Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Battle lines drawn over Kosovo

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 February 2008
AFGHANISTAN was among the first to recognise Kosovo's independence, leaping at the chance to acknowledge a majority Muslim nation in Europe.
Taiwan did too, hoping Kosovo would reciprocate and poke a thumb in the eye of its archrival, Serb-supporting China. But Spain, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia, with a worried eye on their own breakaway movements, said they would never affirm Kosovo's sovereignty.

The response to Kosovo's declaration of independence has as much to do with history and local politics as it does with feelings for Kosovo and its people. Yet the impassioned entry of an angry Russia into the debate has threatened to add an unwelcome geopolitical element to a row that has once again raised the spectre of conflict in the Balkans.

"The Kosovo precedent is a terrifying precedent," said Russian president Vladimir Putin, who lambasted the western nations that have recognised Kosovo.

"It is breaking open the entire system of international relations that have prevailed not just for decades but for centuries. And it without a doubt will bring on itself an entire chain of unforeseen consequences. (Those who have recognised Kosovo] are miscalculating what they are doing. In the end, this is a stick with two ends and that other end will come back to knock them on the head."

That explosion followed inflammatory statements made by Russia's envoy to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, who warned the alliance against overstepping its mandate in Kosovo and made it clear Russia will stop recognition at the UN.

"If the European Union works out a single position or Nato goes beyond its current mandate in Kosovo, these organisations will conflict with the United Nations," said Rogozin.

"If that happens, Russia will proceed from the assumption that to be respected, we have to use brute military force. (Nations that recognise Kosovo had made] a strategic mistake, similar to the invasion of Iraq."

Rising violence in the Serbian capital Belgrade and in the Serbian northern Kosovo town of Mitrovica, allied to Russia's fierce opposition, is making many states adopt a cautious wait-and-see approach. While two dozen countries have recognised Kosovo, Jordan, the first Arab country to support Nato's military operations against Serbia in 1999, is not so eager to be at the front this time. Officials in the kingdom say they will wait for the United Nations to pass judgment before taking sides. No Arab country has formally recognised the would-be state.

"Our Arab region in particular is full of groups of many religions, faiths, identities and nationalities," read an editorial last week in state-owned Egyptian paper Al-Akhbar. "What if Iraq should split into four or five countries, and Lebanon into six regions?"

Similar fears have held back many nations in Africa, where only Senegal has so far recognised Kosovo's independence.

Tom Wheeler, a research fellow at the Johannesburg-based South African Institute of International Affairs, said there was also a concern among African countries not to look as if they were following the West in a knee-jerk reaction. "There is this fixed idea in Africa that colonial boundaries should not be changed," he said.

Even the most die-hard Serb nationalist knows the game is up – Kosovo is lost. In a survey last week, only 10% of Serbs had any appetite for armed conflict to retain the region.

The most they could hope for is that the majority-Serb north of the province can be retained, and even that seems a forlorn hope. Hashim Thaci, the prime minister of the new state, knows as much. He said: "Everything is clear. We have massive recognition. Kosovo is an independent state – sovereign and democratic."

It has left a bitter aftertaste in Serbia. Regional expert David Stewart-Howitt, a peacekeeper in Bosnia and now chairman of Castle European, an Edinburgh fund manager which invests heavily in the Balkans, says that while the carrot of EU membership is a powerful draw, the treatment of the Serbs has unnecessarily exacerbated resentment in the country.

"Most Serbs recognise that ultimately this is a disaster of their own making," he says, "but they are still incredibly angry about the fact that international law has been compromised to the needs of naked Realpolitik.

"There's a real resentment of American unilateralism. They feel as if Europe has been railroaded. After all, no other countries in the region are rushing to recognise Kosovo. The interesting dynamic is the presence of Russia, which has always seen Serbia and Montenegro as its pathway to the Mediterranean.

"In the short term, the anger felt by Serbs will mean they turn to the east rather than the west, and we have to be careful about backing them into a corner.

"Ironically, the Serbs are very European and very westernised, so it will only be a temporary flirtation with Russia. And thankfully the underlying circumstances no longer exist for a full-scale resumption of the hostilities we saw in the late 1990s."

Serbia has a well-educated population with an unemployment rate of 21% and one of the lowest earnings per capita in Europe. Its war-weary people now place economic growth and stability above all else.

Yet their resentment at their treatment is mirrored by many other European nations who have significant minority populations which may wish to secede in the future.

The world takes sides

FOR INDEPENDENCE

BRITAIN: Gordon Brown was among the first to recognise Kosovo, claiming independence would "close the chapter" following the troubled break-up of Yugoslavia. Recognition is the logical extension of the decision to support the bombing of Belgrade to halt ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

UNITED STATES: The US has "long believed supervised independence" was the best way to promote regional stability.

AFGHANISTAN: Wanted to support a majority Muslim nation in Europe, Afghanistan was one of the first nations to recognise Kosovo's independence.

TAIWAN: The diplomatically isolated island state was also quick to recognise Kosovo in the hope of a reciprocal gesture.

AGAINST INDEPENDENCE

VENEZUELA: President Hugo Chavez, below, warned: "It is an extremely dangerous precedent and it can also be the beginning of I don't know how many wars."

ARGENTINA: Argentina, which seeks to end British rule in the Falkland Islands, has also not supported Kosovo's independence.

RUSSIA: Russia' envoy to Nato has warned they may even use force to help their Serb allies retain the territory.

SPAIN: Refused to recognise Kosovo over fears the move would motivate a similar breakaway movement from Basque and Catalan minorities. Basque separatist group ETA has been seeking to carve out its own freedom from Spain for nearly 50 years.

The full article contains 1099 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 February 2008 7:45 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: The Balkans
 
1

Andrew Buchan,

Kincardineshire 24/02/2008 00:18:58
Let me have a think.

When I toddle down to the shops to buy my paper, what do I want - a free book of Weegie insults from this lot or a free DVD of a classic film from the Mail on Sunday.

And they wonder why no-one buys this paper anymore?
2

Kenny A,

24/02/2008 03:22:11
Their land, their choice.
3

Yane,

24/02/2008 05:36:44
How did the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' get into the language without a fight? Amazing that somethn near tae genocide can be made to sound like washing curry off yer t shirt.
4

albanman,

edinburgh 24/02/2008 10:50:48
No.1 Buchan...you won't purchase, but you continue to read the Scotsman online....interesting. I do agree with your comment about the free book on insults; it is tasteless. Still, I'm not going to buy the narow-minded, knee-jerking Sunday Rag even for the classic film dvd. Cheers.
5

albanman,

Edinburgh 24/02/2008 10:57:24
As for Kosovo, the Serbians treated it shamefully in the 1990s, just as they did with Bosnian Muslims and Catholics: violence, ethnic/religious cleansing, bombing and mass murder - why would ANY group want to remain part of Serbia after such sinful behaviour? The Kosovans have decided on independence (hopefully respecting and protecting the Serbs in the north) so let their wish be respected. More power to their elbow.
6

Gothic Rose,

24/02/2008 11:43:53
Still the "Batty Balkans"All the creepy fairy tales originate from there.
7

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 24/02/2008 12:57:25
There's a lot more to this if you look at the Pipeline proposals and the Caspian Sea Oil. This area along with Montenegro already have Pipelines started. The US has a big financial interest in this area.

Russia wants to us this route for their pipeline to the sea.
It is unfortunate that again Oil rears it's ugly head over Kosovo freedom and Independence.
I felt George Bush by declaring support for their independence in deference to International Law and just good sound international protocol made a mistake by doing so too soon. He is taking liberties with Russia on purpose.
Russia is not going to let this happen as is evidenced by their stand, much similar to Hungary in the 50's and 60's. Tanks in the streets.
The Countries that have declared for Kosovo besides the US and UK are inconsequential in the world today.

Look at the pipeline proposal in Afghanistan (US) and in Serbia by the Russians.
The Caspian Sea Oil reserves are reputed to be huge, Exxon and others have done the exploration all ready.
The Ports are incapable of providing enough capacity so pipe lines are the answer. This has the potential to reduce the Wests dependence on oil from the Middle East and also to feed the Eu's need for Natural Gas so they are not so dependent on Russia who could black mail them.
8

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 24/02/2008 12:59:18
I believe during the conflict of the 90s this was the overall goal. Clinton saw this coming. Russia at that time was very weak and that is not the case now.
9

Anthony,

Glasgow 24/02/2008 13:03:27
What a dog's dinner is being made of the Kosovan issue. This is a highly volatile region, responsible for sparking off WWI, and with a part to play in WWII as well. Kosovo was only designated a national boundary by the UN in 1996. The majority do not wave 'Kosovan' flags but Albanian ones. Why? Because their Albanians! They have congregated a majority in someone else's country, and in what amounts to little more than a glorified land grab, have ripped the heart out of a nation with a history spanning over 900 years!This is outrageous. What sort of signal is this sending out to other militant minorities across Europe?The EU have also completely inverted their primary objective of maintaining peace and security.

The EU must back out fast. A resolution which needs to involve Russia, should be passed and enforced by the UN - not NATO. This region needs to be stabalised and militant minorities who want other peoples countries, contained. I just cannot believe the mess that is being made here.
10

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 24/02/2008 13:04:14
#5,albanman,Edinburgh, I don't think the issue was really the conflict but oil pipelines for the future.
This area of the Balkans has always been the most contentious in Europe from the very early days after the Ottoman Empire.
Take a look at what is now happening in Northern Iraq with the PKK Kurds and draw a line. Turkey's entry into NATO is assured. They are now in Iraq.
11

Neil,

Glasgow 24/02/2008 13:43:23
If the Yugoslavs had treated the Albanians badly they wouldn't have migrated from Albania in such numbers. The Serbs problem was that they were to welcoming.

Even now there are 50,000 Albanians living in Belgrade, the only capital which has not been "cleansed" (with NATO's help).

We are now relying on the NATO protected Afghab regime to provide a major part of the non-Nato support of this criminal act.

That Putin's remarks are so moderate, being more about the precedent we are establishing against ourselves, shows that the man is infinitely more statesmanlike & honourable than any of the genocidal Nazi war criminals running the NATO countries.
12

busbyfh,

24/02/2008 13:53:23
People complain about the USA sticking its nose into affairs nothing to do with them (and rightly so) but the Russian are at least as bad - They have been doing this a lot longer than the Yanks.Butt out Ruskies (Come on PC folk - it's not a desparaging word but still needs a complaint or two)
13

Neil,

Glasgow 24/02/2008 16:01:24
The reason we intervened in Yugoslavia was because it was an ex-communist, slavic, Orthodox nation that had really p*ssed off our Nazi German friends during WW2. And, unlike Russia, was small enough to beat up.

The Russians have considerable reason to think us tearing up the UN Charter, international law & the Helsinki Treaty to bomb, dissect & ethnicly cleanse Yugoslavia is very much their business.
14

Richard M,

Scottish Raj 24/02/2008 16:36:19
ON the one hand, we have grown cynical at the thought of yet another poverty-stricken post-Yugoslav state dependent on international aid and drug/people/arms trafficking. But the reality too is that for the Serbs, Kosovo is as ungovernable now as Ireland was for Britain in 1920, and they have no real alternative but to let it go
15

Alan B,

24/02/2008 16:39:50
As far as i am concerned people should have the right to self determination. Therefore if Kosovo wants independence it should have it. the west (namely europe) tried to hold Yugoslavia together and look what happened. We have also done the same thing in Iraq. Why should the Kurds not have a nation state? Taiwan the same.

International law and the UN should be updated to enshine the right to self determination via democratic means (ie if there is a majority in favour of such a course of action).
16

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA....Bye Bye Bush -Cheney..u. evil lead 24/02/2008 17:37:42
15
Alan B,
-------------------------------
Hey Dude until the US recognizes Internal law and the UN there will be no "right to self determination via democratic means" ,if those rights ,interfere with US long term plan for world hegemony.

Our Pres. Bush has torn up any and all International laws since he came to the White House.

And there will be more like Pres Bush to come.

And for as long as we have a two party system where one, the GOP, are basically a war mongering party .

So we get nearer NOV 2008 election, just watch how the GOP attack dogs will go after the Democratic nominee.

As an American, I hope Russia stays strong and maintains her ability to deliver a NUKE knock out punch, against any country who tries the path of World hegemony

17

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA........captured from Mexico 1845 24/02/2008 17:38:53
#16 correction for Internal law
read International law

GC
18

Richard G,

Canada 24/02/2008 17:55:02
Why recognize this muslim mafia micro state? I am no friend of the Serbs, but now American and European hypocrisy have set a precedence. When the Serbs in Bosnia (and elsewhere) say they are setting up their own states, what can anyone say about it? When any miniscule group of people who feel victimized by a majority can now carve out piece of land and call it a nation, what can we say about it? Nothing. And when American and European troops start dying in the Balkans I only hope Canada is smart enough to stay out of it. Idiots.
19

Neil,

Glasgow 24/02/2008 18:02:15
#15 "the west (namely europe) tried to hold Yugoslavia together"

???????????????????????????
20

Carolyn 1,

24/02/2008 18:04:25
#9 Anthony said "This is a highly volatile region, responsible for sparking off WWI,.. What sort of signal is this sending out to other militant minorities across Europe?"
I agree. The Black Hand was the secret society that assassinated the Austrian Duke. They were militants determined to unite Slavs and establish a Serbian State. Assassination of leaders was just one of their means to the end. Their slogan was Unification or Death.
Whether by war or treaty the pan-slavic movement of nationalism was never achieved for the slavs- they were divided and redivided and Russianized.

As the world becomes smaller and smaller because of a global economy and interdependence, individuals are chafing under the collectivism..feeling like we're loosing our culture, our sense of home, our individuation. The result is the rise of nationalism because people need to be part of the immediate world around them, with their identity and their own culture.
That it manifests in violence, in that region, should be no surprise since the Serbs have wanted their own identity for a century.


21

Carolyn 1,

24/02/2008 18:10:39
Reading Public:
To say it is about pipelines is silly.
This has been brewing for a hundred years.
The Slav states have been run over and divvied up with no attention to the humanitarian aspects.
22

Alan B,

24/02/2008 18:57:00
#19 Was it not the European initiative lead by David Owen that tried to keep Yugoslavia together. ie their peace initiative did no want to allow the split up of Yugoslavia. It was when the Germans broke rank and recognised Croatia that the rest of the European countries and the US fell into line and also recognised Croatia and Bosnia. Teh Russians were not too pleased.
23

Alan B,

24/02/2008 19:08:21
#18 "now American and European hypocrisy have set a precedence"

How is it hypocrisy to support the right for a people to run their own country. What is wrong with self determination?

Part of the problems were caused by creating an artificial country Yugoslavia in the first place.

"When any miniscule group of people who feel victimized by a majority can now carve out piece of land and call it a nation"

If the majority of people in a geographic area want to run there own affairs why shouldn't they. i agree with u in principle over Israel as the UK carved out a piece of Palistine for European jews.

Why should the Kurds who were chemical weaponed not be allowed to have their own country. We need to come to terms with the fact that much of the world was divided up in the past due to wars and need to let people democratically choose their destiny.

Why should Taiwan have to be ruled by China?



24

Reading Public 1,

Wisc, 24/02/2008 19:30:12
#21, Carolyn1, or is it cj you don't have a clue with all your cutting and pasting. Take a look at the topography and start thinking like the smart person you claim to be.
25

lielayer,

24/02/2008 19:35:54
21
Carolyn 1

"To say it is about pipelines is silly."

"Big Oil required a pipeline through Kosovo and the poor Serbs just happened to own the wrong real estate at the wrong time.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/barnwell.php?articleid=9850
26

Alan B,

24/02/2008 19:45:58
The problem #24/#25 oil conspiracy idea is, that it is just that a conspiracy theory with little proof. in fact if u generally balance it out it tend to work the opposite way.

"I believe during the conflict of the 90s this was the overall goal. Clinton saw this coming. Russia at that time was very weak and that is not the case now."
If that was the case why did they not allow Kosovo to have independence back in the 90s.

Why not allow independence of the Kurds?

We got in the first Iraq war that it was about oil but they never overthrew Sadam then so on balance that claim turned out to be false. If it was just protect Saudi then no need to an invasion. It also handed back ownership of Kuwait and its oil.

Why did the US not invade Iraq after the chemical weapon on the Kurds in 88 if it was just after an excuse to take over the country.

If the US is only driven by oil why pal up with Isreal the country without it alianating those with it.

Evidence tends to suggest Russia and France foreign policy is more driven by oil in these respects.

At the end of the day while we never really know what is happening we have to look at the rights and wrongs of a situation. If a people democratically want self determination then it should have it.



27

lielayer,

24/02/2008 20:06:44
26
Alan B

Oil has meant mastery throughout the 20th Century. It is the world's biggest and most pervasive business, and 'the' strategic commodity on the world stage.

http://www.peakoil.com/article18560.html
28

Alan B,

24/02/2008 20:21:00
#27 not doubting that it is a strategic commodity. and it would be good if we could move away from the petrol car for that reason.

My point is just that any time the is an interational problem, those against a US policy will say it is all about oil to justify why they are against the policy even if it is the right thing to do. Sometimes i feel it used when the arguement against a US decision is weak as a way of redirecting the argrument.

In this case the break up of Yugoslavia happened due to the fact it was an artificial country created at the end of the 1st world war. the problems do not have their roots in oil. The fall soviet regime that ruled over eastern europe had much more to do with it. It really is a stretch to say the whole thing is about oil.

U also never answered any of the points i raised. Like why not make it independent when Croatia and Bosnia went independent etc.

As i see it we never will really know about certain things and as such we have to judge based on what we feel is the right thing to do. I believe in the right of self determination (i have given other examples) and as such feel it is the right thing to do.
29

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 24/02/2008 20:40:27
#29, Alan B,

Quote:"My point is just that any time the is an international problem, those against a US policy will say it is all about oil to justify why they are against the policy even if it is the right thing to do. Sometimes i feel it used when the argument against a US decision is weak as a way of redirecting the argument."

Sorry to point this out to you but this time it is about Oil and not the US only this time. The EU needs that pipeline to keep from being blackmailed by Russia. This Scenario also fits in with the aims of the US with Iran.

Why do you suppose the Turks are in Iraq now unopposed?
Take a look at the topography, Look at the ports on the Caspian and the shallowness of the straits.
It's not conspiracy theory but a logical move by the West. The completion of the Pipeline would accomplish a great deal to keep the EU free of demands fron Russia and keep the US supplied. Why do you suppose the Chinese and the Russians oppose this?
The politics are secondary. Why the hell do you suppose the EU and US would back a Muslim Country?
30

Richard G,

Canada 24/02/2008 20:41:22
#23 "How is it hypocrisy to support the right for a people to run their own country. What is wrong with self determination?"

If Americans and Euros were consistent in their application of this principle, then they would not be hypocrites. The best and easiest example is the Bosnian Serbs who did not want to be part of an independent Bosnia but have, up till now, been forced too. So now when they say they want to go their own way, will Europe and the US stand up and recognize their new nation? Not likely. This is the hypocrisy I am speaking of. Another is Northern Cyprus, why hasn’t the EU and the US recognized this new nation?

“Part of the problems were caused by creating an artificial country Yugoslavia in the first place”

Yugoslavia is long gone, Serbia remains and Kosovo was/is a mere province within Serbia. Maybe a few hundred Canadians can move across the border into Montana, vote to leave and then we have a new country? Seems fair to me.

“If the majority of people in a geographic area want to run there own affairs why shouldn't they. i agree with u in principle over Israel as the UK carved out a piece of Palistine for European jews.”

Ah, so it is different if they are Jews instead of muslims? Even your hypocrisy is showing.

More ethnic cleansing has taken place under the Albanian’s rule of Kosovo then ever took place with the Serbs in charge.
31

Partizan,

USA 24/02/2008 20:47:28
Questions for all of you that support the independence. What exactly you support here? Support the right to take away part of your country? How would you feel that tomorrow someone take away part of your country? Part of the country where you were born? Would still cheer for it? How much history of Balkan you know? Do you know by any chance that Shiptars( Albanians) were looking for independency since 70's??? Serbs did not do any " ethnic cleaning " in 70's.Do you know how much drugs, and criminal comes from Shiptars from Kosovo??? Next time before you blame Serbs for all BAD things, read a little bit more , get informed and then say something. How many thousands Serbs were moved from their homes from Croatia., Bosnia and Kosovo??? When you find out the number or Serbs that are moved from their homes, then say how BAD Serbs are. Please get some knowledge and then talk about something, leave your sources BBS, CNN and others on the side.
Thanks
32

Alan B,

24/02/2008 21:01:29
#31
"Ah, so it is different if they are Jews instead of muslims? Even your hypocrisy is showing. "

How? The majority of those that lived in the Palistinian mandate at the end of WW1 were not jewish. The country should have been allowed be independent of colonial rule and run by the democratic wishes of the people who lived their. If the jews who lived their wanted their own state i would support that if they were in a majority in certain regions. However it was the European jews (particularly Russian because of the way they were treated) that wanted their own state and Britain wanted to created a country within Somalia (Argentina was also muted). Britain decided to split the palistinian mandate that it took control over after ww1 and allowed massive jewish immigration.

As such where is the hypocrisy. To repeat as u seemed to misunderstand, i believe in the right of a majority of people living within an area to have self determination. That does not mean setting aside land for people to set up a country when they live else where.

33

Richard G,

24/02/2008 21:10:27
"How? The majority of those that lived in the Palistinian mandate at the end of WW1 were not jewish."

Well... they are the majority now, so according to your logic they have the right to self determination, correct?

case closed
34

Alan B,

24/02/2008 21:15:06
#31 For me if their is hypocrisy it is when when the EU or US do not stand up for the democratic rights of persons. I am not saying they have not been hypocratic in certain situations, although one has to look at each issue in turn.

I think it is arguable that it is hypocratic not to allow the Kurds their own country. But i think that will come like Kosovo and will take a decade in a similar fashion.

"Another is Northern Cyprus, why hasn’t the EU and the US recognized this new nation?"
I think the problem here is abit different. I blame the EU for allowing Greek Cyprus to join the EU despite of rejecting the UN referendum. I believe in this situation could have been avoided if the EU had made it clear that membership was based on a yes vote at re-unifing the island. The turkish side vote to re-unify. I think the problem here was anti Turkeyish feeling within the EU. ie if u allow Nothern Cyprus to join the EU then what about Turkey.

From my understanding there is no great feeling of wanting 2 independent countries on the island but more how the 2 sides can come together. Some of that is about the right of the Greek side to return home and also to do with the military presense of Turkey.






35

Alan B,

24/02/2008 21:18:50
#34 "Well... they are the majority now, so according to your logic they have the right to self determination, correct? "

Yes, we have got to deal with what has happened in the past. It was not the right thing to do at the time. We cannot go back in time and i believe a multiple state solution is the best way forward now.
36

Alan B,

24/02/2008 21:22:03
#34 added to what i said in #36 it comes down to what borders are appropriate for Israel now and also about the right of the refugees to return. Should it be the UN inpired border of 1947. that taken by forse in 1948 till 1967 or should it also include some of the west bank and gaza invaded in 1967. A difficult one, i would suggest some compromise between the 47 and 67 borders.
37

Richard G,

Canada 24/02/2008 21:24:57
#35

Here is one for you, why don't the Europeans and the US recognize Chechnya and see what happens? Or why not recognize Taiwan as a separate nation from China? Don’t these two places have the right to self determination, the same as this supposed nation called Kosovo? We all know why they don’t encourage separation in these two cases. There would be a war. The US and the Euros feel pretty safe screwing over a small country like Serbia whereas trying to screw over China or Russia might have more serious consequences.
38

Alan B,

24/02/2008 21:27:12
#31 "Serbia remains and Kosovo was/is a mere province"

So if Wales voted for independence as it is only a province it should not be allowed to do so?

If nothern ireland which is a province voted for independence or to rejoin the Republic it should not be allowed to do so?

Note that if u believe that either of these provinces is allowed to break away then that must be hypocrisy. Personally i would not want to use that word as each situation can be differnt.

39

I'mallymax,

Orwell's cupboard; under the stairs. 24/02/2008 21:33:03
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this how the first two world wars started; in Serbia?
40

Alan B,

24/02/2008 21:34:42
#38 "The US and the Euros feel pretty safe screwing over a small country like Serbia whereas trying to screw over"
The problem with that arguement it that it is the right thing to do.

"Here is one for you, why don't the Europeans and the US recognize Chechnya and see what happens? Or why not recognize Taiwan as a separate nation from China? Don’t these two places have the right to self determination, the same as this supposed nation called Kosovo? We all know why they don’t encourage separation in these two cases. There would be a war."
Yes. Does not mean that Taiwan does not have a right to self determination. The US have tried to run a fine line policy here. Allowing the Taiwan some sort of freedom and to run inself but not supporting full independence. It tries to prevent china invading but does not want to argrivate the situation.

Dealing with china is a difficult case. The fall of communism has been beneficial and it tried to use trade policy to encourage that. Supporting the chinese Olympics was about trying to bring china into the world community and open it up. There is alos a pragmatism because it china is useful when dealing with the greater US problem of north korea.


41

Richard G,

Canada 24/02/2008 21:38:59
#39

I think Wales was a nation at one time and is one of the Kingdoms within the United Kingdom and is not a mere provice of England. I don't think East Sussex would be allowed to separate from England. The same goes for Northern Ireland. She is one of the entities of the United Kingdom. I stand corrected if I am wrong on these points.
42

Alan B,

24/02/2008 21:43:47
#40 Only WW1. it went something like - Serbia had problems with Austria Hungarian empire (killed the Archduke Ferdinand). Russia joined in when Austria Hungary went to war with Serbia (annexed). Germany who had a military alliance with Austria Hungary joined and then the French who had an alliance with Russia. Britain joined officially because of the German breached the neutrality of Belgium (treaty of portsmouth), although britain had problems with Germany beforehand. ie Britain had been rebuffed in trying to create a military alliance with germany and had problems over the british coloney of Morroco in 1910. It then went and create the "Entent Cordial" with France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_in_Sarajevo
43

Richard G,

Canada 24/02/2008 21:47:29
#39 I should point out the obvious. The UK did not simply let Ireland leave. There was a civil war (not that any war is "civil") and in the end there was a negotiated settlement with agreement on both sides.

If Kosovo had started a war of independence and had won, or had negotiated a separation, then so be it. They are a nation. But they did not.
44

Alan B,

24/02/2008 21:55:20
#42 Wales is not a Kingdom but a principality.

A quick google gave this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_and_Wales

Northern Ireland is a province. The whole of ireland was invaded and then after fighting for its freedom the island was partitioned with the north remaining with the UK.
45

Richard G,

Canada 24/02/2008 22:03:19
#45 Then I would have to say that they can not simply leave. They would have to negotiate a separation or fight their way out.
46

Alan B,

24/02/2008 22:06:25
#44 "If Kosovo had started a war of independence and had won, or had negotiated a separation, then so be it."

Surely we do not want wars now a days. Taking ur logic to its conclusion if Kosovo started fighting the Serbs and won then that would be ok. Abit drastic.

47

Richard G,

Canada 24/02/2008 22:06:44
#45 Take Quebec's place in Canada for instance. We have a law that says in essence that no province can leave without a vote on separation. There must be a clear majority on a clear question and then the negotiations can start on separation. The province can not just make a unilateral declaration of nationhood and expect nothing bad will come of it.
48

Alan B,

24/02/2008 22:08:51
#46 Do u believe if the people of Quebec voted for independence they should be allowed it?
49

Alan B,

24/02/2008 22:09:35
cross post 48/49
50

Richard G,

Canada 24/02/2008 22:10:48
#47 I did not say it would be the best way to gain independance but fighting a war of independance (and winning) is quite acceptable as far as a method of gaining statehood. It has happened many many times throughout history.

If you think that we have seen the last of wars just because we live in the 21st century, you are mistaken. History has not ended.
51

Alan B,

24/02/2008 22:13:28
#48 "We have a law that says in essence that no province can leave without a vote on separation. There must be a clear majority on a clear question and then the negotiations can start on separation."

That sounds fine. Have a vote ie referendum and if the people want it then it will come about. I am not suggesting that an territory can make a "make a unilateral declaration of nationhood" without a democratic referendum and without a majority.

If Quebec were to vote in a clear majority for independence the negotations would be about how to split things between the 2 parties. It would not be about the rest of Canada saying no u cannot go.
52

Alan B,

24/02/2008 22:17:09
#51 "I did not say it would be the best way to gain independance but fighting a war of independance (and winning) is quite acceptable as far as a method of gaining statehood. It has happened many many times throughout history."

I would suggest it not exactly the acceptable way of doing things nowadays. (it might happen but that is a different issue). Because it has happened throughout history does not mean there are not better ways to solve problems and disputes nowadays.

"I did not say it would be the best way to gain independance"
I would suggest ur post in #48 is a better way of doing it.




53

Richard G,

Canada 24/02/2008 22:19:43
#49

As I pointed out in #48, we have a process in place for any province in Canada to gain independence. If Quebec (or Saskatchewan) wants to leave, they must hold a vote on it, with a clear majority on a clear question on independence (Quebec has always been fuzzy on what they mean by independent) then they can start negotiations with the rest of us on such things as their share of the national debt, free trade, etc, etc. and only after those things are settled do they get to be free. No such process was in place for Kosovo to use to gain nationhood.

Merely winning a vote does not mean you can do what you want. Democracy does not give you a license to do whatever strikes the mob’s fancy that day.
54

Carolyn 1,

24/02/2008 22:22:18
24 Reading Public and 25 lielayer
Take a look at typography? "Big Oil required a pipeline through Kosovo..."

I said it was silly the first time you evoked the theory of oil and I still say it. It is not about oil or money.
One reason is the EU didn't want a pipeline for Russian oil, in fact it doesn't want Russian oil no matter how much they need it.
And second, as a result, Russia is happy to build its pipeline to Bulgaria where it is wanted. Oil pipeline problem solved.
The Serbs have wanted independence for a century; it was a cultural identity then and it is now. For centuries the European powers ripped up and divided regions like inconsequential statistics on a chalk board, drawing new boundaries after every war, they rearranged the people regardless of their nationalities and cultures. Serbs are Catholics. Let them be Catholics.
What is wrong with wanting to be who you are?
Muslims are Muslims, let them live in a Muslim culture and be who they are.
In the United States we are a union of all sized states, some large like California, and some small like Delaware, we have different industry, laws, economies, etc.

I send best wishes to the people.


55

Richard G,

Canada 24/02/2008 22:24:22
Another case of hypocrisy is Darfur. Why aren’t NATO troops already in place to stop the ethnic cleansing? Why aren’t American bombers darkening the skies over Khartoum raining down “Shock and Awe” on the inhabitants below?
56

Carolyn 1,

24/02/2008 22:27:00
ReadingPublic
Your post at #30 is totally wacky. The Turks are not in Iraq because of oil or a pipeline. They're in Iraq because they're tired of the PKK killing Turks.
57

Carolyn 1,

24/02/2008 22:37:25
What Alan left out of an excellent statement is that when the Serbs were tangling with the Austrian Empire leading up to WWI the Serbs thought Russia would help them, but Russia waited and then it was too late. There is a longer history between the Serbs and Russia than there is of friendship between the Serbs and France/Germany.

As for the Black Hand secret society that killed the Austrian Duke, they declared an oath of secrecy and assets, I wonder if it has any lingering membership?
58

Carolyn 1,

24/02/2008 22:40:39
Richard
The Americans have learned the lesson- NOT to 'shock and awe.'
Let Africans solve African problems, GWB recently said. We do send financial assistance, but not military. Makes sense to me and I hope we continue this practice.
59

Richard G,

Canada 24/02/2008 22:47:42
#59

Obviously they have not learned all the lessons that should have been learnt. One important lesson is to “avoid foreign entanglements”. That would include not recognizing Kosovo as a nation. There is no basis for it and it interferes with the political stability of an entire region.
60

Carolyn 1,

24/02/2008 22:56:36
contrary to your above statement Richard, I do think declaring democracy is enough to start a new country; the search for and desire for nationalism and stability is reason enough when it is supported by the people.
61

Richard G,

Canada 24/02/2008 23:04:09
I am not sure what you mean by "declaring democracy" but as soon as NATO troops leave Kosovo, so will democracy. This a part of the world that is run by various mafia like gangs and they have no wish to have rule of law and democracy. Besides, it is easy to win a vote when you get to choose who votes.
62

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA....Bye Bye Bush -Cheney..u. evil lead 24/02/2008 23:23:34
And where is our Idiot GW Bush,
or the mind boggling NATO bureaucracy,

NOWHERE . Correction all at meetings. Then off to high priced dinners and to bed or to a night club..

People the world over get what they deserve in elected politicians.

Why because people are lazy, want the easy way out, are greedy, have no backbone, and afraid they lose their jobs if they buck their systems.

So why don't u all shut up whining and take what U deserve. A BIG SHAFT

GC
63

britfree,

camelon 25/02/2008 00:55:52
what does amerikkka want ? opposite please .
64

Carolyn 1,

25/02/2008 01:11:39
Richard,you're right, I meant to say I think declaring independence in a democratic process is enough to start a new country. And you're right too about the widespread corruption in these countries, which many attribute to the previous and long Soviet rule; but I think that can be controlled, -The Czech Republic and Poland were successful.
65

Carolyn 1,

25/02/2008 01:13:46
#64
The KKK moved from America. What do the Canadian KKKongress and the UKKKingdom want?
66

JamesNYC,

New York, NY 25/02/2008 03:37:45
As an American, I have to say I am disgusted by the shortsightedness of recognizing Kosovo.

As horrible as what the Serbian Nationalists did is, we can't just go carving off pieces of other countries because public sentimentality favors them.
Besides, Serbia made a lot of progress on it's own, and we should not punish them now that they have gotten rid of Milosevic, turned him and other war criminals over for trial, and elected a more moderate government.
The Serbian people clearly wanted to get over the past, but we set that back with our unilateral action.

They even agreed to allow Kosovo to have autonomy without independence. If it's good enough for Taiwan it should be good enough for Kosovo.

Recognizing a new State is a big deal, and it should not happen without due process (ie acceptance by its neighbors). To have done so without even an EU vote is unconscionable.

Furthermore, I don't think we are prepared to deal with the implications of recognizing Kosovo. Why not Puerto Rico? The Basque heartland? Ossetia? Wazeristan? Kashmir? As much of a snake as Vladmir Putin is, we have allowed him the opportunity to make valid points against the USA. Bush is dumb dumb dumb dumb.

Clearly the USA does not intend to recognize every breakaway region that has been subjected to brutal counterinsurgency.

Lucky for Bush he wont be around to deal with the consequences.

67

bill2,

25/02/2008 09:10:45
65
Carolyn 1

"I think declaring independence in a democratic process is enough to start a new country"

Yes, as long as it is done by the people and not by illegal invaders as in Kosovo and Iraq, the new colonies in the American Empire.

68

Anthony,

Glasgow 25/02/2008 10:15:35
Alan B (15), you say that as far as you're concerned everyone has the right to self-determination. That is a model for war and chaos. Everyone should not have that right, where it isn't justified, and their means of obtaining self-determination, is by destroying the sustainability of an existing state, as in this instance. Under you're proposal, any ethnic group who can 'border rush' another nation, and congregate a majority in a single part of that country, would thereby be entitled to 'self-determination' irrespective of the rights of the overall majority? How unjust! What a recipe for international disaster. An example of ideology (in this case a nationalist one) obscuring truth justice and peace.

Also Richard (14), you are correct in that Kosovo is becoming ungovernable. But why? Precisely because the EU and Germany the UK and the USA keep fuelling internal strife, by indicating to the Kosovans that if they keep stirring things up, they'll get independence.
69

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 25/02/2008 13:03:30
#55 Carolyn1, and I think 58, if you could support you hypothesis with facts I might even agree with you but you can't.

Where did you get the idea the EU doesn't use Russian Oil, the figures are 60% of the Oil used in the EU is Russian and 40% of the natural gas is from the Ukraine. If your going to dispute someone please get you facts in order.

Look at the topography and the proposed 2 pipelines by Exxon and this tells the story. Go back in time to the 90s and see when these plane were hatched follow the progression and this speaks for itself.

Alan B, you argument however laudable does not hold water. Countries do not just break away Democratically or otherwise without ramifications. What do you think China would do if Taiwan broke free declaring their independence. Canada is another story they would talk each other to death.
70

Carolyn 1,

25/02/2008 15:26:15
ReadingPublic 1, #70
I hate to break it to ya, but this ain't the 90s.

I never said they don't use Russian oil (you still do not read what I write) I said: "It is not about oil or money. One reason is- the EU didn't want a pipeline for Russian oil, in fact it doesn't want Russian oil no matter how much they need it."

Next, I don't know or pretend to know a lot about world history, but I studied with great interest the Black Hand and the rise to WWI, which is why I made the comment. And by the way, when I 'copy and paste'- I use quotes. My statements in #20, 55, 58 are my opinions and not 'googled' knowledge. (You're showing what a jerk you can be by saying I copied it)

The additional remark that you 'direct me to 'look at a the topography':
First, let's call it a map because it is a map, and it is NOT in this usage topography. Typography and map are not interchangeable terms.
topography >noun 1 the arrangement of the natural and artificial physical features of an area.
map >noun 1 a flat diagram of an area of land or sea showing physical features, cities, roads, etc. 2 a diagram or collection of data showing the arrangement, distribution, or sequence of something.
When one is discussing cities, and countries and where a pipeline would go, a MAP would be consulted so as to know if it it does or does not go to cities and other specific named places.

Now, for that map you want me to see:
That is the problem precisely, You keep spouting this silly map thing but you don't get it. You really do not get it. These people are part of a CULTURE, and they're dam# tired of being divided up like a pie and doled out in parts to the various invaders. They want their own state. They want their own culture. The Map, in reference to a sovereign Kosovo, isn't about a pipeline, its about a map that represents their culture and the right to be sovereign. Geeze, RP you need to think about the people as real people for once and stop being an arrogant imperialis
71

Carolyn 1,

25/02/2008 15:28:08
ReadingPublic 1, #70
Here are press stories:
The U.S. and E.U. want Europe OFF Russian oil and therefore block the Russian plans and support Turkey. They wanted the Nabucco pipeline quickly:
"The Nabucco pipeline is a planned natural gas pipeline that will transport natural gas from Turkey to Austria, via Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. It will run from Erzurum in Turkey to Baumgarten an der March, a major natural gas hub in Austria. Some consider the pipeline as a diversion from the current methods of importing natural gas solely from Russia. The project is backed by the European Union and the United States."

As for the Russian pipeline: (The EU and US don't want it) The deal went through and now it will transport the gas instead of Nabuccco:

The 900-kilometer (550-mile) South Stream pipeline would run under the Black Sea from Russia to Bulgaria, where it could branch off in several directions. The project undercuts the prospective US- and EU-backed Nabucco pipeline designed to ease Europe's reliance on Russia."
"Last month, the Kremlin dealt a heavy blow to Nabucco by signing a deal with Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan for those countries' Caspian Sea gas supplies to flow through Russia, draining the main potential source for the EU-backed pipeline. By securing the agreement with Bulgaria, Russia now intends to win over potential Nabucco customers and pre-empt the pipeline in its prospective markets.

"As part of its energy blitz, Russia has promised to extend South Stream into Serbia and build a huge gas storage facility there — moves that would turn the Balkan nation into a major hub for Russian energy supplies to Europe."


"Russia now supplies up to 40 percent of Europe's gas imports and a quarter of the gas — and oil — it consumes."

January 18, United Press
72

Carolyn 1,

25/02/2008 15:36:20
bill2 #68
There is no American Empire. Perhaps you're thinking about the great Imperialist English one, from which American extricated themselves?
For the first time in history, the Kosovoans have broke away from the various Imperialists who want to own them, and they have chosen their own sovereignty and their own destiny. (at least as long as the EU and Russia allows it- ) May their sovereignty be long and fruitful.
73

Carolyn 1,

25/02/2008 15:55:49
My comment is #72 is missing part of my last statement, which should read:
RP you need to think about the people as people for once and stop being an arrogant imperialist capitalist. Many things are about money. The world is full of corrupt money-hungry powerful individuals who manipulate governments and business for power over resources, money and people. In politics, there will always be nasty politicking which attracts those elements like bees to honey. In Kososvo, their independence is about the people and not money and not politics. It's recognition that culture is inborn with identity to a people, and needs freedom.
74

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 25/02/2008 16:16:13
It would be useful to bear one or two facts in mind here. Less than one third of the present Albanian population of Kosovo were born in the province. It is immigration that brought the population to its present level.

I hold no brief for the former Milosovic regime in Serbia, whose barbaric lunacy created a reaction to the exact opposite extreme to what they were attempting to achieve. However, the fact remains that around half a million Serbs and other nationalities were chased out of Kosovo by Albanian aggression. The result has been a classic coup d'état by a single ethnic group, who are now looking for the seal of approval of the international community worldwide.

This has in fact split the international community down the middle, with as many states refusing to condone independence as are in favour. It's not just Russia. The US and some other countries with immigration problems, like the UK and Germany, are setting a very dangerous precedent here, and one that may come back to haunt them.

75

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 25/02/2008 16:27:39
Carolyn1, No it is you who don't get it.
:"I said it was silly the first time you evoked the theory of oil and I still say it. It is not about oil or money.
Wrong, the competition for the oil pipeline is driving most of this.

:"First, let's call it a map because it is a map, and it is NOT in this usage topography. Typography and map are not interchangeable terms.
topography >noun 1 the arrangement of the natural and artificial physical features of an area.
map >noun 1 a flat diagram of an area of land or sea showing physical features, cities, roads, etc. 2 a diagram or collection of data showing the arrangement, distribution, or sequence of something.
When one is discussing cities, and countries and where a pipeline would go, a MAP would be consulted so as to know if it it does or does not go to cities and other specific named places."

Where do you get this nonsense. Just for the peanut gallery when referring to topography you are referring to the lay of the land. Call up Goggle Earth and have a look.

Of course Russia wants to put in a pipeline wouldn't you if you wanted to control the geopolitics in the EU with blackmail? Grow up this crap about nationality's is secondary to the goal.

Why do you in your wildest imagination feel the US would back a Muslim country under their present mindset?

Your "Backhand" was a bunch of Bolsheviks, we had them here "Leopold and Loeb". They are nothing new a desire for communism or extreme socialism. They are corrupt in their thinking. I don't believe in Socialism not because I don't necessarily like it but it won't work. I am as you already know a pragmatist
The U.S. and E.U. want Europe OFF Russian oil and therefore block the Russian plans and support Turkey. They wanted the Nabucco pipeline quickly:
"The Nabucco pipeline is a planned natural gas pipeline that will transport natural gas from Turkey to Austria, via Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. It will run from Erzurum in Turkey to Baumgarten an Der March,
76

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 25/02/2008 16:31:34
Went over my limit on words but the jist of what I finished with was Carolyn1 get the facts straight and we can comment again. What's this I hear about you using "Memes" I thought TSW taught you better.
77

Random Visitor,

Prague 25/02/2008 16:53:19
Well, if we all agree that war is unsatisfiable way of solving the border problem (reaction to #47), so what other way are we actually suggesting? What should be the right method for a particular nation to leave a bigger country they are part of? Do you think the referendum would be too "easy"?

Let's see. Kosovo does not seem to be eager for the democracy and tolerance towards the Serbs there. UCK was on the US terrorist list till 1997, then mysteriously disappeared and now UCK leaders form the new government. I also understand the Serbian concern for their cultural heritage in Kosovo, because the Albanian majority has no reason to maintain "some christian churches" and in fact, they did burn lot of them during the Balkan crisis. So in the end - I see no reason to support Kosovo and its independency - not as a matter of principle, but as a matter of common sense.

On the other hand, I would support for example the Catalan independence (though I know firsthand how nationalistic and xenophobic they can be sometimes), as there is no real reason to keep the Big Old Spanish Monarchy (that was created by brute force anyway...)
78

Carolyn 1,

25/02/2008 17:00:34
#76 Dr. James Wilkie, Vienna

I agree the problem is pragmatism: the EU will force Kosovo to choose between the EU and Russia: -politics, policy and imperialism gnawing away at individual and sovereign rights as usual, and its dangerous.
I agree with your statement, but don't you think that if the Muslims have their own sovereignty with Kosovo, and hopefully with a secular government, that the effect can only bring stability to the region?
Also, I'm wondering if you know, since you're from Vienna. I posted an opinion earlier (#58) about the Black Hand killing the Archduke- I wondered if the Black Hand or its assets lingered, who they are now, or did they die out permanently?
79

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 25/02/2008 17:22:33
#79, Random Visitor,
:"Well, if we all agree that war is unsatisfiable way of solving the border problem (reaction to #47), so what other way are we actually suggesting? What should be the right method for a particular nation to leave a bigger country they are part of? Do you think the referendum would be too "easy"?

Good thought, I think we can all agree that War is never a good solution.

In the case of Kosovo I do not believe some people take a look at the bigger picture.

If this was allowed in the present world, then it would be acceptable for any country to split along ethnic lines or Economic lines. Realistically I don't think this would work. I also don't believe any Group, EU< US< Russia has the right to influence these happenings through their vast superior mechanisms.
It is a wonderful idea to say that this should be allowed but it will cause wars. China for example would never at this time release Taiwan to independence.

The issue with Kosovo is complicated only because of the Geopolitical interference from Russia and the West. Both have economic reasons for either supporting or declining to support.

80

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 25/02/2008 17:33:00
Random visitor,
the issue of the vast oil reserves in the Caspian Area and their usability to get to a market is a huge issue here.
Russia has their own plans for building a large pipeline to get the Oil and Gas to market and from a Geopolitical issue it will force the EU to continue to increase it's dependence on them as a source.
It has become obvious with the changes in politics in Russia with the New Russia Party that this could lead to political blackmail.

The West in order to counter this and in effect reduce it's dependence on ME Oil can run a pipeline also from the Caspian Area possible to Iraq, or even through Northern Iraq into Turkey using their larger ports.
If you look at recent events(Last 15 Years) the moves made by the US and the moves they are not making make me very suspicious of the end game.

Looking at this a a sound business venture and forgoing any thought of a conspiracy it makes some sense.
The other point I would like to add is as I said before why Bush would jump on the bandwagon for Kosovo a Muslim group. That does not make sense and I think he is playing with fire as we have a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan.
81

Carolyn 1,

25/02/2008 17:51:39
ReadingPublic, Sweetie, you need to get your head up for fresh air. You're rattling on and on like a broken down truck on a broken down road.
1. The EU doesn't want Russia's influence or its oil, so the EU supported the Turkey pipeline.
2. The EU may want to, but they do not control the flow of oil and gas to the region. And they do not control the world's business.
3. The Russians don't care what the "EU" or U.S. "wants". Russia smartly closed a deal for the pipeline.
That's business.
Russia is running all the way to the bank, laughing.
4. Except that it pumps money into corrupt hands everywhere, Oil and a pipeline has nothing to do with the terrorist PKK killing Turks. It has nothing to do in Kosovo with Muslims declaring independence from Christians.
5. This region has been chafing under various governments for centuries, long before oil or a pipeline was an issue.
6. It's a cultural divide. It's ironic, that seeing the cultural divide is very obvious to most people, but you still don't see it- that you so arrogantly don't understand- and refuse to acknowledge: your failure to recognize it exemplifies is the cultural divide profoundly.
7. The Black Hand started WWI. Fact. I didn't make it up. No, they're not mine. They were not Bolsheviks. They were not American. They were a secret society who signed a death oath and pledged their assets to the cause.

Why is it great that America is a United States, we have states of all sizes, with different economies, etc, each with state governments united under a federal government and international treaties, but not give approval to other peoples in the world who want sovereignty.
(Must go to work.)
82

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 25/02/2008 17:53:30
Random Visitor,

Putin had rubbed the nose of the US by federalizing the Oil Industry in Russia and taking over the huge investments of Exxon/Mobil/BP and others.
Bush being an oilman might have his judgment flawed by a desire to rub Russia's nose in the Balkans especially after Putin threatened possible military action to prevent independence, but I believe his motives are deeper than that.

The desire of the Kosovo peoples to achieve a sovereign state recognized by the world is commendable and most right thinking people would agree that it is their business but the ramifications are much larger. Do we believe if Spain lost Catalonia or whatever it would cause so much of a problem? I don't know for sure but I suspect not. This is a huge "Control Issue" with the more powerful countries.
My point has been to point out that the stakes are higher because of location and resources. The UN as weak and controlled as it is must take a high profile stand on this issue or I fear down the road the Balkans will do it again and promote a war.
Again I say we need to look at this as a Corporation trying to expand and drive out competition to gain market share and a lot of the arguments make a lot of sense.
The way to achieve this is to have the competition drive each other out of business (War by Proxy) much the same as wars are being fought today. Small Countries being jammed full of weapons from major players to fight it out for them.
83

Random Visitor,

Prague 25/02/2008 18:04:54
Well I know the nations and independence is NOT what is this all about. The peace - or better ceasefire - is strategic thing in the Balkan region. So we sold them for peace (no sympathy for Serbian politics few yrs before, though). But maybe we have just founded new European Palestine and gave free hand to Hamas-like UCK. Great.

But back in the 90s it seemed better alternative than let the war spread to Greece and Macedonia and who knows where. For now, NATO must look good. "Listen everybody, we did all right, we are the good guys, we did it for the people, no question about this." That is the hypocrisy.

Lot of recent events are about oil, no question about this. But not this one, I think. With Romania, Bulgaria and Greece all inside EU borders, with Turkey in NATO and hoping to be allowed to enter EU, the Kosovo province lost "somewhere in mountains" looks prety unimportant for any lines - or am I wrong?
84

Random Visitor,

Prague 25/02/2008 18:17:55
#84 "Do we believe if Spain lost Catalonia or whatever it would cause so much of a problem? I don't know for sure but I suspect not. This is a huge "Control Issue" with the more powerful countries."

But EU countries are supposed to be democratic - isn't any democratic state's purpose to satisfy the needs of its citizens? Who does personally need big powerful state - with lots of territory and this all shared with other nations under one BIG government? Well, I can live without it.
85

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 25/02/2008 18:23:44
1. The EU doesn't want Russia's influence or its oil, so the EU supported the Turkey pipeline.
2. The EU may want to, but they do not control the flow of oil and gas to the region. And they do not control the world's business.
3. The Russians don't care what the "EU" or U.S. "wants". Russia smartly closed a deal for the pipeline.
That's business.
#1 Carolyn!, who said the EU wanted the oil Pipeline, they only want it in other hands.

#2 Carolyn1 you certainly show a lot of ignorance in Geo Politics. The EU is the second largest economic power in the world and they don't want to be crippled by dependence on Russia's whims on a cold day in winter.

#3 Carolyn1, Tell me how smart they are after the smoke clears.
At least you are looking in the right place for the answers now, congratulations, Topography my dear, works every time.

#4, the problem with the PKK has been going on for years, why now an incursion and tacitly supported by the US with a hands off attitude.
The Northern Kurds are our staunches ally in Iraq, why antagonize. This way we have plausible deny-ability.

#5 Carolyn1, really my dear are you that naive? Have you ever played poker? You would go broke in Vegas.

#6, I know it is a cultural divide, that's the excuse. Why bring this into play now, it's been a cultural Davide since before the Ottoman Empire and especially as Europe was divided at the conclusion of the First World War.

#7, Carolyn1, you don't see the forest for the trees. The Black Hand were a bunch of Anarchists bent on getting the Astro-Hungarian Empire(1) out of their Country. They were political Bolsheviks. Yes they assassinated Ferdinand and Sofie and this was used as an excuse to further political aims. Read your history girl. There was a ton more to do with this than the assignation alone.

"Why is it great that America is a United States, we have states of all sizes, with different economies, etc, each with state governments united under a federal government an
86

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 25/02/2008 18:46:53
#86, Random Visitor, I agree in principal with you only feel with the state of the World today with it ethnic problems and resource assets(Oil, Gas, Ports, Etc)it is viewed as impractical. Just think without Geo political boundaries how peaceful the world might be. It's the big corrupt players that muddy the waters and cause these problems.
There are so many ways we are divided we need to look for ways to bring us together, but alas History will tell us that can never be. War is a waste for people but necessary for our corrupt leaders.
87

Random Visitor,

25/02/2008 19:19:41
I didn't want to say that states and boundaries are useless invention of might-willing corrupt leaders. State ensures stability - no it's not another empty phrase with good sound - it's about preventing risk. From financial view, the risk is loss quantified as risk_probablity * possible_loss, for government or state, it is a threat.

The role of state is to give a chance to the economics by ensuring law and stability - not make profit (ideally). Anyway - you need efficient law making system, courts, police, probably Army, possibly social services - and of course Territory where this law will be forced. But you don't have to have BIG territory to make it all work - at least in EU, the small countries are the rich ones:)
88

Lynne,

USA 25/02/2008 19:30:25
bill2..there is no American Empire. The only lands ever asked by the American gov't was for cemetaries for the sons, and daughters and loved ones of fallen Americans who could not be coming home. I would be surprised if even YOU would call that an emoire.


89

bill2,

25/02/2008 19:30:34
82
Reading Public 1

Apart from the Balkan pipelines, the Nabucco pipeline takes gas to Europe from Turkey, and there's nothing to stop a little non-Russian getting into the BAP pipeline at Burgas.

Also, I predict that it won't be long before a deal is done with Armenia to get pipeline wayleave from Azerbaijan to Turkey. You read it here first!

Europe is in good shape for supplies, with or without Russia.

The rest of the world has to keep the Middle East route clear, and that is what Bushco is attempting to do.
90

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 25/02/2008 19:31:27
Excellent Assessment Random visitor, Size has little to do with it; however today natural resources do make a difference. I'm a believer in "manifest destiny" but today it is not the people but the politics unfortunately.
What you are indicating is also the way I feel about a lot of things.
91

bill2,

25/02/2008 19:36:54
90
Lynne

For your education, here is a link which will tell you all about the American Empire.

Your unworthy hasbara-type attempt to cloud the issue with the brave Americans who gave their lives in the world wars gives you no credit at all.
92

Random Visitor,

25/02/2008 20:19:37
Yep. Resources are good. But if the economy is running well, it is more important to have stable or accessible resource market rather than resources themselves. Resource spots are just another opportunities for business to create product - the resources - and sell it. EU does not have problem with buying oil from someone else - EU has problem with having to buy it from Russia - they are bad business partners that's using oil as political power instrument.

To #90 - "there is no American Empire"
There is.
There are lots of influence groups and companies (not responsible to US voters) that create strong push at the government to CONTROL resources, using various political methods. Not just to ensure stable oil market - that used to be true maybe in times of the first gulf war. Now it is about taking over the worlds oil market using also various POLITICAL methods. That's life:) Question is: how much benefit it brings to the "other" US people (those who do not have share in such companies) and at what cost.
93

Carolyn 1,

Rocky Mountain High, Colorado 25/02/2008 23:59:49
Reading Public

You're making a fool of yourself.

As for the Black Hand, you have no clue as to who they were or what they did. They were a Secret Society. I have copies of the group's declarations of intent, as well as copies of the documents the individuals signed to swear their oaths of secrecy, honor, assets, etc. They were not Bolsheviks. They were not anarchists. Some may have been nihilists. Some even had 'royal blood'. Yes, they caused WWI.

94

JamesNYC,

26/02/2008 01:11:24
".there is no American Empire. The only lands ever asked by the American gov't was for cemetaries for the sons, and daughters and loved ones of fallen Americans who could not be coming home. I would be surprised if even YOU would call that an emoire."

You are forgetting the entire West, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal, Guantanamo Bay (and formerly all of Cuba), and (formerly) the Phillipines.

Imperialist aspirations have always been a force in this country, one that has waxed and waned over our just over 2 centuries as a sovereign nation.

But back to the topic of the article:
As much of a jerk as Vladamir Putin is, I have to admit that I concur with his analysis.
"In the end, this is a stick with two ends and that other end will come back to knock them on the head."
Why does the US government have to be so stupid to give him the opportunity to say these things?? Bush is dumb dumb dumb dumb (no news there I guess :/ )
95

Cyril,

New Zealand 26/02/2008 01:38:41
Russia seems to be getting on well and so is China and India. Unfortunately the USA is spending huge sums of money on weapons of mass destruuction as it is afraid of losing its world dominance. Why should it occupy part of Cuba when the Cubans are so badly treated by the American government or Diego Garcia or Guam etc etc.
96

Carolyn 1,

Rocky Mountains, Colorado 26/02/2008 02:24:12
Cyril-
And what does Cuba have to do with Kosovo declaring independence?

By the way, my father was one of thousands of men trapped in Leyte, who fought for and saved the Pacific Islands from certain annihilation,- I hope you are not ungrateful, that you are happy and thankful that the US military had the might, the equipment, and a strong will of iron to do the impossible?
In your response of thanking the Americans for saving your country, because the UK couldn't, and New Zealand couldn't, I'll say thanks, my father had nightmares but he managed to live. His two brothers did not.
So lets be thankful about all of us who do live in freedom, and who want to live in freedom, and I'll forget you b#tched that we Americans fought for and died for your freedom in New Zealand and gave it to you free of charge.
97

JamesNYC,

26/02/2008 03:50:16
Carolyn1, I was the one who brought up Cuba, and Cuba is related to this because Cuba was a territory of the USA for a time before the USA granted independence.
Although the USA save the Phillipines from Japan in WWII, the USA also waged a brutal counter-insurgency against the natives of the Philipines after capturing them in the Spanish-American war.
98

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 26/02/2008 08:23:35
#80 Carolyn1. I have only just revisited this site and seen your comment. The subversive activities of the Black Hand over a period of years played a major part in Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia in 1914. Emperor Franz Joseph broke off diplomatic relations after the assassination of the Crown Prince and his wife, but that was not the primary cause of the outbreak of hostilities. Some of the Black Hand members were still alive during the time I worked for the present Austrian government, but there is no indication that the organisation itself survived the Communist era in any form. You might be interested in another comment of mine on the subject of the Habsburg Monarchy:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/comment/EU-crisis-has-parallels-with.3776047.jp

99

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 26/02/2008 10:39:56
#95, Carolyn, If the Black Hand Bolshevik Society was so secret how come you know about them. They had a chapter in the US and 2 were executed here.

Stop showing your ignorance and get your facts straight, not just cut and paste.
:"Pan-Slavism was a movement in the mid 19th century aimed at unity of all the Slavic peoples and fighting western oppression. The main focus was in the Balkans where South Slavs had been ruled and oppressed for centuries by the two great empires, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. It was also used as a political tool by both the Russian Empire and its successor the Soviet Union."

"Pan-Serbism is an affirmation of the Serbian pre-eminence over all Slav nationalities of the Balkan peninsula, and of its right of conquest over all the Slav lands south of the Danube. "

Carolyn1 as far as the start of WWI is concerned the assassination of the Arch Duke was as you say considered to be the catalyst for the beginning but if you look at the history of the Hapsburg's you will readily see that this was a chain reaction stated long before Ferdinand and Sofie were so dramatical killed. My God Carolyn1 they were bombed just before, how arrogant and stupid can you get. Your trying to make me believe this was not an agenda already in place?

Look at the politics my dear not what was purported to have caused this. Look at the treaty's of the then empires of Europe especially Russia.
I suppose you would say the last conflict that Israel perpetrated on the ME was because of one soldier being kidnapped by the Hezebolla. The seeds are planted then the harvest begins based on some trumped up reason.


"
100

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 26/02/2008 12:48:59
Carolyn1,

Here is more evidence that oil is behind this issue.

:"Mr. Medvedev still is chairman of Russia's state-controlled gas monopoly, OAO Gazprom. As the centerpiece of his visit, Gazprom officials signed an agreement to study, construct and operate the Serbian section of Russia's planned South Stream pipeline, which would bring natural gas from Russia and Central Asia to the EU."
Taken from the Wall Street Journal Article on Siberia today.

101

Carolyn 1,

26/02/2008 16:06:26
#102 Reading Public

I guess you didn't read what I wrote yesterday- (or did you forget?)- I posted that contract earlier at comments #72, and #73. And no, 'oil' is not the reason for Kosovo declaring independence. This article you put up is certainly NOT evidence that it is.

If you can step away from your tunnel, and if you want to understand the EU and this Kosovo decision, you would serve yourself well to read, and absorb and come to understand DR. Wilkie's comments here and on the other story Feb. 14- he is spot on with his analysis.

#101
I don't know the "Black Hand Bolshevik Society" as you posted.
I know about the Black Hand because I researched it in depth in 2002, I have copies of the documents they signed swearing their assets,loyalty, etc; I also have copies of the documents that laid out the purpose of the secret society. I stated this previously in comments above, which I guess you also forgot or never read. As for why I researched it and analyzed the documents, ask djookers, he knows, and will lay it for you. He's the detective agency with the nexus.
102

Sensor,

26/02/2008 18:21:48
59 Carolyn 1

"We do send financial assistance, but not military. Makes sense to me and I hope we continue this practice."

'Direct US arms sales to East Africa and the Horn of Africa countries-Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda Uganda and Zambia--have increased from under one million dollars in 2003 to over $25 million in 2006. Djibouti leads the list with nearly $20 million in direct arms purchases in 2005 and 2006.'

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/North_Africa/USArmsSales_HornAfrica.html

From the CRS themselves- USA military aid to Africa in 2006 was $16million.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34291.pdf



103

Sensor,

26/02/2008 18:29:14
74 Carolyn

"There is no American Empire. Perhaps you're thinking about the great Imperialist English one, from which American extricated themselves?"

Union of the Crowns: 1707
American Independence: 1781 (Yorktown)

'empire' versus 'hegemony'? Same thing in a different world.
104

Sensor,

26/02/2008 18:30:44
80 Carolyn 1

"I agree the problem is pragmatism: the EU will force Kosovo to choose between the EU and Russia: -politics, policy and imperialism gnawing away at individual and sovereign rights as usual, and its dangerous."

Is that a different 'imperialism'?
105

Sensor,

26/02/2008 18:42:08
103 Carolyn 1

"And no, 'oil' is not the reason for Kosovo declaring independence."

3 billion barrels of oil found in Albania.

http://www.newkosovareport.com/20080110426/Region/
Vast-oil-reserves-found-in-northern-Albania.html

106

Carolyn 1,

26/02/2008 23:25:20
#104 Sensor
In #59 I was responding to Richard in reference to Darfur and Khartoum (#56):- last I checked Darfur and Khartoum were in Sudan. They are not located, as you seem to think, in East Africa or the Horn of Africa countries--and last I checked Albania is still in Albania.

Maybe ReadingPublic has a 'topography' for you to look at.
107

Sensor,

27/02/2008 04:36:40
108 Carolyn the manipulative liar

"Let Africans solve African problems, GWB recently said. We do send financial assistance, but not military. "

This is not true. When that error is demonstrated to you you reply with some red herring (108) about Albania and East Africa etc.

This means you don't want to learn anything and will happily twist what people write to suit your own prejudice and/or defend an evidently flawed argument.

There seems to be many from the USA on these threads who use the same methodology. ReadingPublic (assuming he/she is USA)is a refreshing exception to that general rule of thumb.
108

Random Visitor,

27/02/2008 12:01:28
"Let Africans solve African problems, GWB recently said. We do send financial assistance, but not military."

What kind of financial assistance is being sent to Africa? Any info about existing projects in larger scale? Links welcome.

IMHO money can cause more destruction that weapons. Because it is not easy task to control to whose hands it actually goes to - wasn't this the trigger for the Mogadisho operation anyway?
109

Random Visitor,

27/02/2008 12:06:03
Sorry for being little off-topic in the last post:) But it may turn quite relevant when speaking about what to do when the troops finally leave Kosovo. Perhaps the other part of the stick?
110

Carolyn 1,

27/02/2008 14:25:26
#110 "Help Africans solve Africa's problems" -That's my paraphrasing a quote of GWB speaking is Africa. I don't know where I heard or read it, but will look.
Here's an interesting article:
« The 'marvelous' African entrepreneur | Main | More on Geldof »
Bob Geldof in Rwanda gives Bush his props
KIGALI, Rwanda — Bob Geldof has parachuted into the White House travel pool here in Rwanda, and will join us on the flight from Air Force One to Ghana tonight.
He's going to interview President Bush for Time magazine and several European outlets, such as Liberacion, about aid to Africa for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and business development.
Mr. Geldof is an Irish rock and roll singer and longtime social activist who has helped, along with U2 rocker Bono, raise awareness about need in Africa. His most well known achievement is organizing the Live Aid concert in 1985, which raised money for debt relief for poor African countries.
But Mr. Geldof has remained closely engaged with African affairs since then, and he spoke off the cuff to reporters today who were waiting for a press conference with Mr. Bush and Rwandan President Paul Kagame.
Mr. Geldof praised Mr. Bush for his work in delivering billions to fight disease and poverty in Africa, and blasted the U.S. press for ignoring the achievement.
Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, "has done more than any other president so far.
"This is the triumph of American policy really," he said. "It was probably unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man, but both rose to the occasion."
"What's in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing," Mr. Geldof said.
Mr. Geldof said that the president has failed "to articulate this to Americans" but said he is also "pissed off" at the press for their failure to report on this good news story.
"You guys didn't pay attention," Geldof said to a group of reporters from all the major newspapers.
Bush administration officials, incidentally, have also been quite displeased with some
111

Carolyn 1,

27/02/2008 14:44:51
Random Visitor
Here are news releases, but I haven't found where GWB said he's learned the lesson that westerners can't solve Africans problems by being westerners. But instead- I'm paraphrasing- "We need to help Africans solve Africa's problems."

Popular in Africa: Bush has given more aid than any other US president
By Steve Bloomfield, Africa Correspondent
Sunday, 17 February 2008
www.independent.co.uk/.../popular-in-africa-bush-has-given-more-aid-than-any-other-us-president-783387.html -
U.S. Africa Policy: An Unparalleled Partnership Strengthening Democracy, Overcoming Poverty,and Saving Lives

President And Mrs. Bush's Africa Trip Underscores The New Approach To Africa Policy Under This Administration, And Builds On A Dramatic Increase In The United States' Commitment To African Development


http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/africa/

"America is on a mission of mercy. We're treating African leaders as equal partners. We expect them to produce measurable results. We expect them to fight corruption, and invest in the health and education of their people, and pursue market-based economic policies. This mission serves our security interests -- people who live in chaos and despair are more likely to fall under the sway of violent ideologies. This mission serves our moral interests -- we're all children of God, and having the power to save lives comes with the obligation to use it. "


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23200795/
Feb. 17, 2008
DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania - U.S. President George W. Bush rejected proposed Democratic changes to his prized AIDS relief program, issuing a challenge Sunday to Congress to "stop the squabbling" and renew it.
112

Carolyn 1,

27/02/2008 14:57:17
109
To Sensor, the manipulative flunkie
Darfur is STILL in Darfur. South Africa is still South AFrica.


56
Richard G, Canada 24/02/2008 22:24:22
Another case of hypocrisy is Darfur. Why aren’t NATO troops already in place to stop the ethnic cleansing? Why aren’t American bombers darkening the skies over Khartoum raining down “Shock and Awe” on the inhabitants below?

and I answered:

59
Carolyn 1,24/02/2008 22:40:39
Richard
The Americans have learned the lesson- NOT to 'shock and awe.'
Let Africans solve African problems, GWB recently said. We do send financial assistance, but not military. Makes sense to me and I hope we continue this practice.



And by the way, I agree with Richard- IMHO NATO is NOT doing such a great job, Ironically, it is the new American Messianic Barack Hussein Obama who heads that Senate committee which has NOT MET IN 14 MONTHS?????
113

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 27/02/2008 15:16:17
Carolyn1, #113, please get back on the topic of Kosovo.
Africa is a totally different proposition.

If you feel that Oil has nothing to do with the present state of affairs in the Kosovo Independence move and the fact that the US jumped and I mean jumped on the Kosovo Bandwagon then please explain the politics behind this move,
Please don't quote the tired argument about Muslim independence and explain to me why the present current events surrounding the Russian Oil Pipeline deal and the fact that western oil companies are securing a pipeline to flow through Kosovo where it did not before.
Explain to me the timing on the incursion of Turkey into the land of the Kurds cleaning the PKK out in the area of a proposed pipeline and the significance of the effort to approve a pipeline route through Afghanistan,
Also explain to me the general timing of the increased presence of NATO Troops before the Spring Offensives start. The Harvest in Afghanistan is not done yet.
Why are all these blocks being lined up at this time as opposed to a better timing on weather?

Carolyn1, you will not understand these world events in the context of the Albanian/Kosovo problem as long as you continue to rationalize that this is a patriotic move on the part of the Muslims instead of being driven by Oil Interests by the 3 biggest players, Russia, EU, and the US. Look further than the end of your nose and you will see this is not a conspiracy theory but sound moves for the various agendas. I'll guarantee you one thing, Kosovo will not be recognized as a free nation state anytime soon unless the US and EU secure the Oil Interests in the Caspian area.
114

Neil,

Glasgow 27/02/2008 17:13:46
Perhaps a closer comparison would be Kosovo & Republika Sprpska. All those NATO types who believe in a war to ethnicly cleanse Kosovo & then say that the remaining ethnic group owns it must, if honest, have been, from the outset, keen on the 60% of B&H which ahd a Serb majority (this was back before our Croatian & Moslem Nazi allies started cleansing) also chooing a separation.

Of course they didn't. We first supported the Nazis in Slovenia & Croatia on the grounds that we thought it moral to break international law to encourage seccession. Then we bombed Republika Sprpska & Krajina because we thought genocide was better than allowing seccession from the previously non existent states of Croatia & B&H. Then we bombed Yugoslavia because, over Kosovo, we again believed in breaking the law to help in seccession of Kosovo. Now we are, once again, resolutely opposed to secession of Serb areas from Kosovo (or B&H).

I think the one thing we can say about the policy of the EU/NATO states is they have never let honesty, human decency or consistency interfere with it in any way.
115

Carolyn 1,

27/02/2008 19:06:48
(Poland and the Czech Republic have announced they will recognize Kosovo.) Both the Czechs and the Poles are tired of the Russians. They've been there, done that and they're not doing it again. They also happen to like their religion and freedom, which is why they are strong U.S. allies.
Czech PM Topolanek is meeting with Bush today for the US missile defense shield- the 10 interceptor missiles will be sited in Poland and the radar station will be in the Czech Republic.
Meanwhile Russia is in a huge military build-up increasing their military budget by the billions. They've got 11 new inter-continent missiles going in this year, aimed at Europe.. "with a range of about 7,000 miles, said to be immune to any current and future U.S. ABM defense. It is capable of making evasive maneuvers to avoid a kill using terminal phase interceptors, and carries targeting countermeasures and decoys."

The timing of Kosovo's independence, and being recognized by the Czechs and Poles, links with this final agreement and installation for the Missile Defense shield.

Serbia opposes the US defense shield and sides with Russia. Kosovo supports the US shield. Russia and Serbia are best buds, and are not pleased with Kososvo. Kosovo, on the opposite side, is buds with Poles and Czecks.
I think Kosovo declaring independence last week is their decision to be on the free side of the 'iron curtain', along with the Poles and Czechs.

The answer Reading Public, is not oil.
Do you get it now? It's about wanting to survive.
116

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 27/02/2008 19:55:21
:"They've got 11 new inter-continent missiles going in this year, aimed at Europe.. "with a range of about 7,000 miles, said to be immune to any current and future U.S. ABM ."
Carolyn1 why do they need a range of 7000 miles to reach Europe, Your premise is flawed again.

Carolyn1 the Iron curtain went down in the 90s.
Exxon is closing the deal for the Kosovo Pipeline as we speak.

Poland was rushed into NATO just for this purpose, a sty in the eye of Russia.

Carolyn1, if you say they want independence for patriotic reasons why do you say:"
The timing of Kosovo independence, and being recognized by the Czechs and Poles, links with this final agreement and installation for the Missile Defense shield."

Carolyn1, :
"And second, as a result, Russia is happy to build its pipeline to Bulgaria where it is wanted. Oil pipeline problem solved."

Carolyn1 if this is true why did they just settle on Serbia for the new line?

::"Mr. Medvedev still is chairman of Russia's state-controlled gas monopoly, OAO Gazprom. As the centerpiece of his visit, Gazprom officials signed an agreement to study, construct and operate the Serbian section of Russia's planned South Stream pipeline, which would bring natural gas from Russia and Central Asia to the EU."
Taken from the Wall Street Journal Article on Siberia today."

Carolyn1, you say
"The Serbs have wanted independence for a century; it was a cultural identity then and it is now. For centuries the European powers ripped up and divided regions like inconsequential statistics on a chalk board, drawing new boundaries after every war, they rearranged the people regardless of their nationalities and cultures. Serbs are Catholics. Let them be Catholics.
What is wrong with wanting to be who you are?
Muslims are Muslims, let them live in a Muslim culture and be who they are. " Is this now the reason for the Kosovo Independence referendum,
Change your mind?

Why are you unable to understand that there is a great dea
117

Carolyn 1,

27/02/2008 21:02:40
Let's break this down:
1. Carolyn (That's me) I said:
"They've got 11 new inter-continent missiles going in this year, aimed at Europe.. "with a range of about 7,000 miles, said to be immune to any current and future U.S. ABM ."
Reading Public answered:
Carolyn1 why do they need a range of 7000 miles to reach Europe, Your premise is flawed again.

This is my Answer:
I think the reason that the missiles have a range of 7,000 miles is that the Russians may want to reach targets 7,000 miles away at some time or another.

Considering you think it's flawed ReadingPublic, perhaps you can write the Russkies a letter and explain this idea of yours.
Here's from the Russian newspaper. (I read the RIA Novosti from time to time, if you recall)


"Russia to deploy 11 new Topol-M ICBMs in 2008
20:33 27/ 02/ 2008 MOSCOW, February 27
RIA Novosti -

Russia's Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) will deploy 11 new silo and mobile-launched Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missiles in 2008, the SMF commander said on Wednesday.

Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov said the weapons would be deployed in the European part of Russia adding, "the SMF will receive 11 up-to-date Topol-M ICBMs in two versions [silo and mobile-launched]." The missile (NATO reporting name SS-27), with a range of about 7,000 miles (11,000 kms), is said to be immune to any current and future U.S. ABM defense. It is capable of making evasive maneuvers to avoid a kill using terminal phase interceptors, and carries targeting countermeasures and decoys.

It is also shielded against radiation, electromagnetic pulse, nuclear blasts, and is designed to survive a hit from any form of laser technology.

Gen. Solovtsov earlier said that Topol-M systems would be equipped with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) in the next two or three years.

Russia, which now operates around 50 Topol-Ms, resumed strategic bomber patrol flights over the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans last August, fol
118

Carolyn 1,

27/02/2008 21:04:25
cont.
Russia, which now operates around 50 Topol-Ms, resumed strategic bomber patrol flights over the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans last August, following an order signed by President Putin.

In a speech on February 8, Putin blamed the West for unleashing a new international arms race.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080227/100186983.html
119

Carolyn 1,

27/02/2008 21:06:32
2. Reading Public wrote this: Carolyn1 the Iron curtain went down in the 90s.
Exxon is closing the deal for the Kosovo Pipeline as we speak.

Carolyn's answer: Did I mention Albania is putting in a big Wind Farm!!!! WOOWOO!!
I will repeat, for the THIRD time, I already wrote about that deal in my comment Three days ago: #55 Carolyn 1, 24/02/2008 22:22:18
And second, as a result, Russia is happy to build its pipeline to Bulgaria where it is wanted. Oil pipeline problem solved.
And in this comment: 73 Carolyn 1, 25/02/2008 15:28:08
ReadingPublic 1, #70
Here are press stories:
The U.S. and E.U. want Europe OFF Russian oil and therefore block the Russian plans and support Turkey. They wanted the Nabucco pipeline quickly:

"The Nabucco pipeline is a planned natural gas pipeline that will transport natural gas from Turkey to Austria, via Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. It will run from Erzurum in Turkey to Baumgarten an der March, a major natural gas hub in Austria. Some consider the pipeline as a diversion from the current methods of importing natural gas solely from Russia. The project is backed by the European Union and the United States."

As for the Russian pipeline: (The EU and US don't want it) The deal went through and now it will transport the gas instead of Nabuccco:

The 900-kilometer (550-mile) South Stream pipeline would run under the Black Sea from Russia to Bulgaria, where it could branch off in several directions. The project undercuts the prospective US- and EU-backed Nabucco pipeline designed to ease Europe's reliance on Russia."
"Last month, the Kremlin dealt a heavy blow to Nabucco by signing a deal with Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan for those countries' Caspian Sea gas supplies to flow through Russia, draining the main potential source for the EU-backed pipeline. By securing the agreement with Bulgaria, Russia now intends to win over potential Nabucco customers and pre-empt the pipeline in its prospective markets.

"As part of its ene
120

Carolyn 1,

27/02/2008 21:07:04
cont.
"As part of its energy blitz, Russia has promised to extend South Stream into Serbia and build a huge gas storage facility there — moves that would turn the Balkan nation into a major hub for Russian energy supplies to Europe."
"Russia now supplies up to 40 percent of Europe's gas imports and a quarter of the gas — and oil — it consumes."
January 18, United Press
121

Carolyn 1,

27/02/2008 21:25:59
3. Reading Public
Poland was rushed into NATO just for this purpose, a sty in the eye of Russia
My answer:
Poland was rushed into NATO????

I don't know if they were or were not "rushed into nato" or what is has to do with the here and now.
But Poland is still negotiating the missile defense system with the US. But they are getting military equipment in the deal, because they feel in NATO they have not been properly equipped, plus they put their blood on the line with us in Iraq, so quid pro quo, they want some military equipment in the deal. I say fine, and thank you Poland for being our friend.I'm writing this off-cuff, so, maybe its changed in the last day. But in reference to NATO, the interceptors, according to NATO's statements- will help NATO protect itself from missile threats that everyone sees today.
I have previously stated Poland does not like Russia- sure 'they're a sty in the eye'
4. Then Reading Public said: Carolyn1, if you say they want independence for patriotic reasons why do you say:"
The timing of Kosovo independence, and being recognized by the Czechs and Poles, links with this final agreement and installation for the Missile Defense shield."
Really RP- i already wrote that answer, can't you just read it the first time I write it?
I'll repeat with new simple words:
Kosovo feels safer with the Czechs and Poles and Americans than it does with the Serbs and Russians- with these plans being finalized, it was no longer an 'if' the defense system is installed, it is now 'when' the defense system goes in, Russia and US.Kosovo chose the US side and not Serbia/Russia. I don't think I can explain it any simpler.
122

Carolyn 1,

27/02/2008 21:29:30
This is the last paragraph rewritten better-
Kosovo feels safer with the Czechs, Poles and Americans than it does with the Serbs and Russians- with these missile defense plans being finalized, it was no longer an 'if' the defense system is installed, it is now 'when' the defense system goes in, -Russia missiles on one side and US missiles on the other. - (Does that remind you of an iron curtain? It did to me.
Kosovo chose to be on the US side and not Serbia/Russia. I don't think I can explain it any simpler.
123

Carolyn 1,

27/02/2008 21:38:58
Okay- here's #5.
Reading Public said:
Carolyn1, :
"And second, as a result, Russia is happy to build its pipeline to Bulgaria where it is wanted. Oil pipeline problem solved."

Carolyn1 if this is true why did they just settle on Serbia for the new line?

::"Mr. Medvedev still is chairman of Russia's state-controlled gas monopoly, OAO Gazprom. As the centerpiece of his visit, Gazprom officials signed an agreement to study, construct and operate the Serbian section of Russia's planned South Stream pipeline, which would bring natural gas from Russia and Central Asia to the EU."
Taken from the Wall Street Journal Article on Siberia today."


My answer:
Please read #73 where I say:
The 900-kilometer (550-mile) South Stream pipeline would run under the Black Sea from Russia to Bulgaria, where it could branch off in several directions.By securing the agreement with Bulgaria, Russia now intends to win over potential Nabucco customers and pre-empt the pipeline in its prospective markets.

Answer: I thought of Bulgaria not only as being the deal breaker that made things happen for Russia, but also as being a central pivotal point from which other lines would radiate: which is why I said Bulgaria.
Duh.

124

Carolyn 1,

27/02/2008 21:54:07
6.
Reading Public said:
Why are you unable to understand that there is a great dea
My answer:
If that is a reference to the Roman Goddess Bona Dea, the Good Goddess, Yes! I agree we woman are doing quite fine don't you think?? Great!! Thank you!!
125

Carolyn 1,

27/02/2008 22:06:27
Reading Public, I realize this above is too much for you to read, but what the hey, I had to do it:)
here's a little cartoon for you:))

Duty Calls
http://xkcd.com/386/

BOOKMARK THIS GUY- He's a go2 for funny




126

Carolyn 1,

28/02/2008 00:06:57
Wow! it just occurred to me RP old man-
You did not know that the pipeline to Bulgaria is the same pipeline that goes to Serbia!!

Really, its very funny that I completely underestimated how really stupid you are. You need to get a better pill for memory loss or brain drain, go back to School or something.

You google up stuff but don't read or think or remember- which is why you keep repeating the same silly errors.

The pipeline runs from Russia under the Black Sea, to Bulgaria and then separates to different regions: north to Serbia and Austria, then south to Greece and Italy.
The Serbian South Stream is a section of this pipeline.

I was looking at a real map that shows cities and their names and oceans and everything, and you were using 'topography'-
buddy oh pal, trust me on this -the Bulgaria and Serbian are the same pipeline.
But the answer is still NO!!! DUH, double duh!

Kosovo did not declare independence because of a pipeline deal!!!

127

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 28/02/2008 11:46:16
Carolyn1, You can't take a joke as usual. The question about the missiles is rhetorical.
:"1. Carolyn (That's me) I said:
"They've got 11 new inter-continent missiles going in this year, aimed at Europe.. "with a range of about 7,000 miles, said to be immune to any current and future U.S. ABM ."
Reading Public answered:
Carolyn1 why do they need a range of 7000 miles to reach Europe, Your premise is flawed again.

This is my Answer:
I think the reason that the missiles have a range of 7,000 miles is that the Russians may want to reach targets 7,000 miles away at some time or another."

Carolyn1, Raytheon would disagree with this statement.
"Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov said the weapons would be deployed in the European part of Russia adding, "the SMF will receive 11 up-to-date Topol-M ICBMs in two versions [silo and mobile-launched]." The missile (NATO reporting name SS-27), with a range of about 7,000 miles (11,000 kms), is said to be immune to any current and future U.S. ABM defense. It is capable of making evasive maneuvers to avoid a kill using terminal phase interceptors, and carries targeting countermeasures and decoys.

It is also shielded against radiation, electromagnetic pulse, nuclear blasts, and is designed to survive a hit from any form of laser technology."
ICBMs don't jig and jag.

I can't believe you took that comment seriously, just because it can does not mean it will.
I've told you before Carolyn1 or cy chill out and get on the subject.

128

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 28/02/2008 11:53:35
Carolyn1, on topic, you entered from your cut and paste,
"Carolyn1 if this is true why did they just settle on Serbia for the new line?

::"Mr. Medvedev still is chairman of Russia's state-controlled gas monopoly, OAO Gazprom. As the centerpiece of his visit, Gazprom officials signed an agreement to study, construct and operate the Serbian section of Russia's planned South Stream pipeline, which would bring natural gas from Russia and Central Asia to the EU."
Taken from the Wall Street Journal Article on Siberia today."
I suppose you might feel a pipeline starts in on end of a country and ends in the other but most people would like a intercontinental pipeline to start at the source and end at the market.

As far as the rest is concerned, the reasons for this move by Kosovo and what is driving it, they are the same, and Carolyn1 or cj if you want stupid look in the mirror.
129

Carolyn 1,

28/02/2008 13:47:48
#130 Reading Public 1

You poor thing, you're a few clowns short of a circus.

You couldn't get anyone from the Nazi prize patrol over at the FH to come and defend you and your stupidity? Maybe even they know a topography is not a map and the Russian pipelines radiate from Bulgaria to Serbia and that missiles lined up in a shield are called an iron curtain.

But hey old man, don't get your wires twisted up too much, you might cause another short circuit, go into a melt down, you'll be fried even stupider and picking your toes on Jupiter, "Hal, open the door Hal." (You really should not let google and the computer do the thinking for you.)
Really, you're a hoot!!
I didn't do it- you made a fool of yourself all by your lonesome!!

Hey ReadingPublic you might have an IQ of 2, but it takes 3 to grunt. Trust me on this one ole man, even your grunts are stupid.
And you're still wrong.

130

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 28/02/2008 17:30:55
Hi Carolyn1, Had to leave for a while.
Take my comment about oil and disregard it if you want, now add your comment about Kosovo's Independence being good, patriotism and all that,

Now factor this into your ridiculous equation:
"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8185
"
You will notice I use quotation marks not just cut and paste then claim the ideas expressed are mine.
131

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 28/02/2008 17:33:35
As you can see there is no upside to your equation.

BTW a pipeline starts at the source and ends at the market, no matter how much you want to deny this it is just the way it is.
You haven't explained to me why Russia just signed the pipeline agreement with Serbia, a Russian Client State.
132

Carolyn 1,

Back home 02/03/2008 18:32:48
#132
As for the copy and paste- LOL

you're a nobody who googles to find his preconditioned bias and opinions.
Proof of this is- I have the brains to debate the broad ranging complexities of a global economy and the subtleties of the shifting policies of the EU/Russia and the newly emerging iron curtain. You were too narrow minded to see.
133

bluerose799,

USA 29/03/2008 15:35:10
It's about time to recognize the historical right of Kosova (Dardania) to have its destiny fulfilled-That is full independence. Kosova never was a Serbian province. It was there, since the times of birth of European civilization, a very distinct Dardanian/llyrian identity. Always populated by Dardanias who, although under constant pressure of forcefully migration by Serbian shovinism, Tito's Yugoslavia & Milloshevic's Serbia, still make up 92% of the population. They speak ilirian language with the dialect GEGE. Serbs always have been a minority there. We know that Serbs appeared in Balkans (then llyria) only by the 6th Century AD, and they speak a language more similar to Ukrainian then Russian. They have always been a minority and 'the story' of Kosova being the Heartland of Serbia is just a pure Serbian nationalist fantasy. Facts Speak Louder Than Words and Serbian’s Lies Will Collapse by Themselves. Serbs always have been considered as oppressors there, not just by Albanian majority, but also by other ethnic groups too. Serbs just occupied Kosova during the rise of the Serbian nationalism early 20th century from Ottomans, who by then were loosing the Balkans after 500 years of occupation. The borders of Kosova are well established and recognized. Now Kosova should be Free! http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/62/094.html
I can’t comprehend how a minority of 7% of the population, pretend to take off the land, the language, culture and the life of the rest of Kosova. Kosovars have the right to live free and independent in their land where they are born, generation after generation, live and will die.
http://www.gendercide.org/case_kosovo.html

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.