macedon", it's all historic Macedonia, I'm not sure what you mean there.
So this is what I meant, if not clear so far. We'll sit back and someone (eg, post 70) will tell us our history. We should be so lucky. Thanks for the offer to write to you personally so you can set me straight, but no thanks. Happy Ilinden.