Russia: Kosovo and asymmetry of perceptions

nice, ...do you all remember how some albanian were fantasizing about how "Russia will back down"? =)

now, I don´t know what the Russians main goal is in the Balkans, I have an assumption, but I won´t write it down yet, in order not to speculate.

but one thing, I would like to underline: I already mentioned the russian aircraft-carrier heading towards the mediterranean sea...nobody here seems to have taken notice of it.

perhaps some will notice it, when the ship arrives.

let´s see what future brings!

come on, bruce will arrive any moment and tell us it´s all nonsense!

under putin the reserves of the russian national bank exploded from usd 20 billion to usd 440 billion or ten times as much as the bank of england holds.

the piplines to china and japan will be ready even before 2012 and be a very good alternative for selling gas and oil to eu.

but bruce will tell us that the moneyless eu - that doesn´t accept russian debt repaiment before maturity (not just in the paris club) because it simply NEEDS the interest for it´s budget planning - paid for all of it! ;-)

but what i love most: when russian warplanes get into nato-terretory, nato follows them out of it, but so far no nato-jet did the same! ;-)

"In 1999, NATO, led by the United States, conducted a 60-day bombing campaign"

No it was 78 days.

And also Putin has another lever and that would be to unilaterally recognize the independence of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdneister, etc. as it suits them.

Very interesting oppinion. Honest in some ways, yet so Western.
I'll explain what I mean.

"There was no question that Serbs committed massive atrocities in Bosnia, and that Bosnians and Croats carried out massive atrocities against Serbs. "

Few would even say that Bosnians (I guess it should say Bosniaks, as Serbs and Croats are also Bosnians) and Croats carried out MASSIVE atrocities against Serbs.

Normally, we read about massive atrocities commited by Serbs, and "some" or "sporadic" or "anegdotal" atrocities commited by others.

Honest.

"Serbia was seen not so much as part of the failure but as an intrinsically egregious actor that had to be treated differently than the rest, given its behavior, particularly against the Bosnians. When it appeared that the Serbs were repeating their actions in Bosnia against Albanian Muslims in 1999, the United States and other NATO allies felt they had to intervene. "

Appearantly, massive atrocities by others were fine. No need to intervene.
So western.

"In fact, the level of atrocities in Kosovo never approached what happened in Bosnia, nor what the Clinton administration said was going on before and during the war. At one point, it was said that hundreds of thousands of men were missing, and later that 10,000 had been killed and bodies were being dissolved in acid. The post-war analysis never revealed any atrocities on this order of magnitude."

Honest.
Often in Western media there is a number of 10.000 still in circulation (in Albanian media 12.000).

"The fact is that the motivation was a complex web of domestic political concerns and a genuine belief that the primary mission was to improve the world."

Yet, so western.
There you have it. It's all out of genuine belief that the primary mission was to improve the world.
Clinton and other leaders make some mistakes, too, but goodness of their hearts cannot be questioned. Perhaps mistakes, but out of good intentions.
And how did it "appear that the Serbs were repeating their actions in Bosnia against Albanian Muslims" so that "the United States and other NATO allies felt they had to intervene."
Wasn't there a ceasefire in effect and Army back in the barracks, out only to respond to KLA attacks? OSCE Mission and EU Mission out in the field? Were they suppose to carry out atrocities with thousands of OSCE observers overlooking? KLA went into offensive. Wouldn't be logical to try to stop them and achieve real break in fighting, and try to negotiate peace settlement?

"The NATO mission, then, was to stabilize the western end of this arc, Yugoslavia. The strategy was to abolish the multinational state created after World War I and replace it with a series of nation-states – such as Slovenia and Macedonia – built around a coherent national unit. This would stabilize Yugoslavia. "

"The strategy was to abolish the multinational state created after World War I and replace it with a series of nation-states – such as Slovenia and Macedonia – built around a coherent national unit."

Honest. Strategy was to abolish the multinational state.

"This would stabilize Yugoslavia. "

Again, intent was nice. So, now instead of that horrible Yugoslavia, we have all this stability in the region. How western.
Besides, there are some problems with this logic.

"...eliminating a completely artificial state and freeing genuine nations to have their own states. "

There is no Bosnian nation, only Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats.

"But the theory was that small states overwhelmingly consisting of one nationality could remain stable in the face of ethnic diversity so long as there was a dominant nation – unlike Yugoslavia, where there was no central national grouping. "

True. Most states have ethnic diversity, but with the dominant nation. In Russia-Russians, in China-Chineese, in Turkey - Turks, etc.

"...unlike Yugoslavia, where there was no central national grouping."

Honest. And a blow to all those who are saying that Yugoslavia was Serb-dominated.
Serbs were not majority in Yugoslavia, only plurality. (largest ethnic group, but less then 50%).
Again, this doesn't explain why this theory was not used in Bosnia?
Let's work in line with this theory.
So, Croatia is predominantly Croatian, overwhelmingly consisting of one nationality and it could remain stable in the face of ethnic diversity. let's just say "fine" and move along.
Bosnia already isn't. It's much like Yugoslavia. So, if the strategy was to eliminate multinational state without dominant ethnic group in order to bring about stability, why was Bosnia preserved? (or Serbia isn't? for that matter. There is one dominant ethnic group - Serbs)

I don't think that this theory can sufficiently explain intent. It doesn't fit.

To get the strategy right.
So, they wanted to destroy Yugoslavia because it's was unstable as multiethnic state.
Then multiethnic Bosnia was recognized in order to have stability?
So that was a strategy.
Wow!
Strategist must have had charges pressed against him/her and created this strategy for a sole purpose of being declared unfit to stand trial on ground of insanity, and needed this strategy to prove it.
If I would be in a jury, it would work.

...simply everything that doesn´t please them...is being downplayed by some K-albanians...

very weak strategy, indeed.

well, we will see who will have the rude awakening.

as I always say:

let´s see what future brings.

Ida

I can tell you why Monty kept saying '60 days' of bombing. It is because it is against US law for the US President to engage in military actions for more than 60 days without asking Congress. So not only did Clinton break all kinds of international laws, agreements and norms in attacking a sovereign nation, he also was breaking US constitutional law for the last 18 days of the attack.

As much as Monty would like us to believe he is an independent voice of reason and logic, the caliber of many of the reply posts his articles generate indicates that many of the people who visit B92 are not fooled and they recognize his underlying purposes as a pax americana propagandist.

While Monty is prepared to gently critise the US in his articles he chokes at pointing out actions by his chums(and former/future employers) which contravene US laws. He would rather lie to us and hope we dont know any better.

Jack...


it doesn´t matter what "Monty" as you call him, said...

60 or 78 days... that´s only showing how imprecise some are writing about the issue, but that´s it.

to your information:

the US-president is bound to ask the congress for approval, before starting any military actions against another country. that didn´t take place in 1999, what means that Mr.Clinton violated the US-constitution anyway, no matter if only for 60 days or for 78 as it really lasted.

as an american you should know a little bit more about your own constitution...

IF you are an american at all.

so, don´t fool yourself, the NATO-aggression was illegal in respect to both, international AND US-law.

there is no discussion about that.

Jovan

I am not am American and have never claimed to be. I am Scottish but live in England at the moment.

I was answering ida who wanted to know why Monty was saying only 60 days of bombing. By the way you are wrong, the US president only has to go to congress to declare war. He can order many acts of violence but he cannot declare war and he has to ask congress to vote for any action that goes on for more than 60 days.

Monty's claim of 60 days bombing is not unintentionally imprecise, it is INTENTIONALLY mendacious.

Also, wind you neck in because I am firmly in the anti independence camp.

A unilateral declaration of independence will be as much a humiliation for the west as it would be for Russia. The west are reflected as being 'in control of the situation' whereas a unilateral declaration would not be a sign of control.

It is clear that future NATO actions will not be trusted politically by the populations within Europe because of the perception that a humanitarian justification was abused in Kosovo by turning it into an invasion.

Assuming that there are no substantial political consequences of independence, the inevitable long-term outlook for Kosovo would be very poor. After an initial amount of posturing by the west, there would be a gradual withdrawal of military and financial support - due mainly to a loss of interest in the province and the concentration of effort elsewhere in the world. While Kosovo is a pawn in a game, the Albanians in Kosovo have something to gain - once the matter is settled there won't be much interest in them.

Russia won't be too bothered. The wrong assumption in the article is that the whole Kosovo issue is a east-west political problem - it is more complex than that. Whatever the effect of western interference in the breakup of Yugoslavia, it is still a matter that the locals have to live with. Given that the strength of Europe has depended on various sides negotiating, the real force should have been the EU encouraging negotiation between Pristina and Belgrade. In this the EU have failed to act properly - they have become impositional. While this view may have been appropriate for the US when opposing cold war communism, it is not an appropriate way for the democratic institutions of the EU to behave. They are imposing a solution on democratic Serbia by stealing part of its land. That will never be accepted, forgiven or forgotten - whereas there was a perfectly good negotiable solution on offer that was never given the backing it needed by the EU or the US.

The article does not point out Serbia has a case and that the Albanians in Kosovo have no moral high ground.

Maybe Putin's interest is not so much his own political image, but more a reflection of the more general distrust of the west held by most Russians - a distrust that is being soundly justified by the west's wrong actions in trying to break up the country of Serbia by stealing one of its provinces for NATO.

Independent of anything to do with Russia, Serbia has a case that is being ignored by the west. The west are not listening to Belgrade. They should listen - but without letting any E-W stupidity interfere.

We expect the West to postpone independence again, and to keep postponing it. But the Albanians might force the issue by declaring unilateral independence. The Russians would actually be delighted to see this.

So true.

Raso... very good point.

I read this article a couple days ago somewhere..that's odd.

This article is built around the idea of Kosovo as the last straw. This is simply not true. Putin does not face such a dismal scenario. He can still come out looking good by saying that he succeeded in blocking Kosova's independence at the UN, and thus kept his word. On the other hand, the military intervention scenario that the article describes, borders on lunacy. While it is true that Russia has gas to sell, it is also true that is needs people with money to whom it could sell that gas. Both sides have levrage over one another...it is a sort of symbiotic relationship. Kosova is not as important to Russian-West relations as the article tries to make it out to be. Certainly not important enough to cause a military confrontation.

Also note that the article tries to play down Serb atrocities in Kosova. This should be a clear signal as from which viewpoint this article was written. But if such an article makes Serbs sleep better so be it. Just be ready for a very rude awakening when the declaration of independence is signed, the Western powers recognize it in 48 hours, and Serbia is left looking meekly at Russia with the "why didn't you shoot them" look.

What johny does not understand is that the US owes the Chinese hundreds of billions of dollars and is over leveraged in economic trade. International politics is INTERLOCKED. If it weren't, Kosovo would have been independent years ago.

This article missed to take in consideration two main issues:

1. the "forced" Yugoslavia - was a state of the southerns Slavs- so the mostly forced one to live in this artificial state were the Albanians- who are not Slavs. (this is the position of Slovenia, ex Yugo Republic- all Slavic nations had their own state after Yugo-s death only the non-Slavic nation Albanians cannot?)

1 bis. adding to the first point the discrimination and the violence used towards Albanians by Serbia the position of Serbia is very weak- I am speaking about the MORAL right of Serbia to rule with Kosova- moral standards of the western democracies are very different of the Russian standards.

2. the most important is if Serbia considers herself closer to the western values or the Asian one? Does Serbia see herself in EU or in confederation with Russia?

The position of the French President Sarkozy is very clear: Serbia cannot join the EU by humiliating the K-Albanians. Serbia has to recognize the legitimate right of the K-Albanians (the legitimation is based on moral standards and it is recognized by all mature democracies in Europe and world).

In my opinion democratic forces in Serbia (if there are really one) should make clear to Serbian nation that Kosova was ruled and kept forcedly part of Yugo/Serbia and that's not anymore acceptable for the NEW DEMOCRATIC SERBIA in the first place, and moreover, it is in contrast with the European VALUES part of wich Serbia wants/perhaps to be.

The answer of this question will free Serbia from Kosova and establish peace in the Balkans. Serbia should be sincerely supported in this path by the EU without ambiguities, without leaving open spaces to the dark forces in Serbia believing that EU is not serious and that in the end even by keeping Kosova forcedly in Serbia, Serbia will be a member of EU and benefit of economic growth by being part of EU.

What the Serbs here do not realize is that if the West decides to manufacture its own goods in their respective states ad not in China (due to deterioration of the political climate), its economy will crumble in a couple of years maximum. If Putin acts the strong guy and becomes intolerable for the West, then there will be nobody to buy his oil. Russia will be broke again in a couple of years.
Russia and China need the west to feed their population. They need the west because all the innovations happen in the west, not in China, not in Russia. Innovations bring progress, and neither China nor Russia seem to have innovated on anything, at least since the fall of Berlin wall.

well,albeit I have read something different, I will try to check it as soon as I have the time for it.

thanks for the reply.

by the way, I am not only against that pseudo-independence...,

I am firmly upholding international law.

my dear "BalkanUpdate" ...it very much looks like the wish was the father to your thoughts...

StratFor is the US-american pendant to Jane´s in the UK.

so much for your "analysis" in regard to their "opinions"...

let me guess, you´re an Albanian, right?

only an Albanian would seriously try to belittle something that doesn´t fit into his view...
as usual here in this forum.

keep cool, my dear..

Russia is constantly showing, (or should I say proving?) that US-american assumptions were terribly wrong, ...not only in regard to Russia allegedly going to "back down", or bargain over Kosovo...

but, you are free to believe what ever you want... since you live in a free and democratic country: Serbia!


merry christmas, my dear!

Russia cares about Kosovo the least. The goal of the Adm. Kuznetsov battle group is not Adriatic but Syria, namely the Russian navy base there. That's the place Putin is going to be celebrating New Year.

The sad truth is that at this moment Kremlin will be delighted to see Kosovo going independent, for it will solve the three Gordian knots that Russia has on it's borders (or in vicinity of): Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdniestr Republic. All three places have been waiting for eons to declare independence from their current occupants, namely, Republic of Georgia and Moldova. Once Kosova goes independent, Abkhazia, S.Ossetia, TransDniestr go independent as well in a flip.
Potentially, two huge regions of Ukraine, Krymea and Don, can join the swarm.

This will play well to Russian goals, which are mainly to create a buffer zone of non-aligned states between Russia and pro-Western ex-Soviet republics.

Remember one thing: Russia does not care about Kosovo, Balkans, or Serbia. She has enough problems to deal with along her borders.

Interesting and WRONG. Stratfor is sort of Think Tank that nobody in U.S takes seriously. They usually appear in FOX NEWS to give their opinion about the world. I have never seen them in any other serious network, which says a lot about how much others value their opinion. I used to read their opinions about other world hot spots thinking they were some sort of serious group until I realized they were not. Their research consists of the OPINION of the founder and hearsay evidence that anybody with a computer can do. Russia simply doesn’t have the wherewithal to challenge the U.S and let alone the West. What a joke!

Unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo Albanians would contravene the Helsinki Accord, all UN Security Council resolutions on Kosovo, and the very foundations of international law. Recognition of that illegal "independence" by other nations would certify these nations as INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALS by their own laws, and set a precedent for other nations like Russia, China, Indonesia, Iran and Turkey to act in a similarly illegal fashion, outside the bounds of the United Nations and international conventions. This would have long lasting and dramatic results on world affairs.

Absence of law is LAWLESSNESS, in which you are far more likely to end up as a victim than a beneficiary.

I read this article a couple days ago somewhere..that's odd.

This article is built around the idea of Kosovo as the last straw. This is simply not true. Putin does not face such a dismal scenario. He can still come out looking good by saying that he succeeded in blocking Kosova's independence at the UN, and thus kept his word. On the other hand, the military intervention scenario that the article describes, borders on lunacy. While it is true that Russia has gas to sell, it is also true that is needs people with money to whom it could sell that gas. Both sides have levrage over one another...it is a sort of symbiotic relationship. Kosova is not as important to Russian-West relations as the article tries to make it out to be. Certainly not important enough to cause a military confrontation.

Also note that the article tries to play down Serb atrocities in Kosova. This should be a clear signal as from which viewpoint this article was written. But if such an article makes Serbs sleep better so be it. Just be ready for a very rude awakening when the declaration of independence is signed, the Western powers recognize it in 48 hours, and Serbia is left looking meekly at Russia with the "why didn't you shoot them" look.

nice, ...do you all remember how some albanian were fantasizing about how "Russia will back down"? =)

now, I don´t know what the Russians main goal is in the Balkans, I have an assumption, but I won´t write it down yet, in order not to speculate.

but one thing, I would like to underline: I already mentioned the russian aircraft-carrier heading towards the mediterranean sea...nobody here seems to have taken notice of it.

perhaps some will notice it, when the ship arrives.

let´s see what future brings!

This article missed to take in consideration two main issues:

1. the "forced" Yugoslavia - was a state of the southerns Slavs- so the mostly forced one to live in this artificial state were the Albanians- who are not Slavs. (this is the position of Slovenia, ex Yugo Republic- all Slavic nations had their own state after Yugo-s death only the non-Slavic nation Albanians cannot?)

1 bis. adding to the first point the discrimination and the violence used towards Albanians by Serbia the position of Serbia is very weak- I am speaking about the MORAL right of Serbia to rule with Kosova- moral standards of the western democracies are very different of the Russian standards.

2. the most important is if Serbia considers herself closer to the western values or the Asian one? Does Serbia see herself in EU or in confederation with Russia?

The position of the French President Sarkozy is very clear: Serbia cannot join the EU by humiliating the K-Albanians. Serbia has to recognize the legitimate right of the K-Albanians (the legitimation is based on moral standards and it is recognized by all mature democracies in Europe and world).

In my opinion democratic forces in Serbia (if there are really one) should make clear to Serbian nation that Kosova was ruled and kept forcedly part of Yugo/Serbia and that's not anymore acceptable for the NEW DEMOCRATIC SERBIA in the first place, and moreover, it is in contrast with the European VALUES part of wich Serbia wants/perhaps to be.

The answer of this question will free Serbia from Kosova and establish peace in the Balkans. Serbia should be sincerely supported in this path by the EU without ambiguities, without leaving open spaces to the dark forces in Serbia believing that EU is not serious and that in the end even by keeping Kosova forcedly in Serbia, Serbia will be a member of EU and benefit of economic growth by being part of EU.

What the Serbs here do not realize is that if the West decides to manufacture its own goods in their respective states ad not in China (due to deterioration of the political climate), its economy will crumble in a couple of years maximum. If Putin acts the strong guy and becomes intolerable for the West, then there will be nobody to buy his oil. Russia will be broke again in a couple of years.
Russia and China need the west to feed their population. They need the west because all the innovations happen in the west, not in China, not in Russia. Innovations bring progress, and neither China nor Russia seem to have innovated on anything, at least since the fall of Berlin wall.

"In 1999, NATO, led by the United States, conducted a 60-day bombing campaign"

No it was 78 days.

And also Putin has another lever and that would be to unilaterally recognize the independence of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdneister, etc. as it suits them.

Interesting and WRONG. Stratfor is sort of Think Tank that nobody in U.S takes seriously. They usually appear in FOX NEWS to give their opinion about the world. I have never seen them in any other serious network, which says a lot about how much others value their opinion. I used to read their opinions about other world hot spots thinking they were some sort of serious group until I realized they were not. Their research consists of the OPINION of the founder and hearsay evidence that anybody with a computer can do. Russia simply doesn’t have the wherewithal to challenge the U.S and let alone the West. What a joke!

come on, bruce will arrive any moment and tell us it´s all nonsense!

under putin the reserves of the russian national bank exploded from usd 20 billion to usd 440 billion or ten times as much as the bank of england holds.

the piplines to china and japan will be ready even before 2012 and be a very good alternative for selling gas and oil to eu.

but bruce will tell us that the moneyless eu - that doesn´t accept russian debt repaiment before maturity (not just in the paris club) because it simply NEEDS the interest for it´s budget planning - paid for all of it! ;-)

but what i love most: when russian warplanes get into nato-terretory, nato follows them out of it, but so far no nato-jet did the same! ;-)

We expect the West to postpone independence again, and to keep postponing it. But the Albanians might force the issue by declaring unilateral independence. The Russians would actually be delighted to see this.

So true.

Raso... very good point.

Very interesting oppinion. Honest in some ways, yet so Western.
I'll explain what I mean.

"There was no question that Serbs committed massive atrocities in Bosnia, and that Bosnians and Croats carried out massive atrocities against Serbs. "

Few would even say that Bosnians (I guess it should say Bosniaks, as Serbs and Croats are also Bosnians) and Croats carried out MASSIVE atrocities against Serbs.

Normally, we read about massive atrocities commited by Serbs, and "some" or "sporadic" or "anegdotal" atrocities commited by others.

Honest.

"Serbia was seen not so much as part of the failure but as an intrinsically egregious actor that had to be treated differently than the rest, given its behavior, particularly against the Bosnians. When it appeared that the Serbs were repeating their actions in Bosnia against Albanian Muslims in 1999, the United States and other NATO allies felt they had to intervene. "

Appearantly, massive atrocities by others were fine. No need to intervene.
So western.

"In fact, the level of atrocities in Kosovo never approached what happened in Bosnia, nor what the Clinton administration said was going on before and during the war. At one point, it was said that hundreds of thousands of men were missing, and later that 10,000 had been killed and bodies were being dissolved in acid. The post-war analysis never revealed any atrocities on this order of magnitude."

Honest.
Often in Western media there is a number of 10.000 still in circulation (in Albanian media 12.000).

"The fact is that the motivation was a complex web of domestic political concerns and a genuine belief that the primary mission was to improve the world."

Yet, so western.
There you have it. It's all out of genuine belief that the primary mission was to improve the world.
Clinton and other leaders make some mistakes, too, but goodness of their hearts cannot be questioned. Perhaps mistakes, but out of good intentions.
And how did it "appear that the Serbs were repeating their actions in Bosnia against Albanian Muslims" so that "the United States and other NATO allies felt they had to intervene."
Wasn't there a ceasefire in effect and Army back in the barracks, out only to respond to KLA attacks? OSCE Mission and EU Mission out in the field? Were they suppose to carry out atrocities with thousands of OSCE observers overlooking? KLA went into offensive. Wouldn't be logical to try to stop them and achieve real break in fighting, and try to negotiate peace settlement?

"The NATO mission, then, was to stabilize the western end of this arc, Yugoslavia. The strategy was to abolish the multinational state created after World War I and replace it with a series of nation-states – such as Slovenia and Macedonia – built around a coherent national unit. This would stabilize Yugoslavia. "

"The strategy was to abolish the multinational state created after World War I and replace it with a series of nation-states – such as Slovenia and Macedonia – built around a coherent national unit."

Honest. Strategy was to abolish the multinational state.

"This would stabilize Yugoslavia. "

Again, intent was nice. So, now instead of that horrible Yugoslavia, we have all this stability in the region. How western.
Besides, there are some problems with this logic.

"...eliminating a completely artificial state and freeing genuine nations to have their own states. "

There is no Bosnian nation, only Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats.

"But the theory was that small states overwhelmingly consisting of one nationality could remain stable in the face of ethnic diversity so long as there was a dominant nation – unlike Yugoslavia, where there was no central national grouping. "

True. Most states have ethnic diversity, but with the dominant nation. In Russia-Russians, in China-Chineese, in Turkey - Turks, etc.

"...unlike Yugoslavia, where there was no central national grouping."

Honest. And a blow to all those who are saying that Yugoslavia was Serb-dominated.
Serbs were not majority in Yugoslavia, only plurality. (largest ethnic group, but less then 50%).
Again, this doesn't explain why this theory was not used in Bosnia?
Let's work in line with this theory.
So, Croatia is predominantly Croatian, overwhelmingly consisting of one nationality and it could remain stable in the face of ethnic diversity. let's just say "fine" and move along.
Bosnia already isn't. It's much like Yugoslavia. So, if the strategy was to eliminate multinational state without dominant ethnic group in order to bring about stability, why was Bosnia preserved? (or Serbia isn't? for that matter. There is one dominant ethnic group - Serbs)

I don't think that this theory can sufficiently explain intent. It doesn't fit.

To get the strategy right.
So, they wanted to destroy Yugoslavia because it's was unstable as multiethnic state.
Then multiethnic Bosnia was recognized in order to have stability?
So that was a strategy.
Wow!
Strategist must have had charges pressed against him/her and created this strategy for a sole purpose of being declared unfit to stand trial on ground of insanity, and needed this strategy to prove it.
If I would be in a jury, it would work.

...simply everything that doesn´t please them...is being downplayed by some K-albanians...

very weak strategy, indeed.

well, we will see who will have the rude awakening.

as I always say:

let´s see what future brings.

Ida

I can tell you why Monty kept saying '60 days' of bombing. It is because it is against US law for the US President to engage in military actions for more than 60 days without asking Congress. So not only did Clinton break all kinds of international laws, agreements and norms in attacking a sovereign nation, he also was breaking US constitutional law for the last 18 days of the attack.

As much as Monty would like us to believe he is an independent voice of reason and logic, the caliber of many of the reply posts his articles generate indicates that many of the people who visit B92 are not fooled and they recognize his underlying purposes as a pax americana propagandist.

While Monty is prepared to gently critise the US in his articles he chokes at pointing out actions by his chums(and former/future employers) which contravene US laws. He would rather lie to us and hope we dont know any better.

What johny does not understand is that the US owes the Chinese hundreds of billions of dollars and is over leveraged in economic trade. International politics is INTERLOCKED. If it weren't, Kosovo would have been independent years ago.

A unilateral declaration of independence will be as much a humiliation for the west as it would be for Russia. The west are reflected as being 'in control of the situation' whereas a unilateral declaration would not be a sign of control.

It is clear that future NATO actions will not be trusted politically by the populations within Europe because of the perception that a humanitarian justification was abused in Kosovo by turning it into an invasion.

Assuming that there are no substantial political consequences of independence, the inevitable long-term outlook for Kosovo would be very poor. After an initial amount of posturing by the west, there would be a gradual withdrawal of military and financial support - due mainly to a loss of interest in the province and the concentration of effort elsewhere in the world. While Kosovo is a pawn in a game, the Albanians in Kosovo have something to gain - once the matter is settled there won't be much interest in them.

Russia won't be too bothered. The wrong assumption in the article is that the whole Kosovo issue is a east-west political problem - it is more complex than that. Whatever the effect of western interference in the breakup of Yugoslavia, it is still a matter that the locals have to live with. Given that the strength of Europe has depended on various sides negotiating, the real force should have been the EU encouraging negotiation between Pristina and Belgrade. In this the EU have failed to act properly - they have become impositional. While this view may have been appropriate for the US when opposing cold war communism, it is not an appropriate way for the democratic institutions of the EU to behave. They are imposing a solution on democratic Serbia by stealing part of its land. That will never be accepted, forgiven or forgotten - whereas there was a perfectly good negotiable solution on offer that was never given the backing it needed by the EU or the US.

The article does not point out Serbia has a case and that the Albanians in Kosovo have no moral high ground.

Maybe Putin's interest is not so much his own political image, but more a reflection of the more general distrust of the west held by most Russians - a distrust that is being soundly justified by the west's wrong actions in trying to break up the country of Serbia by stealing one of its provinces for NATO.

Independent of anything to do with Russia, Serbia has a case that is being ignored by the west. The west are not listening to Belgrade. They should listen - but without letting any E-W stupidity interfere.

Jack...


it doesn´t matter what "Monty" as you call him, said...

60 or 78 days... that´s only showing how imprecise some are writing about the issue, but that´s it.

to your information:

the US-president is bound to ask the congress for approval, before starting any military actions against another country. that didn´t take place in 1999, what means that Mr.Clinton violated the US-constitution anyway, no matter if only for 60 days or for 78 as it really lasted.

as an american you should know a little bit more about your own constitution...

IF you are an american at all.

so, don´t fool yourself, the NATO-aggression was illegal in respect to both, international AND US-law.

there is no discussion about that.

Jovan

I am not am American and have never claimed to be. I am Scottish but live in England at the moment.

I was answering ida who wanted to know why Monty was saying only 60 days of bombing. By the way you are wrong, the US president only has to go to congress to declare war. He can order many acts of violence but he cannot declare war and he has to ask congress to vote for any action that goes on for more than 60 days.

Monty's claim of 60 days bombing is not unintentionally imprecise, it is INTENTIONALLY mendacious.

Also, wind you neck in because I am firmly in the anti independence camp.

Russia cares about Kosovo the least. The goal of the Adm. Kuznetsov battle group is not Adriatic but Syria, namely the Russian navy base there. That's the place Putin is going to be celebrating New Year.

The sad truth is that at this moment Kremlin will be delighted to see Kosovo going independent, for it will solve the three Gordian knots that Russia has on it's borders (or in vicinity of): Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdniestr Republic. All three places have been waiting for eons to declare independence from their current occupants, namely, Republic of Georgia and Moldova. Once Kosova goes independent, Abkhazia, S.Ossetia, TransDniestr go independent as well in a flip.
Potentially, two huge regions of Ukraine, Krymea and Don, can join the swarm.

This will play well to Russian goals, which are mainly to create a buffer zone of non-aligned states between Russia and pro-Western ex-Soviet republics.

Remember one thing: Russia does not care about Kosovo, Balkans, or Serbia. She has enough problems to deal with along her borders.

well,albeit I have read something different, I will try to check it as soon as I have the time for it.

thanks for the reply.

by the way, I am not only against that pseudo-independence...,

I am firmly upholding international law.

my dear "BalkanUpdate" ...it very much looks like the wish was the father to your thoughts...

StratFor is the US-american pendant to Jane´s in the UK.

so much for your "analysis" in regard to their "opinions"...

let me guess, you´re an Albanian, right?

only an Albanian would seriously try to belittle something that doesn´t fit into his view...
as usual here in this forum.

keep cool, my dear..

Russia is constantly showing, (or should I say proving?) that US-american assumptions were terribly wrong, ...not only in regard to Russia allegedly going to "back down", or bargain over Kosovo...

but, you are free to believe what ever you want... since you live in a free and democratic country: Serbia!


merry christmas, my dear!

Unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo Albanians would contravene the Helsinki Accord, all UN Security Council resolutions on Kosovo, and the very foundations of international law. Recognition of that illegal "independence" by other nations would certify these nations as INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALS by their own laws, and set a precedent for other nations like Russia, China, Indonesia, Iran and Turkey to act in a similarly illegal fashion, outside the bounds of the United Nations and international conventions. This would have long lasting and dramatic results on world affairs.

Absence of law is LAWLESSNESS, in which you are far more likely to end up as a victim than a beneficiary.