Animal, vegetable, mineral

"One point in which you are correct is that the two are incomparable: Russia's use of the latter as an excuse for her premeditated attack on her neighbour is just that. Motives do account for something and the West is on much more solid ground in this dept than the Russians. "

No. You are not.
KLA started armed insurgentcy in order to "liberate" Kosovo from Serbia. They started campaign by throwing hand granades through the windows of refugee centre, killing several (I believe 8) women and children.
When security forces responded to this campaign sending KLA on run, ceasefire was quickly established.
OSCE Monitors came in.
They verified that Serbian security forces withdrew. KLA came back in.
Ceasefire agreement did not require them to stop fighting.
I would say that one doesn't have to be the diplomat like Richard Holbrook to see that there is something wrong here. Common knowledge is enough.
If I see a bar brawl, and a "peacemaker" that wants one of the fighters to stop fighting, while he expects (or even incourages) the other to continue the beating, I would say that this "peacekeeper" doesn't want brawl to stop. He wants one of the to be beaten.
The point, NATO's every move was calculated for continuation of fighting and intervention. Premeditated?
Or perhaps there is another answer. We could classify NATO's leadership of the time (and probably today) in two categories, depending of your point of view.

Animal.
Pack of blood-thirsty woolves, preying on small countries.

Vegetable.
Creating a ceasefire agreement in which one side is allowed to continue fighting defies most common and basic logic. In this case vegetable refers to brain capacity.

A lot of hypotheticals and words all designed to confuse the reader. What exactly is Mr. Crawford saying here?
It's like playing a game of peaknuckle.
This is not a sideshow but a matter of live and death for many people. We must start demanding that journalists become more responsible and report the truth rather than the propaganda they have been. Stop with animal, vegetable and mineral scenarios and just tell it the way it is.

You're wrong Mr. Crawford. Russia does care about Serbs. This brotherly care is something you guys in the west don't know anything about. You are all bout power and reward. What would you know about decency and loyalty?

As a great fan of puppet shows I just want to ask if anyone knows when and where will the performance starring the four puppets seen in the photo be staged.

The truth is that two wrongs don't make a right. We all know that the British government isn't interested in the truth or in justice either. There is a maxim in western politics: "we don't have permanent friends, we have premanent interests" The bombing of civilian infrastructure and state owned businesses in Serbia indicated clearly the motivation of NATO. That the UCK had been removed from the US list of terrorists after a feasiblity study for the AMBO oilpipeline had proved economically beneficial to the West is also an indication of prior motives for the illegal attack upon Yugoslavia (Serbia). As a citizen of the UK I am disgusted and angry about the duplicitous nature of Western treatment of Serbia. That notorious butchers like Ramush Hardinaj were freed after the murder of nine potential witnesses against him and that Carla Del Ponte claims the Haigue officials were 'terrified' of Albanian terrorists is an indictment of the so called 'justice' and fair minded approach claimed by western commentators. The whole business is rotten to the core.
Sadly propaganda works as Goebbels knew only too well. The difference between Goebells and Ruder Finn (the American PR agency who coordinated much of the western media during the war) is that Goebells was eventually defeated and exposed.
In the medieval times in England, women accused of witchcraft were very often forced to 'confess' their 'crimes' before being burned in order to appease the all powerful witchfinder...the practice continues it seems.

William, truly impressive posting!
Nik!
Here you seem to be mixing basics.
You keep telling us about majority of populations wanting something, etc. dressing everything in "democratic" , will of the people robes.
First just because some people want something it doesn't mean that they have a right to have it.
Majority cannot give somebody more rights, nor take away somebody elses.
We have seen some stupid attempts though. In one town in Switzerland, several years ago, referendum was called to exclude men from taking part in any decisions regarding children, day cares, etc. The vote was more then 50% in favour, because there is women majority in the town (most likely because women simply live longer). Men of the town took this to Swiss Supreme Court on the grounds that, while most children live with their mothers, or both parents, men are a tax-payers and they will have to pay for new day care plan, too. Supreme court nulified the decision of the majority with explanation that will of the majority cannot be decisive factor of someone's RIGHTS. If the will of the majority is the only thing that matter, some countries could right now ban islam, or Judaisam, for example, by the will of majority expressed on referendum. Sorry, can't do, as it doesn't matter what percentage of populations would maybe want that. It infringes on ones right of religious freedom.
"The West was being blamed for not saying to the K. Albanians: You could not have independence."
Why not!?
Wasn't that exactly what they've been telling Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia for years?
It was all Badinter's Commision and no republic will be divided, etc.
But, I guess you are right, we can't really expect them to treat Serbs same as other peoples, or Serbia same as other republics.

Speaking of Badinter's Commision, as questionable as it was, (I wouldn't go into that) it did rule that Republics are successors of dissolved Yugoslavia, and called on population of those Republics to express their will on referendums. They even named them Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia.
In Bosnia for example, 62% voted for independence. I can assure you that this percentage is higher in Serbia (including Kosovo). But, miracle happened, and will of populations of Serbia didn't matter. Now, will of people of Kosovo does, somehow. What would be appropriate sample of populations whos will we should respect, Nik? Citizens of district? City? Village?
Should Albanians in Western Macedonia, sorry let's avoid etno-separatism, citizens of Tetovo district vote on referendum to create independent country, should we respect this? And if they start shooting at Macedonian police, can't we really blame them, given that they've been trying to gain independence by peaceful means since 2001? (here you can say, "well. They did try to avoid war, but since independece wasn't given to them despite 90% of populations wanting it, we can't really say that they imposed war on Macedonia")
Then we could all go to Macedonia, to tell them that borders don't matter, that region is moving toward EU, boderless society, and that's why we have to create new borders. Holbrook could broker some ceasefire requiring Macedonian forces to return to the barracks, while Albanians, sorry "Tetovans" would be free to continue shooting. Should this somehow fail to bring about peace (Surprise!) we could bomb Macedonian factories, infrastructure, hospitals, etc. until its economy is completely ruined and country sent back to the Stone Age.
It's their own fault, right? They are such nationalists, and don't play along the game of creating new countries as we would want them to. Why would they be against living together in new Balkan Happyland, multi-ethnic,multi-cultural Republic of Tetovo.

Why does b92 only have commentry from US/British diplomats? Why not be objective and include some Russian and maybe South American diplomats? He doesnt even tell us why (with facts and evidence) he thinks the west is on more solid ground about the UI of Serbia's occupied provence of Kosovo then Russia in Gerogia?

What a farce.

Charles Crawford could answer Will with either YES or NO ... PLUS adding a honest reason - as the question refers directly to the author. but Crawford says nothing with a lot of words.

I guess, Will might think: iome say, what they know - other ones know, what they say. Crawford says nothing with a lot of words.

Sreten:
KLA started armed insurgentcy in order to "liberate" Kosovo from Serbia. ...

When that started it was too late to evade war.

Yet it would not be right to say that KLA imposed the war on the Serbs!
Because the supporter base of the KLA had tried for years to avoid war. It has tried achieving independence for 10% And had the support of 90% of the people involved!
The West was being blamed for not saying to the K. Albanians: You could not have independence. For reasons that have nothing to do with you. (Russia, Georgia, Srpska, Krajna). And if they start a war despite of all, to connive the Serbian side crushing it.
Well this behavoir is someting the West could not afford within Europe's borders!

Sreten:
KLA started armed insurgentcy in order to "liberate" Kosovo from Serbia. ...

When that started it was too late to evade war.

Yet it would not be right to say that KLA imposed the war on the Serbs!
Because the supporter base of the KLA had tried for years to avoid war. It has tried achieving independence for 10% And had the support of 90% of the people involved!
The West was being blamed for not saying to the K. Albanians: You could not have independence. For reasons that have nothing to do with you. (Russia, Georgia, Srpska, Krajna). And if they start a war despite of all, to connive the Serbian side crushing it.
Well this behavoir is someting the West could not afford within Europe's borders!

Charles Crawford could answer Will with either YES or NO ... PLUS adding a honest reason - as the question refers directly to the author. but Crawford says nothing with a lot of words.

I guess, Will might think: iome say, what they know - other ones know, what they say. Crawford says nothing with a lot of words.

"One point in which you are correct is that the two are incomparable: Russia's use of the latter as an excuse for her premeditated attack on her neighbour is just that. Motives do account for something and the West is on much more solid ground in this dept than the Russians. "

No. You are not.
KLA started armed insurgentcy in order to "liberate" Kosovo from Serbia. They started campaign by throwing hand granades through the windows of refugee centre, killing several (I believe 8) women and children.
When security forces responded to this campaign sending KLA on run, ceasefire was quickly established.
OSCE Monitors came in.
They verified that Serbian security forces withdrew. KLA came back in.
Ceasefire agreement did not require them to stop fighting.
I would say that one doesn't have to be the diplomat like Richard Holbrook to see that there is something wrong here. Common knowledge is enough.
If I see a bar brawl, and a "peacemaker" that wants one of the fighters to stop fighting, while he expects (or even incourages) the other to continue the beating, I would say that this "peacekeeper" doesn't want brawl to stop. He wants one of the to be beaten.
The point, NATO's every move was calculated for continuation of fighting and intervention. Premeditated?
Or perhaps there is another answer. We could classify NATO's leadership of the time (and probably today) in two categories, depending of your point of view.

Animal.
Pack of blood-thirsty woolves, preying on small countries.

Vegetable.
Creating a ceasefire agreement in which one side is allowed to continue fighting defies most common and basic logic. In this case vegetable refers to brain capacity.

As a great fan of puppet shows I just want to ask if anyone knows when and where will the performance starring the four puppets seen in the photo be staged.

Why does b92 only have commentry from US/British diplomats? Why not be objective and include some Russian and maybe South American diplomats? He doesnt even tell us why (with facts and evidence) he thinks the west is on more solid ground about the UI of Serbia's occupied provence of Kosovo then Russia in Gerogia?

What a farce.

A lot of hypotheticals and words all designed to confuse the reader. What exactly is Mr. Crawford saying here?
It's like playing a game of peaknuckle.
This is not a sideshow but a matter of live and death for many people. We must start demanding that journalists become more responsible and report the truth rather than the propaganda they have been. Stop with animal, vegetable and mineral scenarios and just tell it the way it is.

You're wrong Mr. Crawford. Russia does care about Serbs. This brotherly care is something you guys in the west don't know anything about. You are all bout power and reward. What would you know about decency and loyalty?

The truth is that two wrongs don't make a right. We all know that the British government isn't interested in the truth or in justice either. There is a maxim in western politics: "we don't have permanent friends, we have premanent interests" The bombing of civilian infrastructure and state owned businesses in Serbia indicated clearly the motivation of NATO. That the UCK had been removed from the US list of terrorists after a feasiblity study for the AMBO oilpipeline had proved economically beneficial to the West is also an indication of prior motives for the illegal attack upon Yugoslavia (Serbia). As a citizen of the UK I am disgusted and angry about the duplicitous nature of Western treatment of Serbia. That notorious butchers like Ramush Hardinaj were freed after the murder of nine potential witnesses against him and that Carla Del Ponte claims the Haigue officials were 'terrified' of Albanian terrorists is an indictment of the so called 'justice' and fair minded approach claimed by western commentators. The whole business is rotten to the core.
Sadly propaganda works as Goebbels knew only too well. The difference between Goebells and Ruder Finn (the American PR agency who coordinated much of the western media during the war) is that Goebells was eventually defeated and exposed.
In the medieval times in England, women accused of witchcraft were very often forced to 'confess' their 'crimes' before being burned in order to appease the all powerful witchfinder...the practice continues it seems.

William, truly impressive posting!
Nik!
Here you seem to be mixing basics.
You keep telling us about majority of populations wanting something, etc. dressing everything in "democratic" , will of the people robes.
First just because some people want something it doesn't mean that they have a right to have it.
Majority cannot give somebody more rights, nor take away somebody elses.
We have seen some stupid attempts though. In one town in Switzerland, several years ago, referendum was called to exclude men from taking part in any decisions regarding children, day cares, etc. The vote was more then 50% in favour, because there is women majority in the town (most likely because women simply live longer). Men of the town took this to Swiss Supreme Court on the grounds that, while most children live with their mothers, or both parents, men are a tax-payers and they will have to pay for new day care plan, too. Supreme court nulified the decision of the majority with explanation that will of the majority cannot be decisive factor of someone's RIGHTS. If the will of the majority is the only thing that matter, some countries could right now ban islam, or Judaisam, for example, by the will of majority expressed on referendum. Sorry, can't do, as it doesn't matter what percentage of populations would maybe want that. It infringes on ones right of religious freedom.
"The West was being blamed for not saying to the K. Albanians: You could not have independence."
Why not!?
Wasn't that exactly what they've been telling Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia for years?
It was all Badinter's Commision and no republic will be divided, etc.
But, I guess you are right, we can't really expect them to treat Serbs same as other peoples, or Serbia same as other republics.

Speaking of Badinter's Commision, as questionable as it was, (I wouldn't go into that) it did rule that Republics are successors of dissolved Yugoslavia, and called on population of those Republics to express their will on referendums. They even named them Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia.
In Bosnia for example, 62% voted for independence. I can assure you that this percentage is higher in Serbia (including Kosovo). But, miracle happened, and will of populations of Serbia didn't matter. Now, will of people of Kosovo does, somehow. What would be appropriate sample of populations whos will we should respect, Nik? Citizens of district? City? Village?
Should Albanians in Western Macedonia, sorry let's avoid etno-separatism, citizens of Tetovo district vote on referendum to create independent country, should we respect this? And if they start shooting at Macedonian police, can't we really blame them, given that they've been trying to gain independence by peaceful means since 2001? (here you can say, "well. They did try to avoid war, but since independece wasn't given to them despite 90% of populations wanting it, we can't really say that they imposed war on Macedonia")
Then we could all go to Macedonia, to tell them that borders don't matter, that region is moving toward EU, boderless society, and that's why we have to create new borders. Holbrook could broker some ceasefire requiring Macedonian forces to return to the barracks, while Albanians, sorry "Tetovans" would be free to continue shooting. Should this somehow fail to bring about peace (Surprise!) we could bomb Macedonian factories, infrastructure, hospitals, etc. until its economy is completely ruined and country sent back to the Stone Age.
It's their own fault, right? They are such nationalists, and don't play along the game of creating new countries as we would want them to. Why would they be against living together in new Balkan Happyland, multi-ethnic,multi-cultural Republic of Tetovo.