Hoisted on our own petard

The big question is: did Russia have a choice?

A few months ago Russia narrowly averted a Georgian invasion in Abkhazia and instead of being praised for the subtle way they achieved this they were lambasted by Western diplomats. Now they called the day before the war to Daniel Fried to avert a war but they were just told that Washington was doing "its best". There is even good reason to suppose that Washington was involved in the preparations of the attack.

When the war had started Russia filed a Security Council resolution that asked all parties to renounce violence. The US, the UK and France voted against it: they did not want to stop Georgia's attack. So what other option did the Russians have to prevent a next Georgian invasion in a few months except by teaching them a lesson on their own territory?

I think that the recognition of the territories is also connected to Kosovo in another way: Russia cannot trust Western peacekeepers anymore to be neutral. So they had to recognize in order to prevent the arrival of Western peacekeepers.

I think Serbia's position is less delicate as it seems. Nobody recognizes the republics at the moment so Serbia is not under pressure. Serbia's argument that the independence of Kosovo sets a precedent has got more power. And they can even claim that Ossetia and Abkhazia have better arguments than Kosovo (a larger part of the population was killed and unlike Georgia Serbia never attacked peacekeepers).

NATO a strictly defensive organisation!?! What a joke!

Is that why you bombed Serbia for 78 days and mostly attacking civilian targets?

It is amazing to see how western countries readily support decades old decisions of communist dictators: the creation of autonomy for Kosovo in Serbia by Tito, and the incorporation of South Ossetia into Georgia by Stalin. One would expect that they should strongly demand the abolishion of such decisions, and the return to Russia of those parts it included before 1917 (e.g. the Baltic republics, Ukraine...) Do I hear "double standard"?

"We in the west always seen NATO as a strictly defensive organisatio" You got to be kidding! You must have known how cynical you are with this statement. Always a lie with the smile. World is used to our lies but we ask anyway: "why do they hate us". Isn't that obvious please.

NATO is no longer a defensive alliance with members unified against a communist Soviet led invasion from the East. NATO was created as a counter weight to the once powerful Warsaw Pact, to defend the territorial integrity of one and all by this perceived "threat." However, with the dismemberment of the Warsaw Pact in the early 90's, NATO has struggled to find an identity and reasonable justification for it's continued elitist existence. Unfortunately for Serbia, that renewed vigor for Western superiority to conqueror and dissolve the recognized borders of Yugoslavia in 1990 and then the rightful borders of Serbia in 1999 became self promoting. A beacon of peace and stability in the 1950's became an offensive military juggernaut that bypassed the international authority of the United Nations for it's own survival. Serbia has paid dearly and continues to be vilified and demonized systematically by the west, their media henchmen, and the burocratic establishment of the State Department.

If NATO is a defensive alliance, subject to protect the borders of member states, why is NATO in Afghanistan? Did Afghanistan become a member state while the world slept? Hmmmm.....If NATO is bound by international law, why did NATO bomb Serbia without UN Security Authorization? Hmmm....Certainly those questions are UNIQUE, and upper management is unable and unwilling to make the case. If they were so confident, why is Serbia being pressured NOT to pursue their rightful case within the UN Judiciary? Hmmmm..

Let us be perfectly clear, that the West has gone to war more often to protect dictatorships and military juntas than for the promotion of democracy...and that's a fact. We offer more support such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Indonesia, to name a few in order for total and complete dominance of said nations. The USA wants those markets so that our corporate giants may rule. The US claims fair and open markets, but do not be fooled. The WTO and the International Monetary Fund are two organs designed to overrun and inplace such debt onto such nations deemed appropriate that they ultimately become the pawn of western capitals. We live in a very very dangerous time, perhaps no time in history has MAN existed void of international stability outside of total war.

Thomas Jefferson suggested that a little revolution is good from time to time....perhaps the time has come.

The good thing about this oppinion is that it recognizes simmilarities between Georgia and Serbia.
One of the simmilarities is the following:

"-There are existing UN Security Council Resolutions, which specifically recognize the sovereignty within recognized international borders of both Georgia (including the two breakaway areas) and Serbia as the successor to Yugoslavia (including Kosovo). This was ignored by the West in the case of Kosovo and subsequently by Russia in the case of Georgia. "

Even stronger Russia of last several years was willing to play by the rules, and supported 2005 plan of reintegration of breakaway regions into Georgia, in exchange for wide autonomy. And autonomy would have probably been a best solution, as there is no violation of international laws. Things changed when Kosovo declared independence, that was recognized by number of Western countries.
While in both cases there are existing UN Resolutions but it was the West that choose to ignore them, so I can only agree with your statement about being "hoisted on our petard,".

"While Western leaders will be quick to point out what they view are profound differences between these cases (and also point out the brutal crushing by Russia of the attempted independence of Chechnya located in the middle of Russia as an example of a cynical Russian double standard),"

Hm, I will come back to this, and Checnia, but I ceirtanly don't feel that "Western leaders" that you mention have any bussiness lecturing anyone about double standards.
Serbs in Yugoslavia were a constituing nation, and had a right to self-determination according to Yugoslavian Constitution, Hesinki Final Act, Montevideo Agreement, etc. They did not ask to tear away a part of the neighbouring country (ignoring inviolability of international border rule)or to establish second state on the territory of another UN memeber country, ignoring integrity of that country. They did not ask to "separate" from anything, but rather they asked "not to separate" from the country they already lived in (Yugoslavia).
Badinter's Commision issued very questionable oppinion that it is the Republics that are the successors of Yugoslavia, and that there cannot be separation from the Republics. They even named them all from Slovenia to Macedonia (including Serbia).
When this "legal oppinion" (that did not, somehow, take into account Yugoslavian constitution, or international laws) Serbs felt that this was orchestrated against them, but were willing to go along with it nevertheless.
For example, weather or not Croatia should have been recognized as it was is questionable, but let's not talk about it, it doesn't matter now. The fact is that it was recognized by the UN. At that time difference between UN and US was only in one letter, for all intents and purposes their policies were exactly the same.
The Republic of Croatia was admitted as a Member of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/RES/46/238 of 22 May 1992.
This New York Times article was written month later, on 22 July 1992.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2DF1E3DF931A15754C0A964958260

"The agreement by the Serbians to abandon their insistence on independence as a starting point for talks and to accept negotiations on the basis of a "special status" within Croatia signals a dramatic departure from their often-repeated ..."

"Dramatic departure...", "acceptance of special status WITHIN Croatia..."

Right or wrong, Croatia was now a UN member, and NOW demanding independence or to join Serbia or whatever, would be in violation of international law.
Let's also remember that Bosnian Serbs signed EU Lisbon plan agreeing to independent Bosnia in exchange for substential autonomy, BEFORE war started and BEFORE Bosnia became a UN member. They were willing to settle for autonomy, but were not given any. So, there were some chanches, etc. and Serbs were not simply crazy and willing to go against UN or US and EU for that matter, but let's not think about it now.
Let's just call them SEPARATISTS as they were trying to breakaway from Croatia and Bosnia.
In 1998 Kosovo was ofered wide autonomy, but Rugova decided not to even talk about it demanding independence only. See, Albanians in Kosovo NEVER accepted autonomy no matter how wide! Only independence would do!
Should Kosovo become UN Member State, right of wrong, I would like to see Serbia recognizing that, and not going against UN Decisions.
Those who do are in Washington, Berlin, London, etc. ( I don't know if term "rougue states" would be appropriate here).
The fact is that those who had full mouths of "Badinter's legal oppinion" mantra have suddenly quiet down, and made moves against UN recognized state, in this case Serbia.
No more talks about SEPARATISTS, etc.
So, I don't really see how those "Western leaders" can lecture anyone about double-standards. You can't just use things (like Badinter's oppinion) as it fits you and have them shellved when it doesn't. We have a nice example here by Jesse Musliu. No mention of Badinter's decision. What he does mention is that "According to both the federal constitution.." Kosovo was federal part of Yugoslavia, etc. No mention that according to the SAME constitution Kosovo was autonomus province of SERBIA. No mention that according to the same constitution NATIONS not republics, or minorities had a right to self-determination. Agim Ceku went to Croatia to fight in order to prevent Croatian Serbs from excersising the RIGHT given to them by this Constitution that you mention. Then he went to Kosovo to fight against parts of that constitution that states that Kosovo is part of Serbia etc. Let me tell you something Jesse Musliu, Serbs didn't mind application of that Constitution AT ALL. It was Croats and Bosnian Muslims and Albanians in Kosovo, who did not want to apply provisions of that Constitution. It's funny that you are taking it to justify anything.
But, thanks for pointing out at the position of Kosovo Albanians.

"The political administration of Kosovo consisted of structures wielding autonomous legislative, executive, and judicial powers"

"...had its own independent judiciary, while executive power rested in the hands of its own government, which controlled its police and territorial defense. "

Truly a picture of oppressed Albanian minority.
Now I can better understand all the violance of the 80's and all the "crop burning" and "wells poisoning", etc.
Read this NYT article from 1987

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE3DF143FF932A35752C1A961948260&scp=3&sq=david+binder+1987&st=nyt

But, you were oppressed!
So why don't you now show us all how is minority to be treated. Give Serbs in Northern Kosovo legislative power, police and all that mentioned. And then some more since giving them ONLY THAT is oppression, right?

To return now to original Monty's article and to the mention of Chechnia and "double standards".
Russia seems to be caching up to the lessons given by those "lecturers". Unfortunatelly for all of us, the lesson that minorities in UN member states (like Ossetians) can be given independence upon their unilateral declaration could be only one of the lessons.
There is a "new knowledge" that only some former Yugoslavian republics are indivisable (like Croatia and Bosnia), while others are (like Serbia)and that this is completely in "the eyes of beholder" and matter of oppinion while international laws or UN rules does not need to be taken into account as they are appearantly irrelevant.
They already apply this rule in territory of former Soviet Union. Appearantly some republics there (like Russia) are not divisable (and that's why Chechens have to live with them), while others are (like Georgia). Let's just hope that it will stop there. They may become temepted to apply those "new rules" elsewhere in former Soviet Union. They may instigate insurgentsies all over former Soviet Union as there are nearly 25 million Russian living in "near abroad". And who knows where this learning curve would stop? Let's hope that Shanghai group (Russia, China, etc.) will not start calling themselves "international community" and start going to this near abroad demanding all kinds of things in the name of "international community". I'm under impression that those petards we were hoisted on would become much louder.
I really hope that Wim Roffel is right and that Russia acted because they practically had no other choice.
I would much rather see everybody stopping what they are doing now, and starting to look for solutions for those problems. This time I completely agree with one of Nik's statements.
"It is clear that the old world order of (equally) independant sovereign countries with clear borders etc. has come to an end."
Excellent observation.
I find that very disturbing, and would like to see this situation gone and some kind of rules established.

Mr. , Montgomery,
It is always interesting to see your point of view about Balkans; after all, you have spent a great deal time in former Yugoslavia. Your passion for Serbia and lack of it for Kosovo is very apparent in your opinions. This is reflected very much in this commentary when you agree with Serbs that Kosovo’s independence caused the events that unfolded between Georgia and Russia. You couldn’t be further from the truth. Russia flush with petrol dollars is only using Kosovo as an excuse to achieve its imperial ambitions. Many elite scalars have documented that Kosovo is a unique case and a part of a country that has broken into pieces for the reasons that you well aware of. Kosovo was federal part of Yugoslavia until Milosevic brutally changed that by annexing Kosovo against the will of 90% its population.
According to both the federal constitution and its own, Kosovo functioned within the Yugoslavia Federation an independent and self-governing unit. The political administration of Kosovo consisted of structures wielding autonomous legislative, executive, and judicial powers. The Assembly was the highest legislative body within the territory of Kosovo, and the Constitutional Court of Kosovo the highest judicial authority. Like the other federal units - the six republics and the province of Vojvodina - Kosovo had its own independent judiciary, while executive power rested in the hands of its own government, which controlled its police and territorial defense.
The fact that Kosovo functioned as an independent entity for nearly five decades, half of that time with full self government, challenges the allegation that the Republic of Kosovo had never been a state entity or that it arose out of nothing. Given its former status as one of Yugoslavia’s eight self-governing territories, Kosovo is neither politically nor legally comparable to such recent secessionist creations as Republika Srpska in Bosnia-Herzegovina and South Ossetia in Georgia.
Jesse Musliu

Blowback from Bear Baiting
By Patrick J. Buchanan
August 15, 2008

Mikheil Saakashvili's decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia's invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser's decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.

Nasser's blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili's blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili's army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.

Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi, and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.

www.TheAmericanCause.org

So, according to Mr.Montgomery "West views NATO as a defensive organization"? If it is so, then it must have been Serbia which attacked Nato, otherwise why would Nato bombard Serbia? Absurd, as it sounds, this exactly describes the Western way of its smug thinking: "Since we are killing you, you have to be guilty".
Well, the Russians are about to put an end to this Western logic.
As far as the Serbian position is concerned, one has to distinguish sharply between the Serbs and its present Government. The people are overwhelmingly on the Russian side (against the U.S., not against the Georgian people). Our Government, on the other hand, will have the problems Montgomery mentions.
Let us admit it.It is such a delight watching the prepotent West getting kicked, Montgomery would have to be a Serb to enjoy that.

""Hoisted on our own petard" as the English would say..."

Actually, the contemporary English version would be more along the lines of "Up sh*t creek without a paddle, innit".

Dear Mr Montgomery,
It is clear that the old world order of (equally) independant sovereign countries with clear borders etc. has come to an end. In the new world order we see multinational multiethnic "formations" (call them worlds, civilizations, political unions, or whatever your favorite political scientist calls them).
The main struggle of the various "peoples" now is to be included into the "formation" thay desire. In some cases to do that, they will have to break from the one they don't feel they belong to! So the struggle for independence is not the real goal, as it was in the 19th century. It may only be a phase of achieving desired integreation. That is why the West discovered that it has such a strong influence in relatdesired ion to those who wanted to join it, and so little ability to influence those who didn't. GFeorgians and (West) Ukrainians dream to join NATO. To many of their formal compatriots, this seames a disaster. Not by itself, but because thay are afraid it could drive a wedge between them and Russia!
After the fall of communism the West gave the East Europeans a chance to integrate with it. So they were prepared to do a lot to adjust, forgot old rivalities etc. Nobody had any clear idea what to do with Russia! So the enlargement of NATO became a dream come true for those who wanted to stay as far away from Russia as possible and a nightmare for the Russians and those who wanted to stay with it!

Good comment, Michael.
You couldn't be more right about WTO and IMF.
Dangerous times indeed.

can anyone remember, that NATO tanks rolled into Serbia in 1999, Mr. Medvedev? the world sees clearly, what is going on in South Ossetia. it is a dumb aggression for nationalistic purposes - which started already with the issue of Russian passports. what are such guys thinking: that the whole world is too stupid to see, how their propaganda works perfect like Russian high technology? under Putins rule poverty was increasing in Russia, while the average life expectatancy declined. What an amazing president he was and what a fantastic PM. no thinking blockades, Vladimir Putin, I agree with you: start to think on the Russian population in Russia! this would be your job at first - so down witth this thinking blockade at first, too

Sreten: I find that very disturbing, and would like to see this situation gone and some kind of rules established."

There will be new rules, differentin The West and in the East. In the West there will be a primate of individual rights such as tolive wherever you wish, work wherever you could, move freely, including to move out your capital away from heavy taxation. The rights of the states will deminish. They will be less in a position to tax, expropriat, mobilize etc.
"Independence" of regions would be ewsily granted, if the breakaway part satyed within the system. Belgium may fall appart, Scotland may leave the UK. But no new fances, or restrictions would be tolerated.
In the East the state will reassert its right, human right will be ignored, capital flow controled etc.

Russia may decide to back Kosovo in return for Western support of Russia's position with Georgia's breakaway provinces. Its not something that seems likely but then most people didn't think that Russia would decide to recognize the independence of the two regions in less the 24 hours of the parliamentary debates on the subject which was very strange timing on the part of any country that intends to push for concessions, either directly or indirectly that is the Russian goal here for the West to allow Russian objectives to assume a more central position.

Mr. , Montgomery,
It is always interesting to see your point of view about Balkans; after all, you have spent a great deal time in former Yugoslavia. Your passion for Serbia and lack of it for Kosovo is very apparent in your opinions. This is reflected very much in this commentary when you agree with Serbs that Kosovo’s independence caused the events that unfolded between Georgia and Russia. You couldn’t be further from the truth. Russia flush with petrol dollars is only using Kosovo as an excuse to achieve its imperial ambitions. Many elite scalars have documented that Kosovo is a unique case and a part of a country that has broken into pieces for the reasons that you well aware of. Kosovo was federal part of Yugoslavia until Milosevic brutally changed that by annexing Kosovo against the will of 90% its population.
According to both the federal constitution and its own, Kosovo functioned within the Yugoslavia Federation an independent and self-governing unit. The political administration of Kosovo consisted of structures wielding autonomous legislative, executive, and judicial powers. The Assembly was the highest legislative body within the territory of Kosovo, and the Constitutional Court of Kosovo the highest judicial authority. Like the other federal units - the six republics and the province of Vojvodina - Kosovo had its own independent judiciary, while executive power rested in the hands of its own government, which controlled its police and territorial defense.
The fact that Kosovo functioned as an independent entity for nearly five decades, half of that time with full self government, challenges the allegation that the Republic of Kosovo had never been a state entity or that it arose out of nothing. Given its former status as one of Yugoslavia’s eight self-governing territories, Kosovo is neither politically nor legally comparable to such recent secessionist creations as Republika Srpska in Bosnia-Herzegovina and South Ossetia in Georgia.
Jesse Musliu

can anyone remember, that NATO tanks rolled into Serbia in 1999, Mr. Medvedev? the world sees clearly, what is going on in South Ossetia. it is a dumb aggression for nationalistic purposes - which started already with the issue of Russian passports. what are such guys thinking: that the whole world is too stupid to see, how their propaganda works perfect like Russian high technology? under Putins rule poverty was increasing in Russia, while the average life expectatancy declined. What an amazing president he was and what a fantastic PM. no thinking blockades, Vladimir Putin, I agree with you: start to think on the Russian population in Russia! this would be your job at first - so down witth this thinking blockade at first, too

Dear Mr Montgomery,
It is clear that the old world order of (equally) independant sovereign countries with clear borders etc. has come to an end. In the new world order we see multinational multiethnic "formations" (call them worlds, civilizations, political unions, or whatever your favorite political scientist calls them).
The main struggle of the various "peoples" now is to be included into the "formation" thay desire. In some cases to do that, they will have to break from the one they don't feel they belong to! So the struggle for independence is not the real goal, as it was in the 19th century. It may only be a phase of achieving desired integreation. That is why the West discovered that it has such a strong influence in relatdesired ion to those who wanted to join it, and so little ability to influence those who didn't. GFeorgians and (West) Ukrainians dream to join NATO. To many of their formal compatriots, this seames a disaster. Not by itself, but because thay are afraid it could drive a wedge between them and Russia!
After the fall of communism the West gave the East Europeans a chance to integrate with it. So they were prepared to do a lot to adjust, forgot old rivalities etc. Nobody had any clear idea what to do with Russia! So the enlargement of NATO became a dream come true for those who wanted to stay as far away from Russia as possible and a nightmare for the Russians and those who wanted to stay with it!

The good thing about this oppinion is that it recognizes simmilarities between Georgia and Serbia.
One of the simmilarities is the following:

"-There are existing UN Security Council Resolutions, which specifically recognize the sovereignty within recognized international borders of both Georgia (including the two breakaway areas) and Serbia as the successor to Yugoslavia (including Kosovo). This was ignored by the West in the case of Kosovo and subsequently by Russia in the case of Georgia. "

Even stronger Russia of last several years was willing to play by the rules, and supported 2005 plan of reintegration of breakaway regions into Georgia, in exchange for wide autonomy. And autonomy would have probably been a best solution, as there is no violation of international laws. Things changed when Kosovo declared independence, that was recognized by number of Western countries.
While in both cases there are existing UN Resolutions but it was the West that choose to ignore them, so I can only agree with your statement about being "hoisted on our petard,".

"While Western leaders will be quick to point out what they view are profound differences between these cases (and also point out the brutal crushing by Russia of the attempted independence of Chechnya located in the middle of Russia as an example of a cynical Russian double standard),"

Hm, I will come back to this, and Checnia, but I ceirtanly don't feel that "Western leaders" that you mention have any bussiness lecturing anyone about double standards.
Serbs in Yugoslavia were a constituing nation, and had a right to self-determination according to Yugoslavian Constitution, Hesinki Final Act, Montevideo Agreement, etc. They did not ask to tear away a part of the neighbouring country (ignoring inviolability of international border rule)or to establish second state on the territory of another UN memeber country, ignoring integrity of that country. They did not ask to "separate" from anything, but rather they asked "not to separate" from the country they already lived in (Yugoslavia).
Badinter's Commision issued very questionable oppinion that it is the Republics that are the successors of Yugoslavia, and that there cannot be separation from the Republics. They even named them all from Slovenia to Macedonia (including Serbia).
When this "legal oppinion" (that did not, somehow, take into account Yugoslavian constitution, or international laws) Serbs felt that this was orchestrated against them, but were willing to go along with it nevertheless.
For example, weather or not Croatia should have been recognized as it was is questionable, but let's not talk about it, it doesn't matter now. The fact is that it was recognized by the UN. At that time difference between UN and US was only in one letter, for all intents and purposes their policies were exactly the same.
The Republic of Croatia was admitted as a Member of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/RES/46/238 of 22 May 1992.
This New York Times article was written month later, on 22 July 1992.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2DF1E3DF931A15754C0A964958260

"The agreement by the Serbians to abandon their insistence on independence as a starting point for talks and to accept negotiations on the basis of a "special status" within Croatia signals a dramatic departure from their often-repeated ..."

"Dramatic departure...", "acceptance of special status WITHIN Croatia..."

Right or wrong, Croatia was now a UN member, and NOW demanding independence or to join Serbia or whatever, would be in violation of international law.
Let's also remember that Bosnian Serbs signed EU Lisbon plan agreeing to independent Bosnia in exchange for substential autonomy, BEFORE war started and BEFORE Bosnia became a UN member. They were willing to settle for autonomy, but were not given any. So, there were some chanches, etc. and Serbs were not simply crazy and willing to go against UN or US and EU for that matter, but let's not think about it now.
Let's just call them SEPARATISTS as they were trying to breakaway from Croatia and Bosnia.
In 1998 Kosovo was ofered wide autonomy, but Rugova decided not to even talk about it demanding independence only. See, Albanians in Kosovo NEVER accepted autonomy no matter how wide! Only independence would do!
Should Kosovo become UN Member State, right of wrong, I would like to see Serbia recognizing that, and not going against UN Decisions.
Those who do are in Washington, Berlin, London, etc. ( I don't know if term "rougue states" would be appropriate here).
The fact is that those who had full mouths of "Badinter's legal oppinion" mantra have suddenly quiet down, and made moves against UN recognized state, in this case Serbia.
No more talks about SEPARATISTS, etc.
So, I don't really see how those "Western leaders" can lecture anyone about double-standards. You can't just use things (like Badinter's oppinion) as it fits you and have them shellved when it doesn't. We have a nice example here by Jesse Musliu. No mention of Badinter's decision. What he does mention is that "According to both the federal constitution.." Kosovo was federal part of Yugoslavia, etc. No mention that according to the SAME constitution Kosovo was autonomus province of SERBIA. No mention that according to the same constitution NATIONS not republics, or minorities had a right to self-determination. Agim Ceku went to Croatia to fight in order to prevent Croatian Serbs from excersising the RIGHT given to them by this Constitution that you mention. Then he went to Kosovo to fight against parts of that constitution that states that Kosovo is part of Serbia etc. Let me tell you something Jesse Musliu, Serbs didn't mind application of that Constitution AT ALL. It was Croats and Bosnian Muslims and Albanians in Kosovo, who did not want to apply provisions of that Constitution. It's funny that you are taking it to justify anything.
But, thanks for pointing out at the position of Kosovo Albanians.

"The political administration of Kosovo consisted of structures wielding autonomous legislative, executive, and judicial powers"

"...had its own independent judiciary, while executive power rested in the hands of its own government, which controlled its police and territorial defense. "

Truly a picture of oppressed Albanian minority.
Now I can better understand all the violance of the 80's and all the "crop burning" and "wells poisoning", etc.
Read this NYT article from 1987

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE3DF143FF932A35752C1A961948260&scp=3&sq=david+binder+1987&st=nyt

But, you were oppressed!
So why don't you now show us all how is minority to be treated. Give Serbs in Northern Kosovo legislative power, police and all that mentioned. And then some more since giving them ONLY THAT is oppression, right?

To return now to original Monty's article and to the mention of Chechnia and "double standards".
Russia seems to be caching up to the lessons given by those "lecturers". Unfortunatelly for all of us, the lesson that minorities in UN member states (like Ossetians) can be given independence upon their unilateral declaration could be only one of the lessons.
There is a "new knowledge" that only some former Yugoslavian republics are indivisable (like Croatia and Bosnia), while others are (like Serbia)and that this is completely in "the eyes of beholder" and matter of oppinion while international laws or UN rules does not need to be taken into account as they are appearantly irrelevant.
They already apply this rule in territory of former Soviet Union. Appearantly some republics there (like Russia) are not divisable (and that's why Chechens have to live with them), while others are (like Georgia). Let's just hope that it will stop there. They may become temepted to apply those "new rules" elsewhere in former Soviet Union. They may instigate insurgentsies all over former Soviet Union as there are nearly 25 million Russian living in "near abroad". And who knows where this learning curve would stop? Let's hope that Shanghai group (Russia, China, etc.) will not start calling themselves "international community" and start going to this near abroad demanding all kinds of things in the name of "international community". I'm under impression that those petards we were hoisted on would become much louder.
I really hope that Wim Roffel is right and that Russia acted because they practically had no other choice.
I would much rather see everybody stopping what they are doing now, and starting to look for solutions for those problems. This time I completely agree with one of Nik's statements.
"It is clear that the old world order of (equally) independant sovereign countries with clear borders etc. has come to an end."
Excellent observation.
I find that very disturbing, and would like to see this situation gone and some kind of rules established.

Sreten: I find that very disturbing, and would like to see this situation gone and some kind of rules established."

There will be new rules, differentin The West and in the East. In the West there will be a primate of individual rights such as tolive wherever you wish, work wherever you could, move freely, including to move out your capital away from heavy taxation. The rights of the states will deminish. They will be less in a position to tax, expropriat, mobilize etc.
"Independence" of regions would be ewsily granted, if the breakaway part satyed within the system. Belgium may fall appart, Scotland may leave the UK. But no new fances, or restrictions would be tolerated.
In the East the state will reassert its right, human right will be ignored, capital flow controled etc.

"We in the west always seen NATO as a strictly defensive organisatio" You got to be kidding! You must have known how cynical you are with this statement. Always a lie with the smile. World is used to our lies but we ask anyway: "why do they hate us". Isn't that obvious please.

Blowback from Bear Baiting
By Patrick J. Buchanan
August 15, 2008

Mikheil Saakashvili's decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia's invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser's decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.

Nasser's blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili's blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili's army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.

Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi, and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.

www.TheAmericanCause.org

The big question is: did Russia have a choice?

A few months ago Russia narrowly averted a Georgian invasion in Abkhazia and instead of being praised for the subtle way they achieved this they were lambasted by Western diplomats. Now they called the day before the war to Daniel Fried to avert a war but they were just told that Washington was doing "its best". There is even good reason to suppose that Washington was involved in the preparations of the attack.

When the war had started Russia filed a Security Council resolution that asked all parties to renounce violence. The US, the UK and France voted against it: they did not want to stop Georgia's attack. So what other option did the Russians have to prevent a next Georgian invasion in a few months except by teaching them a lesson on their own territory?

I think that the recognition of the territories is also connected to Kosovo in another way: Russia cannot trust Western peacekeepers anymore to be neutral. So they had to recognize in order to prevent the arrival of Western peacekeepers.

I think Serbia's position is less delicate as it seems. Nobody recognizes the republics at the moment so Serbia is not under pressure. Serbia's argument that the independence of Kosovo sets a precedent has got more power. And they can even claim that Ossetia and Abkhazia have better arguments than Kosovo (a larger part of the population was killed and unlike Georgia Serbia never attacked peacekeepers).

It is amazing to see how western countries readily support decades old decisions of communist dictators: the creation of autonomy for Kosovo in Serbia by Tito, and the incorporation of South Ossetia into Georgia by Stalin. One would expect that they should strongly demand the abolishion of such decisions, and the return to Russia of those parts it included before 1917 (e.g. the Baltic republics, Ukraine...) Do I hear "double standard"?

NATO a strictly defensive organisation!?! What a joke!

Is that why you bombed Serbia for 78 days and mostly attacking civilian targets?

So, according to Mr.Montgomery "West views NATO as a defensive organization"? If it is so, then it must have been Serbia which attacked Nato, otherwise why would Nato bombard Serbia? Absurd, as it sounds, this exactly describes the Western way of its smug thinking: "Since we are killing you, you have to be guilty".
Well, the Russians are about to put an end to this Western logic.
As far as the Serbian position is concerned, one has to distinguish sharply between the Serbs and its present Government. The people are overwhelmingly on the Russian side (against the U.S., not against the Georgian people). Our Government, on the other hand, will have the problems Montgomery mentions.
Let us admit it.It is such a delight watching the prepotent West getting kicked, Montgomery would have to be a Serb to enjoy that.

Russia may decide to back Kosovo in return for Western support of Russia's position with Georgia's breakaway provinces. Its not something that seems likely but then most people didn't think that Russia would decide to recognize the independence of the two regions in less the 24 hours of the parliamentary debates on the subject which was very strange timing on the part of any country that intends to push for concessions, either directly or indirectly that is the Russian goal here for the West to allow Russian objectives to assume a more central position.

""Hoisted on our own petard" as the English would say..."

Actually, the contemporary English version would be more along the lines of "Up sh*t creek without a paddle, innit".

NATO is no longer a defensive alliance with members unified against a communist Soviet led invasion from the East. NATO was created as a counter weight to the once powerful Warsaw Pact, to defend the territorial integrity of one and all by this perceived "threat." However, with the dismemberment of the Warsaw Pact in the early 90's, NATO has struggled to find an identity and reasonable justification for it's continued elitist existence. Unfortunately for Serbia, that renewed vigor for Western superiority to conqueror and dissolve the recognized borders of Yugoslavia in 1990 and then the rightful borders of Serbia in 1999 became self promoting. A beacon of peace and stability in the 1950's became an offensive military juggernaut that bypassed the international authority of the United Nations for it's own survival. Serbia has paid dearly and continues to be vilified and demonized systematically by the west, their media henchmen, and the burocratic establishment of the State Department.

If NATO is a defensive alliance, subject to protect the borders of member states, why is NATO in Afghanistan? Did Afghanistan become a member state while the world slept? Hmmmm.....If NATO is bound by international law, why did NATO bomb Serbia without UN Security Authorization? Hmmm....Certainly those questions are UNIQUE, and upper management is unable and unwilling to make the case. If they were so confident, why is Serbia being pressured NOT to pursue their rightful case within the UN Judiciary? Hmmmm..

Let us be perfectly clear, that the West has gone to war more often to protect dictatorships and military juntas than for the promotion of democracy...and that's a fact. We offer more support such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Indonesia, to name a few in order for total and complete dominance of said nations. The USA wants those markets so that our corporate giants may rule. The US claims fair and open markets, but do not be fooled. The WTO and the International Monetary Fund are two organs designed to overrun and inplace such debt onto such nations deemed appropriate that they ultimately become the pawn of western capitals. We live in a very very dangerous time, perhaps no time in history has MAN existed void of international stability outside of total war.

Thomas Jefferson suggested that a little revolution is good from time to time....perhaps the time has come.

Good comment, Michael.
You couldn't be more right about WTO and IMF.
Dangerous times indeed.