The Balkans

[LondonLax]

I can see the parallel being made there.

Kosovo was an important region for Serbia historically. Ethnic Albanians begin to outnumber ethnic Serbs in the area and began agitating for independence using force. The Serbian government responded with excessive force to put down the independence movement and NATO stepped in to support the independence movement. 

From a Serbian perspective, the Donbas is a region similar to Kosovo agitating for independence using force. The Ukraine government as militarily prevented Donbas from gaining independence. Again NATO countries stepped in to the conflict but this time they supported the government in putting down the uprising rather than supporting the region pushing for independence. 

You see a lot of anti NATO sentiment from Serbians who see things this way. 

[El Segundo]

11 hours ago, bickster said:

Peace-keeping force that halted a genocide

As soon as the war crimes had been sorted out, peace restored the countries were split along ethnic lines and the countries allowed to be independent countries. (Obviously with a Peacekeeping NATO force still in place) But NATO stay out of the internal politics

NATO didn't annex anything for themselves and didn't agitate to start the whole thing. NATO was also acting under a UN Mandate (and still is)

This is the party line.   NATO said they acted to prevent a genocide in Kosovo based on  the horrors in Bosnia.  The Serbs did use excessive force to try to put down an ethnic Albanian armed revolt, and there were no doubt war crimes committed, but a UN supervised Supreme Court decision in 2001 said that it did not constitute genocide.    

And there were two sides to the violence.  The KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) were far from free of their own atrocities not to mention attempts at ethnically cleansing of the Serb, Roma and other non-Albanian populations in Kosovo both during and after the war.  Like blowing up a bus full of Serb civilians on their way to visit Serb war graves, and disappearing" plenty of others.  There are also long-standing allegations  of organ harvesting from Serb prisoners, staged atrocities and false flag exercises, although these have not been proven beyond doubt as far as I know.      

UN resolution 1244 is indeed still in force but the UN presence these days is a minimal and a token simply because resolution 1244 has never been revoked and requires a UN presence in Kosovo. It also "justifies" the continued NATO presence there including a large American base and airstrip at Bondsteel.  The original intention as proposed and agreed  by the Russian Prime Minister, and accepted by the Serb authorities, was for the Serbs/Yugoslavs to resolve the situation themselves under supervision from an International peacekeeping force and an initial withdrawal of Serb forces and demilitarisation of the KLA.  The Serbs and Russians didn't, and never would have, agreed to eventual independence of Kosovo.   

To say peace was restored once NATO went in is simplistic.  Ethnic cleansing, bombings and skirmishes continued for years.  As for "splitting the countries" Kosovo was never a country in it's own right prior to it's unilateral declaration of independence.  It has historically been a part of Serbia for centuries and hosts the seat of the Serbian Orthodox church in Prizren.  So Serbs view it as a massively historically and culturally important part of their sovereign territory.     

If you think NATO and particularly the Americans stay out of local politics, in my experience you could not be more wrong.         

LondonLax understands the comparison with Donbas.

Edited August 1, 2022 by El Segundo

[El Segundo]

6 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

That much is obvious

WTF are you on about?

Q1 - yes it's obvious because I actually said it, and that's why I did not comment on Bosnia further.  What's your problem with that?

Q2 - the stirring of trouble in Kosovo was raised in the conversation earlier and I raised the possibility that the Serbs saw the similarity of their situation with that of Ukraine, and the hypocrisy of the Western response to that conflict,  and maybe it's pissed them off enough to start agitating about Kosovo again.  

Edited August 1, 2022 by NurembergVillan

[sne]

I've worked with people from most parts of what used to be Yugoslavia over the years, granted it's been a while now since the last time. But regardless if they were Serb, Bosnian, Croatian or from Kosovo they all had real hate and racism against the fractions that their people had fought against. It was people between 30-60 y.o, men and women, Muslim or Christian or not that religious. They still hated each other and some could hardly be in the same room. The scars from this conflict runs deep, and that the people who fled, can't imagine it's less tension with the people who stayed behind or couldn't get away.

Don't think any of those I worked with are bad people for what they feel (apart from one guy who was a psycho for real with ptsd and huge anger issues) but if they are anything to go by it doesn't take much of a spark for it to flare up again. Nationalism, corruption, poor economy and racism/religion is a horrible combination.

Edited August 1, 2022 by sne

[NurembergVillan]

GUYS, THIS IS A FASCINATING, NUANCED AND EMOTIVE TOPIC. PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL. THERE'S NOTHING TOO OUT OF LINE YET, BUT I DON'T WANT THIS TOPIC GOING HAYWIRE. PLEASE LEAVE OUT THE SARCASM AND PITHY COMMENTS.

[maqroll]

Volatile area, obviously. Some horrifying atrocities down the decades. The Ustase were a particularly nasty lot.

They boiled people alive in cauldrons and fed people through wood chippers.

If you can imagine it, they probably did it.

It's a miracle that Yugoslavia lasted as long as it did because there are some serious grudges and vendettas there.

I think violence and ethnic strife is the default in the Balkans.

[TheAuthority]

17 hours ago, sne said:

I've worked with people from most parts of what used to be Yugoslavia over the years, granted it's been a while now since the last time. But regardless if they were Serb, Bosnian, Croatian or from Kosovo they all had real hate and racism against the fractions that their people had fought against. It was people between 30-60 y.o, men and women, Muslim or Christian or not that religious. They still hated each other and some could hardly be in the same room. The scars from this conflict runs deep, and that the people who fled, can't imagine it's less tension with the people who stayed behind or couldn't get away.

Don't think any of those I worked with are bad people for what they feel (apart from one guy who was a psycho for real with ptsd and huge anger issues) but if they are anything to go by it doesn't take much of a spark for it to flare up again. Nationalism, corruption, poor economy and racism/religion is a horrible combination.

Hmmmm I think it is widely accepted that the Serbs were the aggressors and most, if not all of the atrocities were enacted upon the muslim population. Now perhaps, and it's a slim perhaps, the Serbs (Christians) had a genuine reason to be peed off about the Pasha's and Ottoman conquest in the 1300's. But that is a pretty weak argument for the rape and slaughter of of another population in the 1990's.

The poster child of the war is really the Srebenica massacre - hatred and evil mixed with inept French UN peace keepers.

I was friends with a Bosnian refugee in London during the late 90's. She stated this and the time and I never forgot it.

"If it had been Muslims slaughtering Christians in Europe you would have seen the Americans drop their bombs immediately. As it was the other way around thousands had to die before anyone even noticed." 

Edit: Just saw that I posted the very same thing earlier in the thread - apologies for repeating myself!

Edited August 2, 2022 by TheAuthority

[TheAuthority]

1 minute ago, maqroll said:

Volatile area, obviously. Some horrifying atrocities down the decades. The Ustase were a particularly nasty lot.

They boiled people alive in cauldrons and fed people through wood chippers.

If you can imagine it, they probably did it.

It's a miracle that Yugoslavia lasted as long as it did because there are some serious grudges and vendettas there.

I think violence and ethnic strife is the default in the Balkans.

Well I can see why you might state that but Tito ruled Yugoslavia for nearly 3 decades and it was completely peaceful. Although they were allied in part with Russia, Yugoslavians could travel freely abroad and other Europeans travelled there to vacation. ( we even had a package holiday to Porec (Croatia) from the UK n the late 80's.)

[maqroll]

1 minute ago, TheAuthority said:

Well I can see why you might state that but Tito ruled Yugoslavia for nearly 3 decades and it was completely peaceful. Although they were allied in part with Russia, Yugoslavians could travel freely abroad and other Europeans travelled there to vacation. ( we even had a package holiday to Porec (Croatia) from the UK n the late 80's.)

Yes, it's why I say it was a miracle. He kept a lid on that stuff but it was still simmering. 

[TheAuthority]

3 minutes ago, maqroll said:

Yes, it's why I say it was a miracle. He kept a lid on that stuff but it was still simmering. 

He gave people opportunity and freedom. Hatred of "the other" is easy when things aren'g going your way (look at our country FFS) and that base energy is easily manipulated by tow rag politicians. 

I think I just reacted to your comment "I think violence and ethnic strife is the default in the Balkans." That is too simplistic of a view IMO.

 

[maqroll]

8 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

He gave people opportunity and freedom. Hatred of "the other" is easy when things aren'g going your way (look at our country FFS) and that base energy is easily manipulated by tow rag politicians. 

I think I just reacted to your comment "I think violence and ethnic strife is the default in the Balkans." That is too simplistic of a view IMO.

 

Well you've got Catholic, Muslim and Orthodox, as well as Jewish, all in a fairly condensed area. They've been fighting for centuries. 

[TheAuthority]

It seems to me (if I'm reading it correctly) that a couple of posters are suggesting the following:

If a country (or more its leader at that specific point in time) believes that a neighboring country's land is traditionally part of the formers country, then they should be able to take it back by force.

The idea that the nasty (New World Order) UN or NATO should step in and stop the slaughter of innocents is just a cover for their imperialistic, nefarious hidden motives.

Let's follow this to its logical conclusion. At any point in time the leader of a country can decide to take by force any land which at any point had any ties to the former's country. Ignoring all accepted borders and land treaties etc. Any organization that tries to maintain a global consensus of right and wrong should ever get involved because we can't trust their motives. 

I think some posters on VT secretly love watching people like Alex Jones and other internet crack pots. They are just bright enough not to admit it.

 

[TheAuthority]

3 minutes ago, maqroll said:

Well you've got Catholic, Muslim and Orthodox, as well as Jewish, all in a fairly condensed area. They've been fighting for centuries. 

Sure, but as I said, under Tito all had a fair chance of opportunity and freedom - it was never about pitting one sect against the other and hey ho no war!

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, TheAuthority said:

It seems to me (if I'm reading it correctly) that a couple of posters are suggesting the following:

If a country (or more its leader at that specific point in time) believes that a neighboring country's land is traditionally part of the formers country, then they should be able to take it back by force.

The idea that the nasty (New World Order) UN or NATO should step in and stop the slaughter of innocents is just a cover for their imperialistic, nefarious hidden motives.

Let's follow this to its logical conclusion. At any point in time the leader of a country can decide to take by force any land which at any point had any ties to the former's country. Ignoring all accepted borders and land treaties etc. Any organization that tries to maintain a global consensus of right and wrong should ever get involved because we can't trust their motives. 

I think some posters on VT secretly love watching people like Alex Jones and other internet crack pots. They are just bright enough not to admit it.

 

I’m pretty sure you’re not reading it correctly. 

[El Segundo]

On 02/08/2022 at 06:25, TheAuthority said:

It seems to me (if I'm reading it correctly) that a couple of posters are suggesting the following:

If a country (or more its leader at that specific point in time) believes that a neighboring country's land is traditionally part of the formers country, then they should be able to take it back by force.

The idea that the nasty (New World Order) UN or NATO should step in and stop the slaughter of innocents is just a cover for their imperialistic, nefarious hidden motives.

Let's follow this to its logical conclusion. At any point in time the leader of a country can decide to take by force any land which at any point had any ties to the former's country. Ignoring all accepted borders and land treaties etc. Any organization that tries to maintain a global consensus of right and wrong should ever get involved because we can't trust their motives. 

I think some posters on VT secretly love watching people like Alex Jones and other internet crack pots. They are just bright enough not to admit it.

 

I'd say you're not reading it correctly on several points. 

In Kosovo the Serbs weren't trying to take anything back, Kosovo was Serbian sovereign territory prior to the establishment of Yugoslavia,  far enough back for it to be the seat of their Orthodox Church.  It was no more a neighbouring country than Donbas is a neighbouring country to Ukraine or the Basque Region is a neighbouring country to Spain.  The only party attempting to ignore accepted borders and land treaties was the ethnic Albanians seeking independence, along with those who backed them. .  

The logical conclusion of the actual situation is that that it sets a precedent for separatist groups anywhere in the world to agitate for independence using violence and provocation if necessary.    The Basque Region, Catalonia, Donbas,  South Ossetia, perhaps even Northern Ireland, could be examples of where this kind of precedent might represent a threat to the integrity of sovereign territory.  There is a fairly lengthy  list of countries who do not recognise Kosovo's independence, and some of the objections are for this very reason, most notably Spain.  Others object because it was a unilateral declaration made outside of the UN framework, in breach of International Law, and because it bypassed the UN Security Council - hence the inability of Russia and China to veto it.    

As I've said previously it wasn't as simple as slaughter of innocents. The KLA operated as what the West/NATO/UN considered to be a terrorist organisation for many years - not dissimilar to the likes of ETA in the Basque Country, the IRA in the UK, the PLO in Palestine etc.  Their goal was independence of Kosovo by any means possible including violence and civil war if necessary.   No doubt the Serbs went in way too viciously but this was a huge provocation to them and the horror was far from one way traffic. 

I've no idea who Alex Jones is but will look him up.  From my perspective I think it's quite obvious that the USA, aided and abetted by the UK, the EU and a few others, uses the UN and NATO to further it's Geopolitical aims and ambitions.  Kosovo is an example of how blatantly they have been willing to do this.             

Just to outline where I'm coning from on this issue.  I went to work in Kosovo in 2005 initially as a Consultant working for the Provisional Institutions of Self Government.  At the time my view of the situation there was pretty much as you outlined in your post, as gleaned from the media in the West.   I remained working in Kosovo until 2012 and was there when independence was declared.  I worked for the EU for much of that time, and was involved in setting up the International Civilian Office which was supposed to take over from the UN for International supervision and oversight of the region.  Along with various EU colleagues I worked with Americans from the State Department and had contact with other US Diplomats and Government employees, including one who just seemed to hover around doing not very much expect chatting to people and digging into their backgrounds.  I had my own views on who he worked for.   To a degree, I witnessed first hand how they operate, what their motives are, and how supremely confident they all were that Kosovo would gain independence.  This was at a time when the only way for that to happen was for Serbia to agree to it and the UN Security Council, including Russia, to sanction it. From where I sat, in 2006, that was never going to happen in  a million years so my Consultant colleagues and I were a little surprised at this confidence among EU and US staff.  In short they knew all along that Kosovo would simply declare unilateral independence in breach of the UN resolution and bypassing the Security Council.   The US promised immediate recognition of the independence, as did most, but not all, EU states. It left the Serbs and Russians with nowhere to go except to revert to military action,  protest, or just suck it up.    It was widely discussed in the International community in Pristina and beyond that the Kosovan PM never made a decision or signed anything without the US Ambassador looking over his shoulder.  To say the scales fell from my eyes during my time in Kosovo is a massive understatement.

I could tell you a lot of things about the situation in Macedonia as well,  it's where my wife is from and where I lived for a number of years, but that's another story. 

By the way Yugoslavia was far more open than other Communist states and my wife's family have told me there were many good aspects to it -  however it was still authoritarian and you could still be jailed for speaking out against the Government or even (in the specific case of my late Father-in- law) for making a mistake in your job, and you still had bread queues etc.  This authoritarianism allowed Tito to keep a lid on resentment, hatred and desire for revenge that had been centuries in the making, and which of course came flooding back after his death and the fall of the Communist state.   

 

[LondonLax]

37 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

 

I've no idea who Alex Jones is but will look him up. 

 

I suggest you save yourself the time and don’t bother

[tinker]

Well this would play straight into Russia's hands , they could stick a peace keeping force right in the middle of it all if NATO don't get involved and then fuel the war with weapons. I would not be the slightest bit surprised if the increased friction was caused by Russia and its agents either on the ground or on social media .

[Mandy Lifeboats]

There are so many things like this in our recent foreign affairs.  Afghans were brave freedom fighters against the Russian invasion. But terrorists against the US invasion. 
Russia bombing civilian areas is a war crime.  NATO accidentally bombed the Serbian TV station and the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. 
Russia is holding invalid referendum in occupied Ukraine.  The one in the Falkland Islands showed democracy in action.
 

[bickster]

2 hours ago, tinker said:

Well this would play straight into Russia's hands , they could stick a peace keeping force right in the middle of it all

How on earth would they manage that, they don't have enough soldiers to fight in their own war

[Mandy Lifeboats]

3 hours ago, tinker said:

Well this would play straight into Russia's hands , they could stick a peace keeping force right in the middle of it all if NATO don't get involved and then fuel the war with weapons. I would not be the slightest bit surprised if the increased friction was caused by Russia and its agents either on the ground or on social media .

To get there would require passage through a NATO country.  I doubt NATO will be keen.