Kosovo

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, here's another war the U.S. can get itself involved in, since we can't seem to meet any war we don't like anymore. And somehow this has become a 'conservative' thing to do after years of it being a liberal fetish right up thru Clinton. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7249034.stm

For those not up on the 90's, Clinton basically got us involved into a dispute pitting us and the Muslims (always our historically close allies) vs. Russia and its historic 'little brother' Christian Serbia. Just pointing out the religion thing since it always makes sense to side with one over the other when intervening.
Makes it much more interesting. And for the history buffs, of course, ww1 got started when Germany intervened after a Serbian nationalist killed their ally Austria's Duke. Think we even still have some troops leftover there as 'peacekeepers' from the 90s intervention.

[Bubba Wheels]

BTW, I know its KosovO, but hit the wrong key and correcting a thread title is about as convoluted as pretzels.

[DaddyTorgo]

peace in Kosovo is essential to peace in Europe. There's a reason that the Balkans are the powderkeg of Europe and have been since the Middle Ages. Whether or not you think it's true you can't argue with history.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

BTW, I know its KosovO, but hit the wrong key and correcting a thread title is about as convoluted as pretzels.

Fixed

[Flasch186]

God forbid the world intervene to stop a genocide, even one, successfully. You left out the word "successfully" after the Clinton part above........in Kosovo. Where did both World Wars start....regionally? oh, ok. I am absolutely sure about 1 thing and 1 thing only. This thread was started by an individual, that no matter what information is given, what facts are provided, or what people write in here, he will remain steadfast in his prejudiced viewpoints that he held when he hit the enter key on post #1 good or bad.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

God forbid the world intervene to stop a genocide, even one, successfully. You left out the word "successfully" after the Clinton part above........in Kosovo. Where did both World Wars start....regionally? oh, ok. I am absolutely sure about 1 thing and 1 thing only. This thread was started by an individual, that no matter what information is given, what facts are provided, or what people write in here, he will remain steadfast in his prejudiced viewpoints that he held when he hit the enter key on post #1 good or bad.

Well ok, believe it or not I am willing to be persuaded. But doubtful.

1. "Successfully?" One of the big reasons Russia don't like us nomore, and fears of a new cold war are developing, is in part because of what we did in Kososvo. Few days ago a Russian Bear bomber actually, incredibly, 'buzzed' a U.S aircraft carrier. Unheard of in times past. Flew right over the top of it. What's next?

2. John McCain is quite upfront about the U.S. military needing to expand by something like half-again as big as it is now. How is that going to happen without a draft when the army is having trouble meeting recruiting goals right now.

3. We are already spending Trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Michigan has recently had to discontinue its MI-Loans program because of lack of available capital. Between the war and prime loan scandal we, as a country, are broke. Flat broke. Expect to see lack of captital start to manifest itself in many more ways in the near future. College loans are the tip.

4. Kosovo is Europe's backyard eh? So that should matter to us. The same way our allies like France, Spain, Germany have been helping us out? NATO is like the old Big Ten, often called the Big Two and Little Eight. Only in NATO the U.S. makes up both Michigan and Ohio State. Great Britain is probably like Penn State.

Now not helping in Iraq I can understand, but Germany steadfastly refuses to put any of its NATO troops in harms way inside of Afghanistan.

I realize we have our share of neo-cons and liberal globalists inside this forum, and I really am curious as to what their arguments might be. Have at it. I really am interested in hearing it.

[Flasch186]

....bear in mind, I am Jewish so I am for ALL interventions to prevent Genocide. I will not be swayed otherwise and wish more countries would band together to stop them worldwide. IMO, Clinton stopped a Genocide (or delayed one) successfully....the rest of what you said was pure garbage as the first part completely overrides it.

We're broke due to the last 8 years of administration IMO. Prior to that.....surplus.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

....bear in mind, I am Jewish so I am for ALL interventions to prevent Genocide. I will not be swayed otherwise and wish more countries would band together to stop them worldwide.

We're broke due to the last 8 years of administration IMO. Prior to that.....surplus.

Yes, but much of that 'surplus' was the 'cold war dividend' we received when that supposedly ended.

Just some general info regarding a possible re-institution of the draft. Reports by including ABC News is that a possible draft will be tested in 2009.
If you're between 18-25 you might want to read. http://www.sss.gov/seq.htm

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yes, but much of that 'surplus' was the 'cold war dividend' we received when that supposedly ended.

Just some general info regarding a possible re-institution of the draft. Reports by including ABC News is that a possible draft will be tested in 2009.
If you're between 18-32 you might want to read. http://www.sss.gov/seq.htm

Do you "believe" everything?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yes, but much of that 'surplus' was the 'cold war dividend' we received when that supposedly ended.

Just some general info regarding a possible re-institution of the draft. Reports by including ABC News is that a possible draft will be tested in 2009.
If you're between 18-25 you might want to read. http://www.sss.gov/seq.htm

ahhhh. credit the previous administration when it's convenient. I love how that knife cuts both ways.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Do you "believe" everything?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2746094&page=1

Source may be suspect, but interesting read.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/118937.html

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well ok, believe it or not I am willing to be persuaded. But doubtful.

1. "Successfully?" One of the big reasons Russia don't like us nomore, and fears of a new cold war are developing, is in part because of what we did in Kososvo. Few days ago a Russian Bear bomber actually, incredibly, 'buzzed' a U.S aircraft carrier. Unheard of in times past. Flew right over the top of it. What's next?


4. Kosovo is Europe's backyard eh? So that should matter to us. The same way our allies like France, Spain, Germany have been helping us out? NATO is like the old Big Ten, often called the Big Two and Little Eight. Only in NATO the U.S. makes up both Michigan and Ohio State. Great Britain is probably like Penn State.

1.
Yes successfully. Like Clinton or not, the international community at large recognizes that NATO intervention in the Balkans in the 90's was almost universally considered to be a strong positive, and a success (despite the occasional failure - Srbenica being the most well-known).

Russian objection to NATO's mission in the Balkans rested (and continues to rest) upon the view that Russia has held since Czarist times that the Balkans fall within the Russian sphere of influence.

Without getting into a long discussion about Russian politics and history (two areas I studied a great deal in undergrad), NATO intervention in the Balkans, and NATO expansion into Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics strengthens Nationalist sentiment within Russia. However it is not the only thing that strengthens nationalist sentiment within Russia, and thus you cannot even claim it is a proximate cause for worries about this "new cold war." The economic and internal problems within Russia (read Chechnya, etc.) have more to do with the strengthening of nationalist sentiment within Russia (as do historical factors) than NATO involvement in the Balkans, in the 90's or now.

Russia has come out against independent-Kosovo because of its historical ties with Serbia. They well-remember what happened the last time they mobalized to support Serbia (WW I).

In addition, Russia, although geographically large at the moment, does not possess the military strength to wage offense actions against the US. The very fact that a "Bear" bomber (built likely in the 1980's or early 1990's) overflew a U.S. carrier ought to reassure you of that. We're getting worried about a turboprop bomber that's nearly 30 years old, with a 60 year old design? No thanks.

Without dredging up a paper that I wrote for one of my classes in undergrad (the topic being the expansion of NATO to former Soviet republics), Russia has both economic as well as national-security reasons to acquiese to NATO expansion into former Soviet republics, particularly as the situation in Chechnya remains out of control. This is even more apparent given Russia's significant exposure to radical Islam.

In fact I postulated in this paper back in 2003 or so that I could even foresee a time when Russia might actually join NATO.

Nationalist forces in Russia have gained a voice in the past few years, but this can hardly be attributed strictly to U.S. policies (although perhaps Bush pissed off Putin). Nationalism by "great Russians" has always played a significant part in Russian history though, so this does not come as a particular surprise to students of Russian history.

We will have to wait and see whether the democratic forces in Russia can lessen the impact of the nationalist voices.

4.
You act like this is some great revelation. NATO has always been US-dominated, and likely will always continue to be U.S. dominated as that is where the will is. That's a commitment that we were willing to make during the Cold War and we have been willing to make since then.

If you are trying to say that there ought to perhaps be a more equitable rebalancing of responsibilities within NATO, then I actually agree with you. Although many of the European countries provide $$, I would like to see them provide more in the way of "feet on the ground" rather than strictly $$, particularly as we still end up footing the lion's share of the bills.

[Izulde]

Ah, so they did go through with it.... This has been heavily discussed on the Paradox boards for quite a while now.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

dola


a TU-95 buzzed a US carrier? That's absurd. That's like stating that a B-52 buzzed a US carrier. Not going to happen.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...rom=public_rss

Other sources available

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...rom=public_rss

Other sources available

yes yes. I just wikipedied it. 2000 feet above is hardly "buzzed" though.

wikipedied it and deleted my original post, as it apparently did happen.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Bubba

One of the big reasons Russia don't like us nomore, and fears of a new cold war are developing, is in part because of what we did in Kososvo.

Although DT answered this quite well, I'll take a slightly difference response.

1) Russia never "liked" us. So where you got this liking business in the first place is beyond me.

2) Fears of a new cold war? I don't find any fear to be had there. In fact, the Cold War was the best thing that ever happened to ensure international stability. MAD pretty much guaranteed that nothing catastrophic was going to happen.

In fact, it was the end of the Cold War that made the world much less secure, with nuclear proliferation and the rise of the North/South conflict as the main bone of contention.

[Groundhog]

A toughie... Serbia has a claim on Kosovo, so they can always DOW Kosovo. All comes down to which allies join the fray after the DOW.

Or maybe I've just been playing too much Crusader Kings.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

A toughie... Serbia has a claim on Kosovo, so they can always DOW Kosovo. All comes down to which allies join the fray after the DOW.

Or maybe I've just been playing too much Crusader Kings.

Well, I could say vote McCain and maybe you'll get to play the real-life version

[Bubba Wheels]

BTW, was right about troops still in the region. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080217/...erica_s_gamble

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

BTW, was right about troops still in the region. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080217/...erica_s_gamble

from that article

"Moscow is convinced that it holds the moral high ground and will live to see yet another Western 'blunder' on par with Iraq," said Oksana Antonenko, a Russia expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank.
"If violence returns to Kosovo, Russia and the West will blame each other, worsening general relations," Atonenko warned. The world is watching to see whether "Kosovo will be an exception — that independence will bring stability and rule of law, not chaos and insecurity," she said.
Russia is a traditional ally of Serbia. But that is not the only reason it vehemently opposes Kosovo's independence. The Kremlin contends it will set a dangerous precedent for secessionist movements across the former Soviet Union, including Chechnya and Georgia.

Russia and the U.S. already are at odds over Washington's plans to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The U.S. says the interceptor rockets are designed to counter a threat from the Middle East, but the Kremlin contends the real purpose is to weaken Russia.
The U.S., meanwhile, is rankled at recent rhetoric from President Vladimir Putin suggesting that Russia could aim nuclear missiles at Ukraine if the former Soviet republic joins NATO.
the bold is what's really pissing them off.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

BTW, was right about troops still in the region. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080217/...erica_s_gamble

We'll have troops in the region for quite a while. We're far from the only country supplying troops there, however, and we're not major peacekeeping factors at this point. The EU has stepped up and has taken a larger role and the Brits recently sent another 2k troops there.

Two reasons Kosovo needs our attention are 1.) There's a potentially dangerous precedence that would be set by granting its independence and 2.) There's going to be fighting between the Kosovar-Albs and the Serbs regardless of the decision. Its a no-win situation because any decision made will piss off one of the sides and thats a major reason the dates on determining Kosovo's status have been constantly pushed back. No one wants to deal with the inevitable outcome.

[DaddyTorgo]

carefully note also what's an attributed quote in that article versus speculation by the AP's writer there.

[Buccaneer]

DT, nicely done.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

DT, nicely done.

thanks. I always love when I can bring to bear stuff that I learned in school. Really I should go back and get a PhD and go that whole route, because it is undoubtedly my passion.

actually here. Not that anyone will likely read it, but i'll upload a paper I wrote on it.

http://www.mediafire.com/?bidbdzm3ema

[DaddyTorgo]

dola

it's a good paper. I suggest you give it a read. it's only like ~ 12 pages.

It explains why I believe that a lot of what you're seeing coming from Russia on issues like this is largely "posturing" to try to keep itself looking strong and powerful.

[st.cronin]

When in doubt, use this simple rule: Russia is wrong, the UK is right.

[lungs]

Some are arguing that the Mexicans will see this and work for their own Kosovo in the United States, Aztlan.

LOL

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by lungs

Some are arguing that the Mexicans will see this and work for their own Kosovo in the United States, Aztlan.

LOL

Well, it is interesting that Bush would see fit to support and recognize the division of a country in another part of the world. Ron Paul talked about a 'humble' foreign policy, but the U.S. is in full cowboy mode, throwing out leaders one place, dividing up historic properties in another. Some day someone may come along and decide to do the same to us.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, it is interesting that Bush would see fit to support and recognize the division of a country in another part of the world. Ron Paul talked about a 'humble' foreign policy, but the U.S. is in full cowboy mode, throwing out leaders one place, dividing up historic properties in another. Some day someone may come along and decide to do the same to us.

If they can win back what we stole in the first place, more power to them.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

thanks. I always love when I can bring to bear stuff that I learned in school. Really I should go back and get a PhD and go that whole route, because it is undoubtedly my passion.

actually here. Not that anyone will likely read it, but i'll upload a paper I wrote on it.

http://www.mediafire.com/?bidbdzm3ema

You start off with a pretty weak thesis - that Russia will accede to NATO expansion, when they never had any other choice. You later expand this claim to say they will welcome NATO's advance and try to join it - when the opposing option, they view it as an encroachment on their sphere of influence is much closer to the truth, as Sergunin's article talks about.

By claiming that Russia will join NATO, you fundamentally misconstrue what NATO is and why it works(ed). It was a defense against Soviet/Russian invasion and as long as that rationale held up it was fine, but now it's already falling apart internally. A unified NATO front is nearly impossible - when action occurs it's basically US military action, and if other armies get involved it just messes things up - look at Afghanistan. They generally don't even have the ability to work with US forces because our technology is so superior. On the larger political front you have major players from the 5 main members publicly criticizing the alliance and its political direction. Who would you propose a NATO with Russia would act as security against. You posit Islamic fundamentalism, but clearly there have been huge divides internally on how to approach that threat. China? Russia would be useful there, but you could eliminate the Euro countries and include Japan, Australia, Singapore, etc for a much more effective alliance, and in fact we're already setting up organizations along these lines. You want NATO to transform into a political organization, but Sergunin and Nikitin are right about how it was constructed and still operates on a military level. Over-expansion, both of members and of its mission will only turn it into another UN.

I have the benefit of hindsight, and I can't claim for certain I wouldn't have written something along the lines of 'Russia under Putin has aggressively sought closer ties with the West, particularly because of the friendship between Putin and Bush' in 2003, but I think we can both agree that's been proven false. Since it was November '03 though, you had the disputes regarding Iraq, which should have been a warning sign at the least. In addition, while the economy that would help average Russians requires heavy capital investment, the economy that matters to the ruling class of oligarchs is resource driven and they couldn't care less about the economy as a whole.

You also seem fairly off on who fears insecurity in Eastern Europe/Central Asian republics. One of your secondary claims is that NATO expansion was initiated by the existing Western Euro members due to their fears, rather than the Polands because they wanted to be part of the West. Western european countries fear instability in the Balkans because conflict that starts there can spread, but no one worries that Poland, the Czech Republic or the Baltic states are going to start breaking apart amidst sectarian strife. And you make it seem like Russia just wants to see secure, prosperous countries on its borders. Russia wants to maintain a controlling influence, and knows as soon as these states are independent of Mosow's influence they'll have even more seperatist groups clamoring to join their ethnic compatriots, as is already happening with the Caucasus. Russia, like China, is an empire not a country and can only maintain control over their cultural minority groups by appearing strong. Russia would never welcome NATO making border countries stable because it would mitigate the influence of Moscow and they would lose long term.

You do a good job in your paper of presenting the two sides, but you do little to convince me that your side will win out. NATO won't work as a political structure, Russia's ruling class doesn't care about the success of the countries economy as a whole and while on a macro level the threats and posturing are all bluffs, western europe rarely has the spine to call them out on it. On a micro level, the assassinations and back door deals in Iraq and Iran amongst other places show Russia still has the potential to screw with us if they aren't taken seriously enough.



On the Kosovo issue, I'm in favor of redrawing the map, but because it will cause so much bloodshed this is a horrible precedent. The Russian Caucases provinces are the most obvious parallel, but from 80% of Africa to Kurdistan to the entire periphery of China this has potential to go poorly.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You start off with a pretty weak thesis - that Russia will accede to NATO expansion, when they never had any other choice. You later expand this claim to say they will welcome NATO's advance and try to join it - when the opposing option, they view it as an encroachment on their sphere of influence is much closer to the truth, as Sergunin's article talks about.

By claiming that Russia will join NATO, you fundamentally misconstrue what NATO is and why it works(ed). It was a defense against Soviet/Russian invasion and as long as that rationale held up it was fine, but now it's already falling apart internally. A unified NATO front is nearly impossible - when action occurs it's basically US military action, and if other armies get involved it just messes things up - look at Afghanistan. They generally don't even have the ability to work with US forces because our technology is so superior. On the larger political front you have major players from the 5 main members publicly criticizing the alliance and its political direction. Who would you propose a NATO with Russia would act as security against. You posit Islamic fundamentalism, but clearly there have been huge divides internally on how to approach that threat. China? Russia would be useful there, but you could eliminate the Euro countries and include Japan, Australia, Singapore, etc for a much more effective alliance, and in fact we're already setting up organizations along these lines. You want NATO to transform into a political organization, but Sergunin and Nikitin are right about how it was constructed and still operates on a military level. Over-expansion, both of members and of its mission will only turn it into another UN.

I have the benefit of hindsight, and I can't claim for certain I wouldn't have written something along the lines of 'Russia under Putin has aggressively sought closer ties with the West, particularly because of the friendship between Putin and Bush' in 2003, but I think we can both agree that's been proven false. Since it was November '03 though, you had the disputes regarding Iraq, which should have been a warning sign at the least. In addition, while the economy that would help average Russians requires heavy capital investment, the economy that matters to the ruling class of oligarchs is resource driven and they couldn't care less about the economy as a whole.

You also seem fairly off on who fears insecurity in Eastern Europe/Central Asian republics. One of your secondary claims is that NATO expansion was initiated by the existing Western Euro members due to their fears, rather than the Polands because they wanted to be part of the West. Western european countries fear instability in the Balkans because conflict that starts there can spread, but no one worries that Poland, the Czech Republic or the Baltic states are going to start breaking apart amidst sectarian strife. And you make it seem like Russia just wants to see secure, prosperous countries on its borders. Russia wants to maintain a controlling influence, and knows as soon as these states are independent of Mosow's influence they'll have even more seperatist groups clamoring to join their ethnic compatriots, as is already happening with the Caucasus. Russia, like China, is an empire not a country and can only maintain control over their cultural minority groups by appearing strong. Russia would never welcome NATO making border countries stable because it would mitigate the influence of Moscow and they would lose long term.

You do a good job in your paper of presenting the two sides, but you do little to convince me that your side will win out. NATO won't work as a political structure, Russia's ruling class doesn't care about the success of the countries economy as a whole and while on a macro level the threats and posturing are all bluffs, western europe rarely has the spine to call them out on it. On a micro level, the assassinations and back door deals in Iraq and Iran amongst other places show Russia still has the potential to screw with us if they aren't taken seriously enough.



On the Kosovo issue, I'm in favor of redrawing the map, but because it will cause so much bloodshed this is a horrible precedent. The Russian Caucases provinces are the most obvious parallel, but from 80% of Africa to Kurdistan to the entire periphery of China this has potential to go poorly.

fair enough. I'm also a history major and not a poli-sci major (and it was written for a poli sci class) so there is that to throw into the equation. Haven't read your whole critique yet as it's dinnertime.

[PilotMan]

I don't know where the rest of you are going, but the one big thing that I take away from this is....If we support support kosovo in thier bid for independence, how will we feel if the rest of the world supports Texas in a bid for theirs?

Somehow, I doubt that our point of view would remain the way that it is now. The whole thing seems somewhat hypocritical.

Independence is usually won through wars, our revolutionary, our civil war, and so on. Some win and some lose. It would seem that this declaration would be akin to the same thing. Unless Serbia conceedes it to them, which I doubt that they will do.

So shouldn't the issue be resolved in that fashion? Who are we to say to another country "no, you can't intervene in matters of your own internal stability, and you must do what we say, just because."

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

So shouldn't the issue be resolved in that fashion? Who are we to say to another country "no, you can't intervene in matters of your own internal stability, and you must do what we say, just because."

I agree completely, but Kosova-Serbia is hardly the lone example of this in recent history.

I honestly don't know where I stand on this topic. Part of me thinks "good on them for declaring their independence" and all the rest, but the other part of me thinks that yeah, this is a dangerous precedent.

If it comes down to war and no one stepped in and helped Kosovo, it could well be a massacre, or genocide. On the other hand, should Kosovo be allowed to just up and declare independence, and should the rest of the world support them if they do, knowing that that's what they are banking on?

I really don't know. Glad foreign policy isn't my business.

[Atocep]

If we had any faith in the Serb military to simply take control of Kosovo, then thats one thing. However, the second we we let the Serbs roll into Kosovo we'd have Alb villages flattened, Kosovar-Serbs slaughtered by the Alb militias; and it would turn into the same mess we had to deal with in the '90s.

Kosovo status talks have passed deadline after deadline with no resolution and even though its becoming apparent that Kosovo is going to get its independence, there doesn't seem to be a rush to push this forward. The reason is there isn't a right answer. Give Kosovo back to Serbia and it gets ugly, give Kosovo its independence and it could get uglier. The Bosnian-Serbs are already preparing to make the same claims to independence that the Kosovar-Albs have made, which I guarantee would be followed up by the Bosnian-Croats doing the same.

What we have in the Balkans is 4 groups of people that have centuries of hate built up towards one another and the only time the area has been relatively stable was under Tito. The place has historically been unstable and when Tito died with no apparent successor things were bound to get bad.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If we had any faith in the Serb military to simply take control of Kosovo, then thats one thing. However, the second we we let the Serbs roll into Kosovo we'd have Alb villages flattened, Kosovar-Serbs slaughtered by the Alb militias; and it would turn into the same mess we had to deal with in the '90s.

Kosovo status talks have passed deadline after deadline with no resolution and even though its becoming apparent that Kosovo is going to get its independence, there doesn't seem to be a rush to push this forward. The reason is there isn't a right answer. Give Kosovo back to Serbia and it gets ugly, give Kosovo its independence and it could get uglier. The Bosnian-Serbs are already preparing to make the same claims to independence that the Kosovar-Albs have made, which I guarantee would be followed up by the Bosnian-Croats doing the same.

What we have in the Balkans is 4 groups of people that have centuries of hate built up towards one another and the only time the area has been relatively stable was under Tito. The place has historically been unstable and when Tito died with no apparent successor things were bound to get bad.

problem is too that it's all tied up in religion and historical land claims too (obviously).

Man...I took a class on the Balkans in undergrad, more from a cultural than historical perspective, but we delved into the history too, and I used to be able to intelligently discuss it, but that was 5 years ago, and it's so confusing, that everytime I try now, I sound like someone who knows nothing.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You start off with a pretty weak thesis - that Russia will accede to NATO expansion, when they never had any other choice. You later expand this claim to say they will welcome NATO's advance and try to join it - when the opposing option, they view it as an encroachment on their sphere of influence is much closer to the truth, as Sergunin's article talks about.

By claiming that Russia will join NATO, you fundamentally misconstrue what NATO is and why it works(ed). It was a defense against Soviet/Russian invasion and as long as that rationale held up it was fine, but now it's already falling apart internally. A unified NATO front is nearly impossible - when action occurs it's basically US military action, and if other armies get involved it just messes things up - look at Afghanistan. They generally don't even have the ability to work with US forces because our technology is so superior. On the larger political front you have major players from the 5 main members publicly criticizing the alliance and its political direction. Who would you propose a NATO with Russia would act as security against. You posit Islamic fundamentalism, but clearly there have been huge divides internally on how to approach that threat. China? Russia would be useful there, but you could eliminate the Euro countries and include Japan, Australia, Singapore, etc for a much more effective alliance, and in fact we're already setting up organizations along these lines. You want NATO to transform into a political organization, but Sergunin and Nikitin are right about how it was constructed and still operates on a military level. Over-expansion, both of members and of its mission will only turn it into another UN.

I have the benefit of hindsight, and I can't claim for certain I wouldn't have written something along the lines of 'Russia under Putin has aggressively sought closer ties with the West, particularly because of the friendship between Putin and Bush' in 2003, but I think we can both agree that's been proven false. Since it was November '03 though, you had the disputes regarding Iraq, which should have been a warning sign at the least. In addition, while the economy that would help average Russians requires heavy capital investment, the economy that matters to the ruling class of oligarchs is resource driven and they couldn't care less about the economy as a whole.

You also seem fairly off on who fears insecurity in Eastern Europe/Central Asian republics. One of your secondary claims is that NATO expansion was initiated by the existing Western Euro members due to their fears, rather than the Polands because they wanted to be part of the West. Western european countries fear instability in the Balkans because conflict that starts there can spread, but no one worries that Poland, the Czech Republic or the Baltic states are going to start breaking apart amidst sectarian strife. And you make it seem like Russia just wants to see secure, prosperous countries on its borders. Russia wants to maintain a controlling influence, and knows as soon as these states are independent of Mosow's influence they'll have even more seperatist groups clamoring to join their ethnic compatriots, as is already happening with the Caucasus. Russia, like China, is an empire not a country and can only maintain control over their cultural minority groups by appearing strong. Russia would never welcome NATO making border countries stable because it would mitigate the influence of Moscow and they would lose long term.

You do a good job in your paper of presenting the two sides, but you do little to convince me that your side will win out. NATO won't work as a political structure, Russia's ruling class doesn't care about the success of the countries economy as a whole and while on a macro level the threats and posturing are all bluffs, western europe rarely has the spine to call them out on it. On a micro level, the assassinations and back door deals in Iraq and Iran amongst other places show Russia still has the potential to screw with us if they aren't taken seriously enough.



On the Kosovo issue, I'm in favor of redrawing the map, but because it will cause so much bloodshed this is a horrible precedent. The Russian Caucases provinces are the most obvious parallel, but from 80% of Africa to Kurdistan to the entire periphery of China this has potential to go poorly.

Well you read my paper...that's a plus. Keep in mind, it was 2003.

Now to specific points:

Russia certainly has a choice between accepting NATO expansion relatively quietly, and throwing a temper-tantrum. My POV (perhaps better articulated now) was that Russia would accept it relatively quietly after raising the requisite international objections. However, I believe I noted in the paper, and if not, I should have, that this was of course contingent on ethnic nationalism among great Russians remaining dormant, something which we have seen has not necessarily been the case.

I don't fundamentally misconstrue what NATO was or why it was formed. I am well aware of that. However in order to survive and remain relevent into the 21st century, with no dominant opponent to balance against, it is my fundamental belief that NATO will have to, of necessity transform itself into more of a political / preventitive / humanitarian organization. And it will do this, because organizations are organic. Nobody is going to say "well we have no need for NATO. Let's stop paying ourselves and acting important and go home."

You do have a point with regard to the economy as it relates to oligarchs. However I think you underweight history in your response there. Throughout history, the Russian people have shown a propensity to take suffering on the chin, but eventually they reach a breaking point. Whether this breaking point occurs through the democratic process, or whether we're going to see another coup / revolution who knows. In the short term (speaking as a historian) the oligarchs can maintain control over a resource-driven Russian economy, however in the long term the people will have their say.

In addition, the oligarchs need the developed markets as consumers for their resources in order to command the best prices.

Re: your 4th paragraph - I didn't realize that was one of my secondary claims, I must have missed that on rereading. I think it cuts both ways, but you are certainly right that the Eastern European countries desire for closer ties with Western Europe are a huge factor, and one that perhaps I did not give enough time to in the paper.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand my postion re: Russian borders. But in one paper that is certainly understandable. I have ALWAYS sounded the clarion-call that history has made the Russian people acutely aware of their border security, and that they also maintain the "illusion" (if you want to go that far) of being a great power when it comes to a sphere of influence over their borders. In every paper I've ever written on the subject I mention that.

What I was trying to posit was that Russia (acting in concert with NATO, at least in name) would welcome stability (in terms of a reduction of ethnic violence, etc.) in its border states. Now this is where it gets semantically tricky, and maybe I didn't do a good job explaining that 5 years ago. I don't think Russia will stand aside and say "hey...come on in and fix our border-states." Because as we've already mentioned they still see that as their "sphere of influence" and believe they have the capacity to control it. But once Russia is done making the requisite international objections and foot dragging, I believed (prior to the resurgence of nationalism which I did not foresee quite so soon - thought we had another 10 years or so at least) that some type of "joint operations" or "Russian-undertaken and NATO blessed/supported" operations were feasible.

NATO will work as a political structure. At least in some form. You're already essentially seeing it, as it's all US-operationally already (well, largely). It has to work as a political structure, because as I mentioned above, organizations are organic. Can you really foresee NATO withering away and dying? Somebody turning out the lights?

Russia's ruling class doesn't care now, I agree. I think they need to care perhaps a bit more than they do, for economic reasons. But as I mentioned, looking at it with a historian's view, in the long-term, it doesn't matter whether or not they care. Whether through renewed-socialism, or democracy, or an armed struggle (I can foresee another coup if it gets to that point, but not all-out civil war), the Russian people will be heard. Sometimes it takes them awhile, but they always are.

[Sgran]

I have a few opinions to express on this subject.
There is nothing inherently wrong with people arguing for nationhood. In fact, the most recent examples in Europe have been overwhelmingly successful. What's not to like in Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia and Montenegro? Slovakia, which all the "experts" ranted would rue the day they pulled away from the Czech Republic (which had all the heavy industry -- oh no!), enjoyed 14% GDP growth last year (compared to 1.8% in Germany, and .8% in Hungary). Yes, a great deal of energy will be spent arguing over whether Kurds should have their country, or Hungarians in Transylvania should be allowed to join Hungary. God forbid we actually discuss the fictional boundaries set up at Trianon. Or the arbitrary borders in Africa. Or address the pathetic state of minority groups in Europe like the Roma. Should every pocket of ethnic group have its own country? Certainly not. In fact, i think national boundaries based on ethnicity are one of the biggest mistakes in human history, but that's the way most countries are set up right now, so we might as well bring the arguments out into the open.
By the way, there won't be any bloodshed in Kosovo. Part of the reason the Kosovars are sold bold now is because the Serbs chose the more moderate political party in their last election and polls routinely showed that the people didn't really care about Kosovo so much. Tadic is moaning because he has to. Putin is rattling his sabre because it allows him to be angry during his next gas pipeline negotiations.
And about the earlier point about the people rising up against the Oligarchs: fat chance! Every indication is that the Russian people love Putin. I see them similar to the NASCAR voters in the southern US states: they would rather be proud than rich, and therefore back big-stick Republicans that protect their right to buy assault rifles over Democrats that offer whimpy things like medical care.
Boy that got off track. Feel free to lampoon me now while I try to regain my train of thought.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Russia certainly has a choice between accepting NATO expansion relatively quietly, and throwing a temper-tantrum. My POV (perhaps better articulated now) was that Russia would accept it relatively quietly after raising the requisite international objections. However, I believe I noted in the paper, and if not, I should have, that this was of course contingent on ethnic nationalism among great Russians remaining dormant, something which we have seen has not necessarily been the case.

The ethnic nationalism but is tricky. Certainly the 5 intervening years have changed that part of the equation.

I don't fundamentally misconstrue what NATO was or why it was formed. I am well aware of that. However in order to survive and remain relevent into the 21st century, with no dominant opponent to balance against, it is my fundamental belief that NATO will have to, of necessity transform itself into more of a political / preventitive / humanitarian organization. And it will do this, because organizations are organic. Nobody is going to say "well we have no need for NATO. Let's stop paying ourselves and acting important and go home."
...
NATO will work as a political structure. At least in some form. You're already essentially seeing it, as it's all US-operationally already (well, largely). It has to work as a political structure, because as I mentioned above, organizations are organic. Can you really foresee NATO withering away and dying? Somebody turning out the lights?

Fundamentally misconstrue was a little over the top I'll admit. You just have so much more faith that NATO can transform effectively than I. I don't see why NATO has to transform, rather than keeping NATO's mission narrow and creating different organizations and structures to address other problems. NATO has held together so effectively compared to almost any other international organization because it had a specific, necessary agenda to all the states survival. As NATO has tried to branch out, it has become increasingly difficult and strained the political unity. I don't believe that NATO will fold up, but I see it becoming, not irrelevant, but increasingly secondary to US interests. The focus will go more to the Pacific alliance and more of an ad hoc Anglosphere group.

I'm curious, since you put so much faith in the ability to change, do you have examples of international organizations being organic and transforming from the original mission without losing effectiveness?

You do have a point with regard to the economy as it relates to oligarchs. However I think you underweight history in your response there. Throughout history, the Russian people have shown a propensity to take suffering on the chin, but eventually they reach a breaking point. Whether this breaking point occurs through the democratic process, or whether we're going to see another coup / revolution who knows. In the short term (speaking as a historian) the oligarchs can maintain control over a resource-driven Russian economy, however in the long term the people will have their say.

In addition, the oligarchs need the developed markets as consumers for their resources in order to command the best prices.

Maybe this is where the difference between being a history major and a polisci one is most acute. You can say with a straight face that the "Russian people" rose up eventually and had their say after being exploited in the past. I look at the Soviet rule for 70 years and think that's a little more than short-term.

Also, the only problem with the oligarchs needing developed markets is that they aren't producing domestic goods - they're relying on natural gas and oil, and the rest of the world is the developed market there.

Re: your 4th paragraph - I didn't realize that was one of my secondary claims, I must have missed that on rereading. I think it cuts both ways, but you are certainly right that the Eastern European countries desire for closer ties with Western Europe are a huge factor, and one that perhaps I did not give enough time to in the paper.

I was going off P2 in your paper - "When it became apparent that the insecure situation in Eastern European posed a threat to NATO member countries, NATO took action. NATO moved to fill the vacuum through an aggressive program of expansion into lace>Eastern Europelace> with a stated goal of spreading democracy, and thus peace and security throughout lace>Eastern Europelace>. "

I think you fundamentally misunderstand my postion re: Russian borders. But in one paper that is certainly understandable. I have ALWAYS sounded the clarion-call that history has made the Russian people acutely aware of their border security, and that they also maintain the "illusion" (if you want to go that far) of being a great power when it comes to a sphere of influence over their borders. In every paper I've ever written on the subject I mention that.

What I was trying to posit was that Russia (acting in concert with NATO, at least in name) would welcome stability (in terms of a reduction of ethnic violence, etc.) in its border states. Now this is where it gets semantically tricky, and maybe I didn't do a good job explaining that 5 years ago. I don't think Russia will stand aside and say "hey...come on in and fix our border-states." Because as we've already mentioned they still see that as their "sphere of influence" and believe they have the capacity to control it. But once Russia is done making the requisite international objections and foot dragging, I believed (prior to the resurgence of nationalism which I did not foresee quite so soon - thought we had another 10 years or so at least) that some type of "joint operations" or "Russian-undertaken and NATO blessed/supported" operations were feasible.

This again is where it's much more easily disputable today than 5 years in the past.

Russia's ruling class doesn't care now, I agree. I think they need to care perhaps a bit more than they do, for economic reasons. But as I mentioned, looking at it with a historian's view, in the long-term, it doesn't matter whether or not they care. Whether through renewed-socialism, or democracy, or an armed struggle (I can foresee another coup if it gets to that point, but not all-out civil war), the Russian people will be heard. Sometimes it takes them awhile, but they always are.

Russia's ruling class is similar to African ones - it's not about helping the country, it's about getting your billions and moving to western europe. This attitude has bceome ingrained in the psyche of a lot of Russians - look at the organized crime coming out of there, it's unbelievable. Even if the people do rise up and take the government over again, the pride and belief in themselves as a great power is unsustainable given how poor the economy was and how much has been stolen from it. Also, the demographics bode very poorly for the long term.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Sgran

I have a few opinions to express on this subject.
There is nothing inherently wrong with people arguing for nationhood. In fact, the most recent examples in Europe have been overwhelmingly successful. What's not to like in Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia and Montenegro? Slovakia, which all the "experts" ranted would rue the day they pulled away from the Czech Republic (which had all the heavy industry -- oh no!), enjoyed 14% GDP growth last year (compared to 1.8% in Germany, and .8% in Hungary). Yes, a great deal of energy will be spent arguing over whether Kurds should have their country, or Hungarians in Transylvania should be allowed to join Hungary. God forbid we actually discuss the fictional boundaries set up at Trianon. Or the arbitrary borders in Africa. Or address the pathetic state of minority groups in Europe like the Roma. Should every pocket of ethnic group have its own country? Certainly not. In fact, i think national boundaries based on ethnicity are one of the biggest mistakes in human history, but that's the way most countries are set up right now, so we might as well bring the arguments out into the open.

I'm all for it theoretically, but it's going to devolve into ridiculous amounts of bloodshed. You'll have increased numbers of ethnic minorities trying to provoke a reaction from the majority so they can claim ethnic cleansing and get their own state. You'll have violence and displacement along fault lines so that if a state gets split, each side can try to get more. And it doesn't take a plurality, just a few dedicated power-hungry individuals these days.

By the way, there won't be any bloodshed in Kosovo. Part of the reason the Kosovars are so bold now is because the Serbs chose the more moderate political party in their last election and polls routinely showed that the people didn't really care about Kosovo so much. Tadic is moaning because he has to. Putin is rattling his sabre because it allows him to be angry during his next gas pipeline negotiations.

While Serbia or Russia isn't going to attack them militarily, saying there won't be any bloodshed is a bit too nice. You've got walls and troops dividing ethnic Serbs in Kosovo from the albanian Kosovars, with no end game in sight.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Yes successfully. Like Clinton or not, the international community at large recognizes that NATO intervention in the Balkans in the 90's was almost universally considered to be a strong positive

Yep, and even guys like Bob Dole and GWB were complimentary of the Clinton administration's actions.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Yep, and even guys like Bob Dole and GWB were complimentary of the Clinton administration's actions.

Of course, if anyone points out that compared to Iraq, there are more troops per capita stationed there, significant casualties per capita and it's taking/took much longer for any political progress to be made, does that make the intervention look any worse? Or Iraq a little less bad?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Sgran

I have a few opinions to express on this subject.
There is nothing inherently wrong with people arguing for nationhood. In fact, the most recent examples in Europe have been overwhelmingly successful. What's not to like in Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia and Montenegro? Slovakia, which all the "experts" ranted would rue the day they pulled away from the Czech Republic (which had all the heavy industry -- oh no!), enjoyed 14% GDP growth last year (compared to 1.8% in Germany, and .8% in Hungary). Yes, a great deal of energy will be spent arguing over whether Kurds should have their country, or Hungarians in Transylvania should be allowed to join Hungary. God forbid we actually discuss the fictional boundaries set up at Trianon. Or the arbitrary borders in Africa. Or address the pathetic state of minority groups in Europe like the Roma. Should every pocket of ethnic group have its own country? Certainly not. In fact, i think national boundaries based on ethnicity are one of the biggest mistakes in human history, but that's the way most countries are set up right now, so we might as well bring the arguments out into the open.
By the way, there won't be any bloodshed in Kosovo. Part of the reason the Kosovars are sold bold now is because the Serbs chose the more moderate political party in their last election and polls routinely showed that the people didn't really care about Kosovo so much. Tadic is moaning because he has to. Putin is rattling his sabre because it allows him to be angry during his next gas pipeline negotiations.
And about the earlier point about the people rising up against the Oligarchs: fat chance! Every indication is that the Russian people love Putin. I see them similar to the NASCAR voters in the southern US states: they would rather be proud than rich, and therefore back big-stick Republicans that protect their right to buy assault rifles over Democrats that offer whimpy things like medical care.
Boy that got off track. Feel free to lampoon me now while I try to regain my train of thought.

The Prime Minister of Kosovo is a former leader of the KLA, which was tied to Al-Qaeda before most of the world knew who Al-Qaeda was. The KLA has also been financed by trafficing drugs and arms throughout the Balkans and several former members are now in political positions for the new goverment. This is a government we're backing a pledging aid to.

There's far too much of a history of violence in the Balkans, and specifically Kosovo, to be confident that there won't be bloodshed. Both the Kosovar-Serbs and Albs are constantly looking for a way to provoke the other or something to be pissed off about.

Today two UN police border crossings were burned and blown up by explosives by Serbs and KFor was forced to pull out of another because they were afraid of escalating the riots and didn't have the manpower to deal with the Serbs that were there. In Kosovska Mitrovica 3 bombs have been detonated, a UN car burned, and grenades thrown into abandoned Alb houses in the past 24 hours. They are trying to provoke the Albs and all it takes is one person to get killed for things to turn ugly, that was proven in March of '04.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

The ethnic nationalism but is tricky. Certainly the 5 intervening years have changed that part of the equation.Fundamentally misconstrue was a little over the top I'll admit. You just have so much more faith that NATO can transform effectively than I. I don't see why NATO has to transform, rather than keeping NATO's mission narrow and creating different organizations and structures to address other problems. NATO has held together so effectively compared to almost any other international organization because it had a specific, necessary agenda to all the states survival. As NATO has tried to branch out, it has become increasingly difficult and strained the political unity. I don't believe that NATO will fold up, but I see it becoming, not irrelevant, but increasingly secondary to US interests. The focus will go more to the Pacific alliance and more of an ad hoc Anglosphere group.

I'm curious, since you put so much faith in the ability to change, do you have examples of international organizations being organic and transforming from the original mission without losing effectiveness?

Off the top of my head I can't think of any at the moment. I wouldn't say there's anything on the scope of NATO, but I'm sure there have been others that are smaller. It's less of a NATO-specific thing and more of a sociological observation I guess. That nobody wants to be rendered irrelevent and have their job wiped out.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Maybe this is where the difference between being a history major and a polisci one is most acute. You can say with a straight face that the "Russian people" rose up eventually and had their say after being exploited in the past. I look at the Soviet rule for 70 years and think that's a little more than short-term.

Very true. This is quite the difference. I think in much longer cycles.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Also, the only problem with the oligarchs needing developed markets is that they aren't producing domestic goods - they're relying on natural gas and oil, and the rest of the world is the developed market there.

I wasn't clear. That was my point too. That the Russian oligarchs need the developed markets in the rest of the world in order to maximize their profits.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Off the top of my head I can't think of any at the moment. I wouldn't say there's anything on the scope of NATO, but I'm sure there have been others that are smaller. It's less of a NATO-specific thing and more of a sociological observation I guess. That nobody wants to be rendered irrelevent and have their job wiped out.

True, which is why is will never be disbanded. It will just get less attention, be funded less, and be less important.

I wasn't clear. That was my point too. That the Russian oligarchs need the developed markets in the rest of the world in order to maximize their profits.

Again, there are few if any examples of the world actually stepping up against tyrants like this. Iraq would be the best example, but even there is took a UN war and was still a complete sieve (with some of the same Russians benefiting - Putin's name was on that list.) Look at how much they dick around the Ukraine, but those countries simply have no choice. On a larger level, since it's a worldwide trade, even if the US and EU cut them off, Exxon/Mobil etc would raise prices a little bit for us due to the lesser competition and then Gazprom could sell to the Chinese and Indians at the same rate as before, slightly undercutting companies selling to the west.

Originally Posted by Atocep

The Prime Minister of Kosovo is a former leader of the KLA, which was tied to Al-Qaeda before most of the world knew who Al-Qaeda was. The KLA has also been financed by trafficing drugs and arms throughout the Balkans and several former members are now in political positions for the new goverment. This is a government we're backing a pledging aid to.

I was kicking myself at the gym for not mentioning the terrorists who got training there before.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

On a larger level, since it's a worldwide trade, even if the US and EU cut them off, Exxon/Mobil etc would raise prices a little bit for us due to the lesser competition and then Gazprom could sell to the Chinese and Indians at the same rate as before, slightly undercutting companies selling to the west.

I agree with this. The growth in the Russian economy is driven by wealth from oil and gas revenues. Due to a continuing shift in fossil fuel demand towards the developing world, Russia, in effect, does not need the west as much as it did 5 years ago as a market for its resources.

As long as the price of oil remains high, Russia also will have more to spend its own infrastructure and will have a little more leeway to do this without aid from the west.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Sgran

By the way, there won't be any bloodshed in Kosovo. Part of the reason the Kosovars are sold bold now is because the Serbs chose the more moderate political party in their last election and polls routinely showed that the people didn't really care about Kosovo so much. Tadic is moaning because he has to. Putin is rattling his sabre because it allows him to be angry during his next gas pipeline negotiations.

I meant to touch on this more the other day, but didn't. In light of today's events, though, I think there's a couple of important things to mention.

Tadic is definitely very moderate and pro-western. However, the Serb Prime minister is Kostunica (former political ally of Karadzic), who has tried to align himself with the west the past few years because he thought it would give Serbia a good chance to keep Kosovo. It obviously hasn't worked out and the chances of him using this to make a move for power are very high.

During the protests and rioting around the US Embassy in Belgrade today he spoke to the rioters and said " "As long as we live, Kosovo is Serbia. We're not alone in our fight. President Putin is with us."

Eerily similar to how Milosevic took advantage of Serb nationalism and used his staged event at Kosovo Polje in '87 to gain power. Now that things didn't work out the way Kostunica wanted, he'll be someone to keep an eye on as he's a dangerous man that appeals to both nationalists and moderates.

I covered the balkans for 8 years and Serbia/Kosovo was my focus. I can't fathom the Serb people being ok with losing Kosovo (I'd be interested to see polling data saying otherwise). When speaking to Serbs is very clear that Kosovo is seen as holy ground in their eyes because of its religious and historical importance. Kosovo Polje alone is a site I can't see the Serbs simply giving up, especially to the Albs.

[Sgran]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I meant to touch on this more the other day, but didn't. In light of today's events, though, I think there's a couple of important things to mention.

Tadic is definitely very moderate and pro-western. However, the Serb Prime minister is Kostunica (former political ally of Karadzic), who has tried to align himself with the west the past few years because he thought it would give Serbia a good chance to keep Kosovo. It obviously hasn't worked out and the chances of him using this to make a move for power are very high.

During the protests and rioting around the US Embassy in Belgrade today he spoke to the rioters and said " "As long as we live, Kosovo is Serbia. We're not alone in our fight. President Putin is with us."

Eerily similar to how Milosevic took advantage of Serb nationalism and used his staged event at Kosovo Polje in '87 to gain power. Now that things didn't work out the way Kostunica wanted, he'll be someone to keep an eye on as he's a dangerous man that appeals to both nationalists and moderates.

I covered the balkans for 8 years and Serbia/Kosovo was my focus. I can't fathom the Serb people being ok with losing Kosovo (I'd be interested to see polling data saying otherwise). When speaking to Serbs is very clear that Kosovo is seen as holy ground in their eyes because of its religious and historical importance. Kosovo Polje alone is a site I can't see the Serbs simply giving up, especially to the Albs.

These are good points, and I was too categorical when i said "no" bloodshed. But all in all, I just don't see most Serbs as wanting to get caught up in another war, especially given how they've really been labelled the villians in the whole Yugoslav war. I can understand how you would have heard a lot of grumbling (for lack of a better term) about losing the Serb holy land, but I am willing to bet there is a large part of the population that just wants to get on with their lives.

Here in Hungary there is a very vocal minority that wants to take back Transylvania from Romania. It's a matter of pride and most people shrug it off because there is no advantage to saying you're against reclaiming Hungary's pre-Trianon borders, but would they really lay down their lives for it? I doubt it. And I doubt most Serbs want to get bombed again or cement their image as Balkan bullies.

What does bother me, however, is the Bush administration stoking up another cold war. CNN just had some Bush lacky on who was urging America's European allies (who not that long ago were utter cowards for not going along with the Iraq invasion) to cut their dependence on Russian natural gas. This clearly anti-Russia move, coupled with the push for Kosovo independence suggests to me that Bush is hoping Russia will intervene in Kosovo. Why on Earth he would want that is unclear to me, but it sure looks like provocation. I hope I'm wrong.

Edit to add: the figures I saw about a month ago, just prior to the first round of Serbian elections, said that Kosovo was only the fourth or fifth most important issue to Serbs, far behind the economy.

[Atocep]

IMO (and this is just my opinion as I haven't followed Russia all that closely since the late 90's), Russia isn't all that concerned about Kosovo and is instead trying to set themselves to obtain some long term goals. They have been wanting to build a military base in Serbia and if they want that to happen they need to back Serbia on Kosovo. Some of it is probably posturing by Putin to make sure Russia remains relevent in world affairs as well. In the end, Kosovo just isn't worth doing much more than some political posturing for Putin, though.

The biggest danger here is the stability of the Balkans as a whole. Republika Srpska is already positioning themselves to secede from Bosnia and the Bosnian Croats in Mostar and Western Herzogovina could very well end up following suit. If that were to happen we could very well end up with a smaller scale version of the events in '91.

For me, the problem is that the KLA is exactly the type of organization we're fighting against in Iraq and we're pledging $330 million in aid to a country headed by their former leader and a political group with former KLA members scattered throughout.

As I said above, I don't think there was a right answer here, but I am 100% against backing Kosovo's independence as long as someone like Thaci is running things.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

from that article

"Moscow is convinced that it holds the moral high ground and will live to see yet another Western 'blunder' on par with Iraq," said Oksana Antonenko, a Russia expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank.
"If violence returns to Kosovo, Russia and the West will blame each other, worsening general relations," Atonenko warned. The world is watching to see whether "Kosovo will be an exception — that independence will bring stability and rule of law, not chaos and insecurity," she said.
Russia is a traditional ally of Serbia. But that is not the only reason it vehemently opposes Kosovo's independence. The Kremlin contends it will set a dangerous precedent for secessionist movements across the former Soviet Union, including Chechnya and Georgia.

Russia and the U.S. already are at odds over Washington's plans to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The U.S. says the interceptor rockets are designed to counter a threat from the Middle East, but the Kremlin contends the real purpose is to weaken Russia.
The U.S., meanwhile, is rankled at recent rhetoric from President Vladimir Putin suggesting that Russia could aim nuclear missiles at Ukraine if the former Soviet republic joins NATO.
the bold is what's really pissing them off.

That article quote is screwed up. Independance movements in places like Abkhazia has brought order and stability. Frankly, considering Abkhazia has been relatively peaceful (compared to many indepedanct movements) I fully support their indepedence. And look, Abkhazia was formerly Soviet, so it counts in the discussion!

Of course, I'm not sure many reporters or even FOFC people could point to Abkhazia on a map, so there you go.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

That article quote is screwed up. Independance movements in places like Abkhazia has brought order and stability. Frankly, considering Abkhazia has been relatively peaceful (compared to many indepedanct movements) I fully support their indepedence. And look, Abkhazia was formerly Soviet, so it counts in the discussion!

Of course, I'm not sure many reporters or even FOFC people could point to Abkhazia on a map, so there you go.

Note this is in response to the quote about independant movements not leading to stability.

Sometimes, this isn;t the fault of those seeking independence. When East Timor voted for independence, it is beleived that elements of the Indonesian army, despite the vote and their President, funded and acted against the new state.

I think its hilarious that a London based think tank made that claim, when there are numerous classic examples from Britain's own history of parts of their empire getting independance and then being very stable. From Canada to Brunei, there are tons of stable independent states out there that were once under the British crown.