NATO’s Black Sea Expansion: An Unworthy Risk
by Srdja Trifkovic
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
President Bush left Monday for a European tour that will include a NATO summit in Rumania. His first stop will be in Ukraine, which the President would like to see included in NATO, along with another former Soviet republic on the Black Sea shore, Georgia. It’s deja-vu all over again: Moscow insists it opposes NATO expansion in its back yard, but Washington nevertheless goes ahead while whispering soothing reassurances to the Russians. We’ve seen it in 1996, when Bill Clinton violated clear commitment against expansion made by his predecessor, and again in 2004. Mr. Bush will try again when he meets President Putin at the Black Sea resort of Sochi later this week. It will not work: Putin knows a Russophobic plot when he sees one, and he will not allow a cordon sanitaire to expand into his southern underbelly.
It is noteworthy that opposition to such plans now comes not only from Moscow but from within the alliance. On this issue the old Franco-German E.U. axis is again in action. French President Sarkozy is known to be lukewarm at best. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany is following the policy of Alleingang (a go-it-alone rapprochement) with Moscow, openly opposing Georgian and Ukrainian Membership Action Plans (MAPs) that could lead to full membership after a few years. Blocking those MAPs is now Berlin’s bipartisan policy, a reflection of Germany’s awareness that an energy-dependent Europe cannot afford to be a hostage to the visceral Russophobia of the decision-making establishment in Washington. At a joint briefing following Merkel’s recent visit to Moscow, Putin made clear that he and the chancellor shared a common position on NATO enlargement.
Merkel knows that the latter-day, U.S.-led Drang nach Osten is a poisoned chalice. From a neoconservative point of view, however, there is no better way to ensure U.S. dominance in perpetuity than subverting the Russo-German rapprochement. The neocons hate Russia as such, not her “lack of democracy” or “brutality in Chechnya,” but for reasons ideological and emotional that we have tackled elsewhere. Their obsessions result in policies that resonate with Russia’s former clients and satellites in Tallin or Tbilisi, but that are detrimental to the security of the United States.
Further NATO enlargement means that Russian missiles will remain targeted on American cities. While this may be of no consequence to the denizens of Lvov or Gori, it should focus minds in New York, Seattle, and Omaha. By extending her protectorate deep inside Eastern Europe, America would be diminishing, rather than enhancing, her security. By cementing its cordon sanitaire around Russia, Washington indirectly encourages the belief that the bear is on its last legs, which is certainly no longer the case.
The notion of NATO extension pleases some Eastern Europeans who have their own axes to grind—notably, those in Warsaw—but it can only jeopardize Europe’s chances of long-term peace. The United States should understand why the elites in some former Soviet republics have a vested geopolitical interest, and an even more acute psychological need, to treat Russia as the enemy, but she should never allow herself to be seduced by their obsessions. They all proclaim their devotion to the ideological assumptions of the new NATO, but their real agenda is twofold: to have a Western (read: American) security guarantee against Russia, and to strengthen their own position vis-à-vis those neighbors with whom they have an ongoing or potential dispute. NATO membership may even embolden some to defrost conflicts—notably, in Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia—that would have otherwise remained dormant.
The reason NATO expansion is bad in principle is found in the security guarantee itself. Article V of the NATO Charter clearly states that an attack on one is an attack on all, which translates into an automatic guarantee of aid to an ally in distress. The United States will supposedly provide her protective cover to new clients right in Russia’s geopolitical backyard, in an area whose fortunes are not vital to this country’s interests. Once included, those faraway lands of which we know little will become a permanent fixture of our foreign-policy establishment’s mind-set. The United States will assume the nominal responsibility for open-ended claims by, say, Tbilisi, over a host of disputed frontiers that were drawn arbitrarily by communists and bear little relation to ethnicity or history. At no obvious benefit to the United States, we would be asked to underwrite a post-Soviet outcome that is not inherently stable, just, or “democratic.”
Either the United States is serious that she would risk a thermonuclear war for the sake of, say, Georgia’s rights to Abkhazia (which is insane), or she is not (which makes NATO expansion frivolous and dangerous). This calls to mind previous Western experiments with security guarantees in the region—the carve-up of Czechoslovakia in October 1938, or Poland’s destruction in September 1939. The lesson of Locarno for the Bush administration is clear: Security guarantees that are not based on the provider’s complete resolve to fight a full-blown war to fulfill them are worse than no guarantees at all. They are certain to be challenged in the fulness of time.
And finally, further NATO expansion would cement and perpetuate NATO’s new, U.S.-invented and imposed mission as a self-appointed promoter of democracy, protector of human rights, and guardian against instability outside its original area. It was on those grounds, rather than in response to any supposed threat, that the Clinton administration pushed for the admission of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary in 1996, and President Bush brought in the Baltic republics, Bulgaria, and Rumania in 2004. Bill Clinton’s 1999 air war against the Serbs marked a decisive shift in NATO’s mutation from a defensive alliance into a supranational security force based on the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention.” The trusty keeper of the gate had become a roaming vigilante.
Washington’s urge to challenge and confront Russia—and NATO expansion is an open geopolitical challenge to Moscow, on par with the recognition of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence—is rationally inexplicable. It is reminiscent of an unpleasant and invariably fatal West European malaise that was manifest in the catastrophes of 1812, 1914 and 1941. This madness must be stopped in its current, American-led reincarnation because it is contrary to the interests of the American people and has the potential to destroy the remnant of the common European civilization on both shores of the Atlantic. Such an outcome would be pleasing only to jihadists and “creative destructors” of all color and hue.
Mr. Bush can be forgiven only if he does not know what he is doing.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by James Beck on 31 March 2008:
“Mr. Bush can be forgiven only if he does not know what he is doing.” – (above)
It doesn’t matter. If he’s drunk with power and kills us or our kids – stop ‘wondering’ and realize you have got to go to WAR here to stop this. They don’t care. They’re telling you they don’t and it’s in your face.
2 Comment by Nikolai on 31 March 2008:
Mr. Trifkovic,
Your article is very interesting, informed, and well written. I would just like to make one comment. Recently the Russian Duma passed a resolution stating that if Georgia is admitted into NATO, Russia will recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states. What the Russian Government has basically done here is lay a trip wire. If Nato is expanded to Georgia, there is going to be war with NATO. European nations should take this Duma resolution seriously. And I think they will. I believe they will stop this insanity.
3 Comment by Eagle on 31 March 2008:
Dr. Trifkovic,
Excellent article. I agree, but would add the following.
Clearly a succession of US administrations from both political parties has decided it wants to re-ignite a cold war with Russia.
Small eastern European states are playing right into Washington’s hands and doing so without realizing the long-term damage they will cause themselves as they continue to “grind the axes”. The State Department cannot be and is not totally ignorant of the nationalist, chauvanist, and sectarian energy it is unleashing. One wonders, not whether, but how much instability Washington wants to create.
Large western European states are also playing right into Washington’s hands by buying into the whole “democracy” and “human rights” nonsense, that they have been weaned on for decades now, as a pretext for NATO’s expansion and Washington’s antogonism of “noncompliant” states.
The cordon sanitaire around Russia is a means and not the end. The end is an angry, re-armed, and aggressive Russia. They are pushing the Bear to establish bases in Serbia and thereby create a real panic in Paris and Berlin with a Russian military presence further west than ever before. The reluctant French and Germans will think differently when Russian missiles and troops show up in central Europe. That neither Russia nor Serbia (nor Belarus) wants this is and has been rather clear for years now. They want a shot at economic prosperity for their peoples. But Washington is making the situation as unbearable and humiliating as possible for Russia and driving Europe towards a new conflict.
There are interesting sideshows presenting themselves. For instance, one wonders when NATO admits Macedonia and Albania, who will the alliance rush to “protect” when Albanian insurgents inside Macedonia (armed and trained by Albania itself, as the Kosovo Albanians were) start shooting at the Slavic Macedonians (again)? Or is this one of the localized hot wars that will demonstrate clearly to the Europeans just how dangerous things are and just why they need to re-arm and garrison US troops, missile shields, and the rest?
And let’s not be overly surprised if Montenegro is encouraged to reunite with Serbia in the near future in order to help preserve the latters “dignity” ….how else will furious Russia be able to garrison troops in central Europe without sea access to an angry and agreeable Serbia? It will, understandably be a tricky situation to (stage) manage, of course. Perhaps Serbia will “get” Montenegro back while having Vojvodina wrested from her? The propoganda campaign is already well under way to arouse fears in the otherwise well-integrated Hungarian minority in that northern Serbian province. Belgrades Euro-leaning Serbs will also think differently when armed NATO troops show up across the river from Belgrade.
All rather astonishing and not at all serving the true needs of a culturally and demographically dying Europe. To what end this will all play out is anyone’s guess. But it cannot be a good one.
4 Comment by Alex on 31 March 2008:
“…Mr. Bush will try again when he meets President Putin at the Black Sea resort of Sochi later this week…”
If I am correct Mr. Putin is no longer the president of Russia.
5 Comment by Srdja Trifkovic on 31 March 2008:
Putin is the president. He will remain in office until May 7. He will continue to run Russia after that date, too, thank God…
6 Comment by Alex on 31 March 2008:
Yes, Srdja, you are correct my bad. I forgot about the transition period after the election.
Btw. I would just like to compliment you on a great job you did with a film i just watched ‘Islam: What the West Needs to Know’
It is very interesting and informative. I learned a lot from what you said, what i did not know before.
7 Comment by Allen Wilson on 31 March 2008:
When the Spetsnaz flew into Kosovo to relieve Serbia at the end of the U.S. bombing campaign, they went through the airspace of Romania and Bulgaria, who ffered no resistance at that time. Now those countries are part of NATO. A Russian fly-through might now be resisted, and even if not, could be used as a pretext for war.
By bringing those states into NATO, the neocons have set up a two way road to war with Russia. First, we have a ridiculous Poland-in-1939 guarantee to Romania and Bulgaria, coupled with a necessity for Russia to do a Germany-invades-belgium-in-1914 move. Couple this with a Russia-Serbia situation similar to the America-Britain relationship, which brought America into two of Britain’s major wars, and the situation is ominous.
That war with Russia will happen seems inevitable. That it is America’s fault is obvious. That America is not only in the wrong, but is manifestly evil, is apparent. That the rulers of America are setting themselves and the rulers of the West European states up for a loss of control and the collapse of the current socio-political order, like what happened in the Soviet Union beginning in 1989, is inevitable, because of their stupidity and hubris.
We are about to witness either the final collapse of Western civilisation or the first stage of it’s rebirth.
8 Comment by Bronco on 31 March 2008:
@ Allen Willson
I wouldn’t worry too much about Romania and Bulgaria, there is no particular ideological euphoria in the fact they joined EU and NATO. As at previous occasions in WW2 or WW1 they just took a smart path to avoid greater confrontations and take a piece of land from their neighbours, if possible, and if not, it’s also OK, they’ll wait for some next chance. If they ever start feeling that America is going down the drain, you can expect them joining the other side as soon as the next morning. They actually already have that feeling, that’s why you can’t hear much about these countries’ agendas. The problem is, as it allways have been, Serbia. Serbs are allways too passionate, no matter what side they take, and they usually take more than one side and start harming each other, not their neighbors. Their neighbours, however, at that moment see their chances and start grabbing serbian lands, and that’s the moment when Serbs really go wild and that’s how a World War starts.
9 Comment by simo on 31 March 2008:
The goal of the Council on Foreign Relatons, which is the de facto ruler of America, is to surround Russia with a view to breaking that country up into smaller entities in much the same way that they broke up Yugoslavia. This is part of the New World Order agenda concocted by David Rockefeller and his fellow plutocrat/ megalomaniacs at this aforementioned entity.
Russia and China stand in the way of their ambitions. Russia is partly responsible for this. It should do more to re-assert itself and lay down the law. It should threaten to cut off all natural gas and oil supplies to western Europe and stop trading with America, especially things that only Russia or only a few other countries have, which America needs. It should do everything it can to put economic and even political pressure on Washington. In other words, hold their feet to the fire as much as possible. They should even encourage the Serbs and whomever the Serbs ask to help them to attack NATO and American forces in Kosovo and bleed them as much as possible.
10 Comment by Brock H. on 31 March 2008:
All one has to do is remember his middle-school geography to figure out that this is irrational and insane. NATO stands for NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organization. Georgia is on the coast of the BLACK SEA, a few thousand miles from the NORTH ATLANTIC ocean, across an entire continent. We’re getting so far away from the North Atlantic, there’s no longer any geographical reason to call it NATO. It should be the All Nations in the World Against Russia Treaty Organization.
11 Comment by robert m. peters on 31 March 2008:
I am a child of the Cold War, born in 1949 with millions of others under the cloud of the atomic bomb, the emergence of East and West Germany, the Korean War, the East German uprising, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the U-2 with F.G. Powers, the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crises, the Vietnam War, the SS-20’s, etc. I worked as a civilian language specialist in Europe for twelve years.
It is in sad irony that I today must conclude that the Christian and cultural values which I have cherished have faded in Western Europe and America and seem, at least at this moment, to have a better chance at surviving in Russia than elsewhere.
12 Comment by jac on 1 April 2008:
Thank you for this article.
Just my two cents as a Pole living in Poland. If you read the NATO charter, its common defense obligations are as vague as they can get. From a standpoint of a single nation, that is Poland, confronted by two powerful contries, namely Germany and Russia, the best thing would be to gather all technological expertise within the nation to produce best equipment for its army, while steadily enlarging its population. Unfortunately, Polish socialists put their trust in NATO, European Community, high taxation and unaffordable housing, resulting in net emigration of its 2 million young people to the UK, Ireland and Germany in search of better living.
So yeah, more NATO-EC inlation please. It surely helps, heheh
13 Comment by DJGB Popadich on 1 April 2008:
Please, no comment today.
The day of birth of the great one. The one who laughs from his grave: no comment today.
14 Comment by Srdja Trifkovic on 1 April 2008:
But the one who has every reason to laugh from the Great Beyond was born on April 20 in Braunau am Inn. . .
15 Comment by Michael Thomas on 1 April 2008:
Russia does not have to set up its own bases in Serbia. It merely needs to supply the Serbian military with modern air defence systems and a few hundred surface to surface rockets. Following this it could sign a military defence pact with Serbia.
As far as I aware it is not NATO’s (current) intention to block the sale of Russian weapons to Serbia.
16 Comment by NGPM on 1 April 2008:
“Mr. Bush can be forgiven only if he does not know what he is doing.”
I agree with Mr. Beck. The Bush-Clinton axis has subverted the rhetoric of Reagan in order to magnify the weakest points of the latter’s legacy tenfold. If they can be forgiven they cannot be forgotten, and therefore they and their cohorts must be brought down permanently.
Now, Russia has been on Europe’s fear-screen for centuries now, and probably not without good reason. But in the past only Germany has been particularly prudent or effective at managing the real or perceived threat, which should not be surprising since she is after all the West European power closest to this state. Consistent with the Chronicles theme of local management, therefore, the Bush-Brown-Sarko triangle should step back and let the Germans drive.
17 Pingback by NATO’s Black Sea Expansion : Novakeo.com on 1 April 2008:
[...] http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=558 Dr. Srdja Trifkovic is a regular columnist for Novakeo.com Dr. Trifkovic is Foreign Affairs Editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, published by The Rockford Institute, and Director of the Institute’s Center for International Affairs. He has a BA (Hon) in international relations from the University of Sussex (UK), a BA in political science from the University of Zagreb (Croatia), and a PhD in history from the University of Southampton (UK). http://www.trifkovic.mysite.com SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “NATO’s Black Sea Expansion”, url: “http://novakeo.com/?p=1383″ }); Filed Under Srdja Trifkovic [...]
18 Comment by roger on 1 April 2008:
We must differentiate very strongly between the interests of the neocons and the interests of the United States. It seems that the neocons are willing to risk a thermonuclear war with Russia in order to further their own political goals. Needless to say, a thermonuclear war with Russia is not in the interests of the people of the United States (but neither was the first world war, the second world war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, a war with Iran etc. etc. ad nauseum.)
19 Comment by Big M on 1 April 2008:
It sure would be nice to see anybody, including both the author and other respondents, point out the fact that NATO should have been completely dissolved after the USSR closed up shop.
The United States is the most nationalist, militaristic nation on the planet since Nazi Germany, and it represents perhaps the greatest threat to life, liberty and property in this planet’s history.
Since Brock H. correctly pointed out that NATO should be renamed, I have a suggestion for this country. Let’s call it what it truly is: The Terrorist State of America. The flag should also be changed, to show a grinning military officer with a smoking weapon in his hand, scanning a pile of dead bodies of all nationalities and colors.
I’d also like to suggest that it’s way past time for the individual state legislatures to hold a convention to put forth an amendment or amendments to completely abolish the federal government, completely dismantle every single federal enforcement agency, and dismantle the military. Unless this happens, this country is doomed (and perhaps an awful lot of the rest of the world).
20 Comment by Sean Scallon on 1 April 2008:
Sad isn’t it that in the face of the supposed Islamic terror threat the U.S. treats a potential ally against such a threat as the enemy. This desire for a new Cold War by the neoconservatives and uber-nationalists in the Administration against a Christian people is truly sickening. Some people may wish to relive past grudges and pograms over and over again, others wish to focus on the future.
When Ukraine explodes into internal war and tears itself apart East vs. West, then we’ll know who was the one who set the time bomb.
The Bush Administration has declared war upon the Orthodoxy.
21 Comment by NGPM on 1 April 2008:
“The United States is the most nationalist, militaristic nation on the planet since Nazi Germany, and it represents perhaps the greatest threat to life, liberty and property in this planet’s history.”
“I’d also like to suggest that it’s way past time for the individual state legislatures to hold a convention to put forth an amendment or amendments to completely abolish the federal government, completely dismantle every single federal enforcement agency, and dismantle the military. Unless this happens, this country is doomed (and perhaps an awful lot of the rest of the world).”
“Expansionist” perhaps fits the model better than “nationalist,” considering no measures are being taken against the “other” except to absorb them (and inadequately at that), but whichever terminology we use, I have to ask just one thing. Have you been following events in China lately? Is anyone else seeing the [attempted] parallels between 2008 Beijing and 1936 Berlin in the Olympics?
Here’s a stark reality: abolishing of American hegemony overnight will give way to Chinese hegemony. If the former is a despicable state of affairs, the latter is a terrifying prospect.
22 Comment by Michael Averko on 1 April 2008:
Re: http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/22923
The above linked is especially disappointing, since it comes from a Russian government funded operation, designed with a stated intent of improving upon the English language coverage. In Russia, there’re a number of not so Russia friendly non-Russians (as in going against the views of most Russians) who find their way at some outlets.
The title “Bush supports Ukraine’s NATO dream” suggests a popular Ukrainian will to join NATO. This isn’t true, as the majority of Ukraine’s population oppose such a move.
On a related note, this morning’s BBC (aired in America), downplayed this reality. It did so by stating that the Ukrainian population is “divided”, rather than noting how the majority in Ukraine feel on NATO membership.
When pressed with such matter, Russia unfriendly commentators typically portray the Ukrainian population as “misinformed” about NATO. On the other hand, these very same spinsters uncritically approve of Ukrainian polls favoring EU membership. On that point, the Ukrainian population isn’t considered “misinformed”. Regarding that point, keep in mind that Ukrainian polls aren’t so unfriendly towards Ukraine having a closer economic relationship with Russia.
23 Comment by James Beck on 1 April 2008:
Good point, Daniel. Poland is Catholic. But the Poles have more in common with Russia, which is also Christian, than, say, with the Christian U.S. Their leader$ sometimes forget that, and it’s sad when they do so at the expense of the Polish people primarily. They don’t know any better (repeatedly)?
24 Comment by james on 1 April 2008:
Why dont we just say Neocons hate Russia because they are Jewish? The people who organised and ran the bolshevik revolution where mostly Jewish and financed by Jewish bankers. The oligarchs who stole Russias wealth are almost entirly Jewish and the one who run and finance pro chechen lobbies and websites are mostly Jewish as well.
25 Comment by james on 1 April 2008:
@24James Beck
Poles have nothing in common with Russia. Poles hate Russia! This is most clearly evident in the US with the Brezinski dynasty with there positions in government posts and in media.
26 Comment by Walter Hallstein on 1 April 2008:
Bottom line Russia doesn’t have anything to lose if they arm Serbia to the hilt (including nuclear weapons), and train their military to counter any attempt by NATO of surrounding Russia with U.S. military installations for an eventual Yugoslavia like dismemberment of Russia.
This will be Russia’s last chance to stop U.S. and EU from surrounding it with military installations. So Russia needs to fuel separatism elsewhere, encourage it, especially in Europe, especially in the countries that are EU members, and countries of the Middle East. Russia can also support radical Islamist that are fighting against U.S. and NATO all via Iran or other Islamic countries in the Middle East, I mean that is what the US and Germany have done against USSR, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, no compromise.
In the next Serbian election it will be a telling story of what we shell see in the years to come. If the radicals win Russia will almost absolutely help Serbia remove all foreign NGO’s from its soil, and isolate remove all fifth columnists from crucial government positions, this will be the precondition for Russia to arm Serbia. This is the reason Russia has not armed Serbia in the past. Russia needs serious Serbian leadership if they decide to arm Serbia with nuclear weapons. This may take up to five years to accomplish, but the financial situation of U.S. and EU will only get worse, and any moves by Serbia to re-establish sovereignty over Kosovo will depend on economic weakness of either of these two, EU and U.S. If the U.S. attacks Iran that would be the nail in the coffin for EU and NATO, but also end of occupation of Serbian land in Kosovo as well as in Bosnia, and Croatia. Serbia needs a five year plan, with Russia’s help it needs to establish new trade partners, outside of Europe, stop trading with Croatia, Slovenia, Hungry, Austria, Albanian and any other European county that recognized Kosovo, end it once and for all, there are no benefits to Serbia from any of those trade relations.
The threat of isolation of Serbia by EU will do more harm to EU and European countries then it will do to Serbia. This is a EU bluff forced upon EU by the U.S., and its almost identical propaganda and language used by Nazi’s just before Nazi Germany attacked Yugoslavia in 1941, the propaganda pamphlets and the message being sent by EU today are almost identical. The only reasonable solution is for Russia to do everything in its power to destroy NATO and EU indirectly, what ever that takes, destroy the unity; I do not think that Europeans (especially Germany) want to fight another war with Russia. Serbia is a win-win situation as well since Serbia imports more then it exports to EU, so if those ties are broken, Serbia can and will establish trade with other countries outside of Europe. Serbia needs to learn from its past that its neighbors are not much of neighbors; they switch sides, and have switched sides in world wide conflict like WWI, WWII, so why would Serbia want to be member of EU or with countries like its immediate neighbors? The most outspoken countries against Serbian membership into EU are former Nazi collaborating countries; no love loss there, Serbia needs to move on.
[...]In search of a coherent explanation behind recent Western decision to recognize Serbian separatist province of Kosovo, a little known letter by a German Bundestag member Willy Wimmer has surfaced as a prophetic diplomatic document that shed’s light on events taking shape in the Balkans now.
Writing in 2000 to the then German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, Wimmer’s letter warns that during a meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia, that was jointly organized by the American State Department and the American Enterprise Institute, the participants of which a large number were prime ministers, declared that the union of Serbia and Montenegro called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was outside of the legal framework of the Helsinki Final Act referring to the inviolability of state borders and that Serbia, as its successor will have to be dismembered.[...]
27 Comment by we all know on 1 April 2008:
James,
…and they financed Hitler,BinLadin,….just like they are financing evry potential problematic party in evry part of the World.
This is how they live and how they are capable to be
‘on the Top’
28 Comment by james on 1 April 2008:
@28we all know
I dont know if you are being sarcastic but the so called Al Qaeda network is pure fiction. How can OBL run a mass terror network, right underneath the US’s nose in Bosnia and Kosovo, and with the aid of CIA-linked Pakistan, without them knowing? The truth is that OBL’s brother Abdullah is the major financier of Islamic mercenery units through his organisations and NGOs like WAMY and the Benevolence Fund. Osama recruited the hijackers from his camps in Afghanistan. This explains why the 9/11 highjackers were monitored but not arrested, and why, despite the Benevolence Fund being the major financier and Abdullah its main contributor, he was never arrested or even questioned.
29 Comment by James Beck on 1 April 2008:
james yes poles ‘hate’ russia like americans ‘hate’ iraq. americans don’t hate the people of iraq and poles don’t hate russians.
30 Comment by the same old story on 1 April 2008:
James,
no I have not been sarcastic.
I realy mean that but I do not understand why the rest of the World ignore that.
It is totaly clear who and what FORMULA they are using but looks like the same FORMULA for the I & II WW is not going to work this time, for the WWIII…
Technology blocked their way,specialy INTRNET,and the Truth can be spred all over the world in a few minutes.
They are triing over 20 yrs to start the WW in Balkan but so far looks like Serbian ppl learned the lesson and would not alowed them to find a’trigger’there.
31 Comment by Srdja Trifkovic on 1 April 2008:
While merging three messages from Mark drawing attention to:
http://www.reuters.com/article/world…11673320080401
I managed to delete them by mistake. Sorry! Anyway, check out the article. My comment: it’s a purely technical agreement, and politically there’s less than meets the eye. . .
32 Comment by Mark on 1 April 2008:
Thanx,Srdjo, I was just wondering what’s that all about.
33 Comment by james on 1 April 2008:
I thought that Putin had absolute control of the media but thats not true he knows the private media which are linked NGO types like Soros and Berezovsky would cordinate an assault on him like they did on Milosevic thats why he restricted access to ownership of tv media but press, radio and internet are unrestricted.
I think a planned future for Russia is a country separated in 3 parts controlled a jew elite enforced by its mafia like the 90’s who own the media, and majority state assets and managed by NWO NGOS like Carnegie.
34 Comment by Michael Averko on 1 April 2008:
James:
Truth be told, some of the Russian government propped media is often not so dupish to the Russian government.
There’s a globalized influence, which includes that media being influenced in a certain direction.
Note my initial post at this thread. In addition note, how that Russian government funded venue (RTTV) has done things like label the “Serb Radical Party” as “extreme nationalist”, when there’s evidence to the contrary. For that matter, RTTV doesn’t refer to the repackaged KLA in Pristina as extreme nationalist. That group has been the comparatively more extreme nationalist. I’ve seen RTTV segments where known critics of the Russian government are treated with kid gloves. On the other hand, RTTV was hard hitting against Dmitry Rogozin, who has the N word (nationalist) applied to him.
Other Russian media outlets like RIA Novosti and Kommersant have their share of critical pieces against the Russian government and Russia at large.
35 Comment by Michael Averko on 1 April 2008:
Poles and Russians have elements liking each other. I’ve kind of experienced this between some Serbs and Croats as well.
36 Comment by Tomislav Milosevic on 1 April 2008:
“………Russia, traditional ally of the Serbs………”, a statement broadcasted over and over through nineties, sounded so good especially flavored by British accented voice of Christiana Amanpour or Alistair Yates. Since there were no objections to it, many others joined in so we got another “fact” of modern history.
If someone puts a loaded and cocked gun against my head in order to give mere example of alleged “alliance” I would certainly be very dead minutes after.
So I shall say what I know.
Two hundred years ago, to the date, certain Djordje Petrovic a.k.a Karadjordje was in the midst of rebellion he led against Ottoman Empire. Serbs refer to this period as The First Serbian Uprising. Although historically insignificant to the rest of the world even more than Battle of Kosovo in 1389, it certainly puts some light on .term of above mentioned alliance. Russia had troops promised to Serbia stationed and headquartered in Romania for a long time. Some of them, led by brave officers fought along with Serbs on voluntary bases. Many of them had been buried in Serbia, rest of them eventually had been recalled. During Uprising, Russia had deployed various envoys, skilled, persuasive diplomats who advised or guided Karadjordje in matters of organization of State which had been non-existent for half-a-millennium. They “also” worked on their agenda of Russia’s approach to Adriatic. These advisers eventually led BlackGeorge to personal catastrophe, loss of leadership and consequent Uprising failure.
Russia never took massive participation in these events although it appeared as it will at any moment. Serbs were tremendously successful in their operations with arms and ammunition supplied from Austria, not Russia. Organized by prominent, wealthy Serbs from Croatia, Bosnia, Hercegovina, Italy and other places which since then became Serbfrei. Austria appeared passive to these activities.
Russia had other headaches then with other alliances stretching from Britain through France to Turkey and good-God-knows who else. Serbia could wait. Serbs were lucky.
Russia had nothing to do with that.
A hundred years ago, Serbia had other leader and other ally. Greece. Balkans were becoming free of Turks. With Russian blessing, Austria becomes active by annexing Bosnia. There goes Serbian purpose of the day. Well, Russia had major headache with Japan, bolshevicks at Vladivostok, land ownership and good-God-knows what else. Serbia could wait………
………for Austrian military exercises on it’s border with Bosnia commanded by one Franz Ferdinand and consequent war. Russia was busy preparing for the same war which turned up to be welcoming committee for one Mr. Ullanov. But Serbia had better allies, political, ideological and trade partners: Britain, France, United Stated of America………
Serbia was not supposed to fend the well prepared, timely onslaught in 1914. certainly not the one in 1915. First bombing of Belgrade, those were the days……..But it did. Just like between 1804-1814. It would do even better if mentioned allies sent ammunition of proper caliber for arms they sold to Serbia prewar, or stopped blackmailing Serbia into concessions to yesterday’s enemies of Alliance, resulting in prolonged war and near annihilation of Serbia. As planed I would add.
Well, Serbs were not ready to vanish from face of the Earth yet, planned or not, bombed even by Italians on the way, they retrieved through freshly recognized, Austria sponsored, Albania to Greece. Final deliberation of Serbia was a stolen show by Britain and France similar to deliberation of Greece at the end of WWII. But we became friends for-ever-and-ever. President Wilson “created Yugoslavia” with Serb king. Actual name of the State was Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians, in that order by size of population and the king of the only entity who had one being a State ever. Elite of Serbian intellect was educated at our “friends and allies” (voice of one William Clinton), until WWII. Concessions on natural resources, all sorts of technology………nirvana.
Russia was busy establishing “system”. Boldly going where no man had gone before. Along their own “dissidents” Serb sympathizing travelers had particularly hard time.
Second great bombing of Belgrade happened on April 6, 1941 by Luftwafe. To that day, Serbia was the last place in Europe with a “light on”. Royal Family, government and those who could afford it ended in Britain. British support soon went to one Mr. Josip Broz a.k.a. Tito or whoever he really was, a Comunist leader, former Austian soldier from WWI, Kominterna graduate and participant of Spanish Civil War. Churchill’s son Randolf knew him pretty well. He was the man who ordered more bombings of Belgrade by the end of war, this time American and British.
Russians showed up shortly after pretty drunk and apparently very horny. Lost the interest fast and left. Didn’t hear from them much since……. oh, Stalin 1948, Khruschev, Tito’s funeral. Sorry.
In 1999, Belgrade bombing coalition was much larger, bombs and carriers much more sophisticated. But, all the previous bombardiers were present so we can all be proud of unity. They were all shooting each other in the past but they were also shooting at Serbs solo and all together. Gangbang.
During this period, Russia had deployed various envoys………..but I said that earlier. Actually all this somehow repeats a lot.
Kosovo or Kosova…………well, plural or not, Russians were there, somehow lost the interest and left………….
Russia arming Serbia?
Now?
What for?
Dr. Trifkovic wrote this article pointing Russia’s present headaches. I would just add that they also armed Egypt Syria, Iraq and good-god-knows who else.
Serbia should wait.
37 Comment by Chris on 2 April 2008:
Christianity was mentioned here a lot today.
Watch Paul Washer preach what REAL Christianity is and tell 5,000 Southern Baptists that most of them are going to be in Hell in 100 years.
This guy doesn’t get invited back. A few evangelicals I know were quite mad at his message but it is a message that is needed, in light of eternity.
Paul Washer – Shocking Message (full length)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8
38 Comment by james on 2 April 2008:
I was referenced to a book by brother Nathanel call THE SWORD OF THE PROPHET by Serge Trifkovic when asking about references to negative parts of Islam. Is Serge Trifkovic related to Srdja Trifkovic or is it just coincidence that they have the same last name and talk about related issues.
39 Comment by R. V. M. on 2 April 2008:
Serbia and Serbs were and are dispensable to Russia, Russia has demonstrated this many times over the last few centuries and especially over the last few decades. Even Russian patriots think of Serbia as a deposit they can use to get the best possible deal for their mother Russia with the West.
If Russia ever wanted to help Serbia, she would have helped Serbia in a military way in 1999, by giving it arms and/or installing Russian military in the North part of Kosovo (instead in Pristina) in 1999 and wouldn´t have withdrawn it. The current situation of Serbs in Kosovo would be much different today. Second, if Russia would have any intention of helping Serbia, she would use its current wealth and offer some sort of “Marshall Plan” to Serbia, this way winning also the Serbs who think that the EU has no alternative and enabling patriotic parties to win the elections in Serbia. There is absolutely no sign of it. (The “South Stream” deal Russia did with Bulgaria is three times bigger than the one with Serbia).
Now compare this with USA policy towards its client-states.
40 Comment by Boba on 2 April 2008:
http://www.roberttaft.org/russia.htm
Russia: Friend or Foe
Srdja Trifkovic, Igor Zevelev, Nicolas Gvosdev, one more speaker TBA
When: Monday, April 7, 7:00-10:00 PM
( program begins promptly at 8:00)
Where: The Boulevard Woodgrill, 2901 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22201
Contact Marcus Epstein for more information:
marcusepstein@gmail.com
41 Comment by Peter RV on 2 April 2008:
Tomislav Milosevic sounds like a recital of our Kultur-Traegers, exactly what George Soros and Daniel Goldhagen have in mind
when they want to ‘de-nazify’ Serbia.
The first step is , of course, to convince Serbs that those who bombed and want them cut into shreds are their real friends.
(Bombs are real sign of a brotherly love, eh Tomislav?)
The greatest effort of Soros and Co, at present,though, is to convince Serbs that they are facing isolation if they don’t fall on their knees. For that ,it is imperative to convince them that Russians are, at least indifferent to their predicament, if not their enemies, and here enters our ‘evropski’ Tomislav with his history of Serbo-Russian relations competing for a Soros price.
Nice try Tomislav, keep your money,but by know Serbs have a pretty good idea who their real enemy is.
42 Comment by Michael Averko on 2 April 2008:
“Two hundred years ago, to the date, certain Djordje Petrovic a.k.a Karadjordje was in the midst of rebellion he led against Ottoman Empire.”
****
Wasn’t Petrovic the Montenegrin dynastic line (will check)? Offhand, I’m of the impression that the differences between the Montenegrin and Serb two headed eagles relate to the Petrovic and Karadjordje dynastic lines.
I caught glimpse of a recent Russian news dispatch saying that Montenegro and Serbia might eventually get back together again.
****
On some other mentioned points:
Russia’s historic role in the Balkans has been mixed. It was quite instrumental in securing Bulgaria’s independence. When Russian influence appeared to be getting the upper hand in the Balkans, a number of powers united in trying to offset that scenario. As is true with other powers, Russia has had its limits as a power. It’s nevertheless wrong to write Russia off altogether.
The Soviet role in the Middle East was a bit of a different bird. The Arabs and Soviets had greater issues with each other than the Russians and Serbs. The Tito (half-Croat/half Slovene)-Stalin (Georgian) split is a classic reference on why Communist era Yugoslavia and the USSR shouldn’t be respectively lumped as Serbia and Russia.
43 Comment by Tomislav Milosevic on 2 April 2008:
The very point of Soros established tactics is frontal, greatly illogical attack on someone’s integrity or plain truth. The very statement I used to begin my comment comes from that kitchen, I fear. Therefore I am fan of Mr. Soros and alike as much I am a Communist, Fascist, Nationalist or anything else subhuman. I believe I was “cristaly clear” (voice of Jamie Shea or Wesley Clarke) that Serbia and Serbs, traditionally and still, exist thanks to themselves only and not because their friends and/or enemies whatever and whenever they choose to be.
Low blow, clumsy attempt, no cigar.
As for Montenegrins or whatever we choose to call them: what would be the definition of that demography in respect of history and geography. Read my name and be assured that I know that answer all too well regardless what Mr.Tito left us. I purposely omitted to mention that Montenegro lost it’s National Identity along with Statehood on January 16. 1916. on field of Mojkovac when it joined the Great War in the name of Serbhood, honor, principles and above all face. Voluntarily and uninvited. This omition was due to opening even more tragic can of worms and lengthy writings I am not qualified for.
But Dr Trifkovic is.
He is also very competent on subjects like:
How communists found home in Serbia or Montenegro to begin with,
Macedonia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Slovenia, Croatia, bastions of European heritage
Many answers are right there. Nobody is too poor to pay attention.
44 Comment by Serbia as a nation on 2 April 2008:
if Serbia wants to exist as a nation in the coming millenium, the only hope is to proclaim itself a new republic of the Russian Federation.
45 Comment by simo on 2 April 2008:
To R.V. M.
The Russians did give the Serbs arms in 1999, such as the Tunguska for shooting down low flying aricraft and several S300 batteries, maybe as many as 10.
Milosevic could have swept Serbia’s skies of all NATO aircraft by using his SA-2, SA-5 and S300 systems. which are all long range, high-altitude air defense systems. So Milosevic himself bears a major responsibility for the deaths of many Serb civilians for his failure to use these weapon systems. We can only speculate as to why he did not use them.
To be sure, Serbia was under an arms embargo at the time. but she had allies in Russia especially the Russian military. The man who was in charge of arms exports at the time was General Leonid Ivashov, who was as pro-Serb as any Serb nationalist. There were other miltary men just as sympathetic to the Serbs as Ivashov. Regardless of the arms embargo, it is hard to believe that the Serbs could not have convinced the Russians to send their more advanced systems to shoot down NATO aircraft. The Russian military would have been more than willing and would have been in an excellent position to persuade Yeltsin and Chernomyrdin.
The oft-repeated belief, held by many Serbs, that the Serbs did not have the equipment to reach the higher flying aircraft NATO, is outright nonsense.
46 Comment by Tomislav Milosevic on 2 April 2008:
Sorry to disagree.
I believe that President of Serbia/Yugoslavia never had direct executive power over military in that country unless we flatly agree with evil accusations which nearly destroyed Serbian reputation. I further believe that there are very few Presidents, if any indeed, with that power anywhere.
Regardless how or why, Yugoslavia did very well during that “conflict” in many ways. My special salute to AAA Captain of Hungarian origin who made particular point on that occasion and later, to this day.
We all had a chance to witness the final chapter of that adventure. Remains to find out what exactly Marti Ahtisaari conveyed to Mr. Milosevic but we can study their faces after emerging in front of the Press. I am afraid I know what he had to say and I am sure that Russians knew too.
We can also revisit TV footage of Russian General in charge emerging from conference in Moscow days before, fast walking, solemn looking, when he turns angrily to Reporter, whose question was not audible, and growls: “do you really want me to start World War III for your pleasure?”
That’s what I remember and thank God Serbs, and other 20 or so national groups living in that country, had that Milosevic in charge and not this one.
47 Comment by M. on 2 April 2008:
(@15) “Russia does not have to set up its own bases in Serbia. It merely needs to supply the Serbian military with modern air defence systems and a few hundred surface to surface rockets. Following this it could sign a military defence pact with Serbia.”
This must wait at least until Serbian parliamentary elections, 11 May 2008 (Tadic’s treasonous clique is presently still in control of the military).
48 Comment by M. on 2 April 2008:
(Walter Hallstein, @27) ” … In the next Serbian election it will be a telling story of what we shell see in the years to come. If the radicals win Russia will almost absolutely help Serbia remove all foreign NGO’s from its soil, and isolate remove all fifth columnists from crucial government positions, this will be the precondition for Russia to arm Serbia. This is the reason Russia has not armed Serbia in the past. … ”
Of course, you are right; I had missed your excellent post when sending 49. And Herr Wimmer’s letter is a revelation.
49 Comment by james on 4 April 2008:
@51M
Russia wont help Serbs remove foreign NGOs from its land it hasn’t done so in Russia were there more active so way do it in Serbia? If Russia did so or set up military bases the Western alliance would use that as a provocation to attack Russia. Russians are smarter than that and wont to avoid an all out confrontation at all cost. They know if they diversify there capital and seek joint investment in other countries than it would be harder for a foreign backed bolshevik style tackover to sieze and control Russia something the Czar failed to do. It would be better if Serb authorities launched an investigation of these foreign NGOs and there actives and passed a law in parlament limiting the amount of NGOs operating in the country.
50 Comment by Alex on 4 April 2008:
I read with interest the thought of Serbia “integrating with Russia” or hosting Russian bases or nuclear weapons[!] Please!
Yes, there is an attachment that Serbs primarily and other Orthodox Balkan people generally have with “Mother Russia.” My late father would speak of Russia with tears in his eyes, but this was emotion of the heart, rather than the mind. In most cases, as another reader points out, when the chips were down, the Balkan countries had to fend for themselves, or get the best deal from the West.
Kosovo is indeed a huge historical injustice, but unfortunately Serbia becoming a Belarus-like client state is no answer. Where is the Russian investment? Serbia’s largest foreign investors are Greece (a neighbor and traditional Orthodox friend), Slovenia (former Yugoslav republic), and Austria (the enemy).
The European Union is the only choice, and it comes at a sickening price, amputation, but becoming a CIS bargaining chip from Russia which is willing to sacrifice it in the course of their Great Power “games,” as in the past, is not a great option for Serbia.
51 Comment by Allen Wilson on 5 April 2008:
It all boils down to the question of what are Serbia’s and Russia’s parallel interests. It is presently in Russia’s interest to help Serbia and in Serbia’s interest to use that help. Of course, Serbia must take advantage of that help wisely.
52 Comment by Michele on 5 April 2008:
The article addresses issues I happen to understand and agree with.
Black Sea expansion has created unnecessary tension between the West and Russia. It’s counterproductive to any peace initiatives that have been achieved since the Cold War.
Time will prove that this is destructive for peace, and it will only increase the threat of Iran, Islamic terror, etc., as we will lose any alliances we’ve developed in Christian Eastern Europe and Russia.
The fact that the U.S. has turned it’s back on Serbia long ago by supporting an Islamic nation such as Kosovo, robbing the Serbs of their territory, makes matters worse.
The U.S. needs an ally in Vladimir Putin. Aggravating a situation such as this will hurt everyone involved in the long run. I hope “The Power’s That Be” think twice before pursuing this any further.
53 Comment by Yankee Doodle on 6 April 2008:
NATO is not doing what it needs to be doing in Afghanistan; the governments of too many Nay-TO countries are too busy pandering to extremist Muslims among their growing Muslim minorities, and don’t want to deal effectively with Islamic terrorists in South Asia.
Beyond that, considering how the EU increasingly treats its subjects, and considering Western Europe’s eagerness to blast Serbia in violation of international law, NATO seems to finally actually be becoming what Soviet propaganda had made it out to be for many years — an aggressive alliance aimed at Moscow.
All things considered, it is time for the US to leave NATO.
54 Comment by Eagle on 6 April 2008:
There is a conflict of ideas between “the way it should be” and “the way it is playing out”. Yes, in a sane world, western Christian nations would work amicably with eastern Christian nations and “a” European union would be an organic, natural outcome of sorts in the political, economic, and cultural spheres of life without the formality of “the” European Union. But for a variety of reasons addressed by Chronicles, this is not the case.
The US, with either known or unknown European complicity, is driving the globe to another cold war and perhaps even towards a hot war. Encricling Russia is a forcing mechanism. Russia, whether it wants to or not (it does not), may have to create a military presence of sorts in the Balkans, and Serbia, whether it wants to or not (it does not), may have to accept a Russian military presence. Whether the two have strong or weak allegiances may prove beside the point if the continent is thrown into a massive war by forces that neither Russia nor certainly Serbia can control. The Great (sic) Powers screwed it up in 1914 and 1939 and look to be screwing it up now. The question is whether it is 1989, 1995, 1999, 2008, or some future date we will reference when discussing when it was screwed up on this go round.
55 Comment by M. on 7 April 2008:
Speaking of NATO’s expansion and Russian global diplomacy, today’s article by a well known Indian career diplomat sheds more light on the grand game.
“The Taliban’s shadow hangs over NATO
Following the North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit and the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President George W Bush, the Russians say they were “defeated”: the US’s missile defense shield in Europe and NATO’s expansion will go ahead. This is a smokescreen. Moscow, by agreeing to the transit of food and non-military cargo and “some types of non-lethal military equipment” across Russia to Afghanistan, now has a role in NATO’s operations in Afghanistan. – M K Bhadrakumar (Apr 7, ‘08)
…
”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JD08Ag01.html
56 Comment by Peter RV on 12 April 2008:
It is wrong to say that Serbia has no choice but to obey whims of the EU, as some people (whose motives BTW,are highly suspicious) are incessantly suggesting us.
The best course for the Serbs would be to establish a closest possible integration with Russia with whom we have, besides emotional ties, a clear coincidence of interests- the resistance to the dismembrement of our national territories.
Serbs should totally abandon the stupid idea of joining the EU
which has become a club of bullies to them, and go where they will be respected and also have economic advantages. Russia’s rapidly becoming an energetic superpower and Serbs can’t but proffit from it .
When Serbs reject this idea of their corrupt polititians (most of them on foreign payroll) and realize that being on their knees won’t get them anywhere else but into a moral gutter, and that the only way to salavation is to resist to be subjugated, the victory will be theirs.
As far as Kosovo is concerned, Serbs must defend their minority there and wait for the better times. There will be ocasion to get Kosovo back being firm and patient. What is taken away by the sword can be regain by the sword ( if necessary), when the moment arrives.
And it will arrive.
The EU, just like the Austro-Hungarian Empire is of a fragile artificial structure ,the cracks in it are bound to appear and the rot to set in. And, we may not have to wait too long for that either. The processes of desintegration of empires are develloping much faster in our times than in the past.
Europeans will have learn then the consequence of absurdity of installing a hostile U.S. military base on Serbian territory by proclaiming it a ‘nation’.
57 Comment by M. on 19 April 2008:
Peter RV, @56:
“… Serbs should totally abandon the stupid idea of joining the EU
which has become a club of bullies to them, and go where they will be respected and also have economic advantages. Russia’s rapidly becoming an energetic superpower and Serbs can’t but proffit from it ….”
Hope that most Serbs see this truth.
P.S. Herman Rauschning, the president of Danzig senate (1933-34) prior to leaving the Nazi party, has attributed the following gem to A. Hitler:
“Politics is a game where the rules change according to the skills of the players.”
Hitler, of course, was a darling of the decaying Western powers (before he turned on them too), their hero & hope who would “stave off the Bolshevik menace”. However, he also had good understanding of his admirers.
Our Dr. Kostunica is a man of integrity, a legal scholar who believes in following the rule(s) of international law. However, “what do you do when” your opponents on both sides of Atlantic decide not to follow these rules? They have honed this “skill” through ages; even Schicklgruber knew that. In practical terms, legalese doesn’t do much for the short side, does it?
58 Pingback by NATO’s Black Sea Expansion: An Unworthy Risk « Dobro dosli na Internet prezentaciju srpske dijaspore on 9 May 2008:
[...] 31 Mar 2008 at 3:13 pm1James [...]