Confusion over Kosovo

Kosovo is quickly becoming the land everyone wants, but no one can produce a bill of sale. Each side claims to have authority to exert sovereignty over the whole land, but realities on the ground constantly remind them of their fanciful dreams. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the only one with a realistic idea of Kosovo is Slobodan Samaradzic with his "functional separation" plan. Here, he's basically saying to EULEX "you want the Albanians? Take'em. But we're taking care of our Serb brethren. Draw a line and let's call it a day."

The weeks and months ahead will continue to be a headache for Feith, Thaci, and the rest of the League of Super Friends in Pristina as they see increasingly Serb activity in the north and the enclaves, but with little solutions to counteract. Voting stations will be set up in Kosovo, and most likely the SRS will sweep. Those that won elections in May 11 will then seek to establish themselves as the rightful and elected representatives of the K Serb communities, and will create even further ties with Belgrade. Yes, Thaci and his sipahi from Brussels will complain, and probably try to nullify the results, but then Belgrade can easily turn around and say "Hey, I thought Kosovo was supposed to be a democracy! Now the EU is nullifying votes and suppressing the people's will?" --> Bad publicity stunt if you ask me, and it will make the courthouse storming seem like a teaparty in comparison.

The bottom line is this: full sovereingty over Kosovo cannot and will not be enforced unless force itself is used. If Sipahi Feith gives the order for KFOR to crack down on the Serb enclaves, all ideas for any stability in the region are irrevocably lost. Those hardlines that Montgomery mentions: Feith, Ruecker, Holbrook, etc., have deliberately designed post Feb 17 Kosovo to look like this. Their pig-headed approaches have ruled out any compromise with Belgrade and have simply reified the sentiments and warnings coming from the nationalist circles. And while the enclaves MAY be persuaded to cooperate due to geographical location, the north is, for all intents and purposes, lost.

Those EUrocrats that are looking for a more pragmatic approach, coupled with a renewed desire to see Serbia within the EU, may now begin to exert pressure for a more compromised solution over Kosovo. If it means keeping the territory whole, it may certainly lead to the calling of Kosovo's Daytonization, which I still think is the optimal solution.

But then again, I really don't think the witch-doctors primarily responsible for the creation of this zombie-state were really interested in compromise in the first place: instability leads to constant external supervision and intervention. It's a great strategy Washington has been using now for decades.

I have no sympathy for those now trying to sell this lemon of a country. They need to sleep in the bed they deliberately and knowlingly made. And if they were truly caught off guard by Serbia's expected resilience, they need to be sacked and replaced for their utter stupidity and arrogance.

I have really had enough of Kosovo and Serbia and the EU, NATO UN and USA. We are Serbian! period we are not American or English or Russian. We as Serbs need to drop everything we have and go back to Serbia. We need to quit not caring and drop going to MacDonalds and Walmart and watching TV. We Serbs need to pilgram our way to Serbia we need to walk as a group of 10,000,000 to Kosovo and take our land back! I know what I am talking about but many of you reading this don't thats why you will respond with critics. Kosovo is Serbia and all us Serbs around the world who really don't care and thats almost all of us outside of Serbia need to wake up. Need to wake up and let the world know our home is our heart and no one can have it. Forget the EU forget Russia like I always say "Srbima netreba EU, Srbima treba Srbija"! Us Serbs might as well convert to Islam if we keep letting people take our land away we will be left with only Belgrade, and believe me thats what will happen if Serbs are not united and right now we are not!

Incredible, Mr Montgomery fails to comment on and even omitted his fellow countrymen's (Mr Bush and Co.) involvement in this whole mess and how their blind and misguided foreign policies and dreams of expansionism have led to this situation.
Yes, culpability also lies with the international organisations on the ground, who have wrongly developed allegiances and now at odds with themselves and no longer committed to their remit. Their only saviour is the western press who divert the truth by still continuing to blame Serbia for all the ills of the world.

Over the last nine years Mr Montgomery points to the Albanians, as being wise and sitting on the sidelines. I really think that it is not as simple as he puts it. In fact the truth would be that the albanian side have the most to lose in this, throughout this time regardless of the words of reconcilation as he puts it, The Albanians under thaci continue to systematically keep (with the exception of northern Kosovo) all the non albanian enclaves in check through a well organised campaign of fear and more recently (shooting in Mitrovica), its been clear that they are quite prepared to bear arms again. Far from sitting on the sidelines, much more sinister, waiting in the shadows!!!

Kosovo will not remain as it is now, It is only the promises made by the US that keep them at this time from all out conflict but how long will this last when the promises don’t meet their expectations? As for adding fuel to fire of nationalism, well it would be naïve of Mr Montgomery to place the responsibility of this on either the Serbian or Albanian doorstep you need to look further west for the stoker of this fire.

"Those who were pushing hardest for Kosovo independence in the US and EU saw it as the "end of the story, the goal."... How naive!

is Montgomery paying B92 to publish his propaganda-letters...?

or is B92 paying for that sort of "information"?

anyway, quite irrelevant what he has to say.

Montgomery despite the realism now finally sinking in that the US and its 'few' EU war dogs and poodles set about to create ever greater instability while deveiving that this was now settled and would bring stability you still continue to fail to fully comprehend the self indoctrinated deceit that you are so oveerwhelmed by and thus will fail to ever comprehend the way out of your self created mess.

The 2 lines that shows your clear deceit and continual denial;

"Deciding how to react to a provocation, such as the occupation of the courthouse in Northern Mitrovica"

"The courthouse protest .... was based on a legitimate grievance of the Kosovo Serb community: so many of them have been prevented from returning to their pre-war jobs."

Continue to view that Serbs in Serbia sitting in their courthouse as an "occupation" and you will continue to fail in comprehending the consequences of the ill-principled and illegal acts set by the US and their war dogs in dictating their imperialism to the world not just to the Serbs.

The instability will just continue to get gereater and greater until some realise their mistakes and correct them fully. All this is predictable but you write as if it was not so! Suggest you prepare for the unpredictable that you have not even considered yet from such ill-thought illegality!

- Oh what a tangled web we weave....

Once again Monty bestows us with his wonderful imagination.

If you read carefully, Monty always directs the issue of blame towards the Serbs. But in general the Serbian government is to blame for all the obstacles and difficulties which hinder all progress within the province of Kosovo as Monty would have us believe. Monty you choose your words carefully.

I do enjoy reading your fantasy articles.

All the best in your Absolute Menifesto mission!!!

The Kosovo project orchestrated by the evil forces has failed. When the next Balkan conflict begins - look back at the events leading to the illegal servering of historic territory of an independent and soveregin nation for your answers to the question of - "Why?."

Not irrelevant at all Jovan!

I thought it was quite a good article. And it put a small glimpse on what the US and EU should be $itting bricks about in the not so distant future.

What are the Kosovo Albanians going to do once the excitement of independence wears off, no more countries recognize Kosovo anymore, and they wind up in this strange limbo state? More importantly, what are they going to start to do to the Serbians that live in Kosovo?

Will we have more of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkgHkxIfgBc

I am against the recognition of Kosovo and the constant demonising of the Serbs. If the western press were unbiased in their reporting and gave a balanced view this would help- not aggrevate the situation. Kosovo's best offer was extensive automony within Serbia- the Albanians are now at the mercy of terrorists and 'ex' KLA members and will find that America does not have 'friends/equals' in the countries they occupy- they have minions! The Albanians will never have 'democracy'. The USA's love affair with the Albanians will be dropped like a hot potato if it goes against their economic and millitary interests- we still have to see how far Russia will go. What a mess!!!I'm sure many Iraqies are not happy with America's 'help' and 'democracy'!!!

Answer to the question of Why? Lies on the map of the locations of American bases around the world in relation to Russia and China, feel free to look it up. Also show of power ex: do anything without UN's approval like bombing independent nations around the world and go unchalenged doing so gives some great authority.

Kosova will be Serbian in 500 years? Will Serbia last that long?

I will not comment much on Montgomery's artcle itself this time. I will rather comment on comment No. 13 by Maks. Few things from the article need to be noticed, however.

"As much as two years ago, the Western nations informally planned for a phase-out of UNMIK and its replacement by a EU Mission. This was common knowledge in UN circles and as a result, many of the best personnel in UNMIK moved on to other jobs.

Those plans all fell apart when Serbia and Russia fiercely resisted the EULEX Mission and simultaneously began to "appreciate" UNMIK. In fact, it became impossible to get rid of UNMIK, as a UN Security Council Resolution doing so was impossible to pass due to a certain Russian veto. "

Thank you for confirming something we all knew all too well. UNMIK guys pretended that they are working under resolution 1244 while they were playing by tunes of what "Western nations informally planned for" since the beginning. In the last two years what they "informally planned for" was UNMIK's replacement by EU Mission.
And all the actors played well their roles, Ahtisaari was there pretending to search for a solution (that was already informally planned by Western nations, no doubt)et cetera.
All that was needed was some sort of UN approval to put a legal face to a violation of numorous international treaties such as the Helsinki Final Act, the Montevideo Convention and the United Nations Charter. Why not? It worked with Badinter, didn't it?
Alas, these are not 90's and US will is having a hard times pushing its will through the UN.
Sure, it would be much easier if UN approved Ahtisaari Plan, as it did Badinter's finding. Or transfer of power to EU mission that still wants to implement the plan that was never authorized by UN.
No wonder "the EU is scratching its collective head, trying to figure out how to weave through the legalities of operating in Kosovo and what the EULEX Mission will actually be able to do."
There are no legalities to weave through this time. Not even a tiniest ones.

"The first is to take a hard line that Kosovo is an independent country within its current boundaries and that any efforts to undercut that independence via parallel structures, etc need to be firmly resisted. "

If we only see those guys were there back in 90's to "take a hard line" that Serbia is is an independent country within its current boundaries and that any efforts to undercut that independence via parallel structures, etc need to be firmly resisted. "

Parallel structures were fine then, I guess.

As for Albanians.
"But they have done so, based in very large part on the assurances from people such as Rucker and Feith that the International Community would use its full force to enforce the sovereignty of the new State of Kosovo throughout its territory; would stop the operations of parallel institutions; and would prevent any sort of partition."

Oh, if only could have Serbia had support of those guys to "enforce the sovereignty throughout its territory", and have them "stop the operations of parallel institutions; and prevent any sort of partition."
Today we would not be in this mess.
But, I wouldn't comment any more on the article itself. There are lots of good comments, including foreigners.
Mike your comments are always good and I'm glad to see Wim ( Wim Roffel, I presume) back. If only Walters would start writting again too...
Now, Maks...

"And if someone wants to go that far to leave Serbia with Beograd only I want to ask a question: Wasn’t the Serbia borders in 10th century just around Beograd only? So, even that wouldn’t be injustice, just going back at time where you belong."

You are probably Albanian, from some place in Kosovo with Serbian name. Uroshevac maybe ( Uroševac, Урошевац )founded and named after Serbia king Urosh the Weak ( Uroš , Урош ) ? Just think about the names in Kosovo. But I want to write few words about thesis that is comming out often from the Albanians side.
"Kosovo is a case now because of 1913 injustice."
This is exactly what UN Charter, Helsinki Final Act, etc. were there to prevent. Even if we say that Serbs had no right to Kosovo and that injustice was done, it's not suppose to be a case now.
Do you think that all other borders were justly drawn? What would you say about Texas then? It was injustly taken from existing state of Mexico (while Kosovo was never part of Albanians state). Should that be a case now? Should there be TLA (Texas Liberation Army) killing the US police officers and non-spanish speaking population alike (and even spanish-speaking population that is "collaborating" with US government, being government employees of say, US Mail) ?
Or do you think that Texas should remain within USA, regardless of how it bacame part of it? It's USA today, and minorities don't have right of self-determination.
You have to stop lookin at just Albanians, and see the greater picture.
Just few days ago NATO summit in Romania ended. Despite of strong US backing for their bid two ex-Soviet republics, Ukraine and Georgia, were not offered the chance to join a program that would have put them on the track to join the military alliance, but promised that the decision would be reviewed in December. EU countries were uneasy about them joining NATO. Why?
Situation in Ukraine is very complicated. Country is almost evenly split not only on this issue but on the others as well, between western Ukrainian-speaking part, and Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine. Forging closer ties with the West would almost inevitably lead to further division and allienation of eastern part of the country that is seeking closer ties with Russia.
Consider this.
The Crimea, now an autonomous region within Ukraine, is a predominantly Russian-speaking territory. Since the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union, the Crimea has unsuccessfully sought independence from Ukraine. A 1994 referendum in the Crimea supported demands for a broader autonomy and closer links with Russia.
But, did they end up in Ukraine by some sort of injustice?
Of course. Authoritarian Soviet leader were doing whatever they wanted. Former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who grew up in Ukraine, made the Crimean Peninsula part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954. The peninsula had formerly been a part of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic.
Nikita Khrushchev just gave part of Russia to Ukraine, a gift to his people. And it wasn't a first time a Soviet leader gave something away like that. Stallin (who was Georgian, not Russian) gave South Ossetia to his Georgians with the stroke of the pen.
Injustice, no doubt, but should it matter? Not at all. During the break-up of Soviet Union the fact that was taken into account was that unlike Yugoslavian constitution where souvereignty was with the constituing nations, Soviet constitution was based on souvereignty of the Soviet Socialist Republics. Soviet Union fell apart, and legally - situation is clear, Russians in Ukraine are minority, just as Ukrainians in Russia are. Minority, no right of self-determination. No right of seccession.
Same goes with Ossetians, majority of whom live in North Ossetia in Russia. Russia is their country. In Georgia they are minority and are entitled to minority rights. Period. Weather they bacame part of Georgia justly or injustly, doesn't matter. Or at least it shouldn't matter. But, it does now. International treaties and laws that were used to regulate international relationships for the second half of 20th century are proving to be obsolete and abandoned in 21st century.
One of the new practices established just this year is for some countries to recognize parts of other countries as independent countries (while others and UN don't) and to establish billateral relationship with newly recognize countries by sending them weapons like US did with Kosovo recently (for details see last Montgomery's article "It's only logical..").
It's not happening yet, but don't you think, Maks, that others would want to "right" injustices done to them, or you think that only Albanians are entitled to that?
Imagine the following scenario.
Eastern Ukraine decides to right the wrongs done to them, and unilaterally declares independence. This country is recognized by few others (like Russia) while it isn't by the West that continues to consider Easter Ukraine as integral part of Ukraine. Russia establishes billateral relationship with country that it recognizes. Thos relationships were best established by sending them weapons (It's only logical). They could even send them some Russian mission to carry out some plan of supervised independence that was rejected by UN due to Western objections. (perhaps mission could be called RULEX or something). They could even enter into military alliance with newly created country.
Thus, every attemp made by Ukrainian authorities to establish its souvereignty over its territory, would be considered aggression against independent (in their view) country of Eastern Ukraine. Furthermore, as a military ally of a new country, they would be obliged to defend it militarilly.
On the other side, presence of Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine would be inevitably seen in the West as Russian aggression against Ukraine (as they would see eastern Ukraine as integral part of the country). In case of Ukraine's NATO membership they would then be obliged to defend Ukraine against the Russian agression... I don't dare continue thinking along those lines.
Luckily for all of us, Russian leadership appears to be sober (unlike Yeltzin) and is thus far discouraging separatist movements in those parts. We can only wish that their western counterparts are just as sober.
But, let's get back to the Balkans.
I know that Albanian view is that this was injustice, and they spent most of the 20th century in rejection of the state they ended up in, and trying to "right the wrong" on several occasion by becoming an ally of whatever force came along with their own interests. And powers loved them. They always try to relly on local ally, or proxy force, and they put them in priviledged position, etc. " Divede and conquer " is not a new idea. But, you have to be aware that Great Powers are in it for their own interests, not for yours.
Montgomery ends article with omnious warning.
"All that we can be sure of is that regardless of who wins the May 11 elections in Serbia, the conflict in Kosovo will be played out over years and that for all of this time, the region will not be fully stabile and the fires of nationalism will consistently be given more fuel."
Sure, scores of Western leaders verbally want stability, etc. But, their actions create more instability. Is it because "their utter stupidity and arrogance." as Mike pointed out? I doubt it.
Instability makes them needed. Makes them in control and ones making all the decisions. With lasting peace and friendly relationship between Serbs and Albanians, who would need the largest US base in Europe? And unlike in other places, where they have to pay suitcases of money to the host, Kosovo will never be given a cent for it, you can rest assured.
But, how can a lasting peace be achieved?
Reliance on foreign powers to achieve ones goals or get whatever you can is not a good policy. Look back for centuries, 20th century at least. Powers come and go, Serbs and Albanians are still here. The only chance for a lasting peace and friendly relationship comes from fair and good agreement between Serbs and Albanians, not on the reliance on foreign powers to enforce injust and unfair agreements.
So, you spent much of 20th century trying to reverse the injustice done to you. But, even if we say that Kosovo really IS a country and if it is recognized by UN it would only mean that you will have a minority in Kosovo that is much like you were in Serbia and Yugoslavia. I don't know if it will continue for 500 years as Montgomery siad, but you can rest assured that they will reject Kosovo for another century. By all means, inluding establishment of parallel sturctures, etc. They have you for a teacher. I have no doubt that they would be labelled "terrorists" should they resort to some NKLA (North Kosovo Liberation Army) should their Rugova-like peaceful resistance fail to bring desired results. But, they could wait for opportune historical moment and ally themselves with some foreign power like Russia, China or who knows -West could have change of heart. Wasn't it Sir Winston Churchill who brushed critisizam of British betrayal of "traditional ally" in Asia, and start of support for opposing faction with words: "We don't have constant friends, only constant interests."
No, Maks. They way out if all this is in fair solution and agreement.
Albanians like to think that great injustice have been done to them in 1912. Parts of their people ended up in other countries (like Serbia, Greece, etc.) something that Albanians considered borders drawn between them. They consider themselves right to fight for overthrow of foreign rule (in their view) and for unified Albanian nation. I don't want to use term Greater Albania.
But, okey. I can understand your point of view. And I can understand your desire to be united.
Why is it then so hard for you to understand mine? Why is it so hard to understand desire of Serbs in Northern Kosovo to be united with their brethen and to overthrow a foreign Pristina rule (in their view)? Or Sarajevo rule? Or Zagreb rule? Why do you think that Serbians should enjoy having part of their people ending up in other countries (like Bosnia, or Kosovo) and having borders drawn between them?
Let's not even talk about secession. But, Serbs are required to trust Tudjman, Izetbegovic and Tachi. As Wim said "The problem with the "Ahtisaari plan" is that it supposes that Serbs cannot be trusted to rule Albanians while Albanians can be trusted to rule Serbs."
Look at your Kosovo , Maks, and say honestly if they should trust it.
"This went so far that anything above local autonomy for Kosovo's Serbs was rejected in this plan. Unlogically the main argument was that more autonomy might anger the Albanians and lead them to mistreat Kosovo's Serbs. "

Absolutelly right. In your view Croats, Muslims and Albanians were all terribly mistreated in Yugoslavia (where Albanians enjoyed wide autonomy, while Croatia and Bosnia had most competences of any independent state.) but Serbs were all required to accept not only to be separated into different states but the unitary ones at that.
You read B92 obviously. Here is a link.
http://xs4.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=02&nav_id=48105
Title tells it all.
"No autonomy, canton for Serbs in north"

Until you realise that you are not the only one that wants something, we will not have an agreement. Until you realise that what you consider to be injustice when done to you, is also an injustice when done to someone else, we will not have an agreement.
I'm sure that should Northern Kosovo ever declare independence, everyone in the West would start screaming about Greater Serbia (I avoided the term Greater Albanian on purpose above). Do you really think that you will profit by reflecting their views? I know that many of the western politicians ceirtanly would like to see Serbia left with only Belgrade. To them question "How small should Serbia become not to be called Greater?" is a stupid question, it's never small enough.
I understand them, as that's what makes them "needed". I don't understand you and your position on such views.
"So, even that wouldn’t be injustice, just going back at time where you belong." you said.
Maks, your ideas of justice and injustice are very, very strange.

"The elections truly will point Serbia in one of two very different directions"
Really? It seems to me unlikely that either Tadic and his allies or the Radicals will get an absolute majority. That will mean that there is the need for a coalition. Which coalition will depend to a large extent on Western diplomats to whom Tadic tends to listen - probably more than is good for him. I found the confrontational course that led to the early elections not very smart.

"The Serbian public is united and energized in a common view of how Kosovo was illegally and unjustly taken from it. Five hundred years from now, this will still be the Serbian view."
The US and the EU are pursuing the same policy in Kosovo as they did 17 years ago in Croatia. Then as now ethnic cleansing is the inevitable outcome. Milosevic made a mess of the situation so that US propaganda could claim that it was the fault of the Serbs. Kostunica has handled the situation better and now it has become hard for US propaganda to claim that their course is right.
The problem with the "Ahtisaari plan" is that it supposes that Serbs cannot be trusted to rule Albanians while Albanians can be trusted to rule Serbs. This went so far that anything above local autonomy for Kosovo's Serbs was rejected in this plan. Unlogically the main argument was that more autonomy might anger the Albanians and lead them to mistreat Kosovo's Serbs.
To name just one aspect where the plan doesn't work: education. The plan gives the Albanians control over the Serb curriculum (Bosnia had a better solution) and does not take into account that many Serbs will have to go to Serbia for specific types of education. It simply makes sense to partially integrate the eduction of Kosovo's Serbs with that in Serbia.

"the hard line. Based on their public statements, this seems to be the view of both Pieter Feith[] and Joachim Rucker"
Since Haekkerup's departure in 2002 it has been an informal selection criteria for international representatives in Kosovo that they should be enough pro-Albanian and "respect the will of the Albanian people". A good argument not to place too much trust in those people when it comes to neutrality.
The hard line is based on a misperception about how to solve ethnic conflicts. Such conflicts are always solved by reaching some balance of power. By supporting one side too much you make a conflict unsolvable.

In my opinion there are four scenarios to handle Kosovo:
- the hard line, that will inevitably end in an ethnically cleansed Kosovo. That will remembered for a very long time.
- the Finland-Aland option that was Belgrade last proposal.
- a partition where Kosovo's north tip comes to Belgrade and Belgrade gets more rights to support the enclaves.
- a big partition where the Albanians get Presevo but the Serbs get some of the enclaves.

Mr. Montgomery says in paragraph 11 "so many of them [Kosovo Serbs] have been prevented from returning to their pre-war jobs". What jobs? The ones they [10% of Kosovo Population] got by firing the the rest of the population from their jobs?

Us Serbs might as well convert to Islam if we keep letting people take our land away we will be left with only Belgrade…
(Dejan Tadic, 7 April 2008 06:31)

Albanians did the same, converted to Islam thinking this will save their land occupied by Slavs and Ottomans. It didn’t help. Soon they were left down by defeated Ottoman Empire and that’s why Kosovo Villayet as a Villayet of defeated Ottoman Empire was forced to join Yugoslavia with Russia’s help and France and United Kingdom standing by and doing nothing.
Kosovo is a case now because of 1913 injustice. And if someone wants to go that far to leave Serbia with Beograd only I want to ask a question: Wasn’t the Serbia borders in 10th century just around Beograd only? So, even that wouldn’t be injustice, just going back at time where you belong.

Hi Mike,
Don't know if you're still on this thread but good commentary as usual. The possibility of the "Daytonization" of Kosovo boggles the mind: behind Dayton of course was the principle of BH's territorial integrity, the principle (for Serbia) that seems to have been behind the adoption of Resolution 1244 as well... The "Daytonization" of Kosovo would leave us in a hall of mirrors, as if we weren't already there...
Sreten, you bring up interesting points too, but please drop the comparison with Ukraine. Ukraine's "Balkanization" and disintegration has been predicted (drooled over, by some) since 1991; it has not happened and is not likely to happen: both because of the interests of entrenched elites on either side of the overplayed "East-West divide," and (more importantly) because most Russophones in Ukraine do not consider themselves Russians but ethnic Ukrainians, hence they identify with the same myths and symbols as do the Ukrainophones. You've been listening to too much Russian media -- take a break, there'll be time enough for that after Nikolic wins! ;)
Peace, C

Mr. Montgomery says in paragraph 11 "so many of them [Kosovo Serbs] have been prevented from returning to their pre-war jobs". What jobs? The ones they [10% of Kosovo Population] got by firing the the rest of the population from their jobs?

Us Serbs might as well convert to Islam if we keep letting people take our land away we will be left with only Belgrade…
(Dejan Tadic, 7 April 2008 06:31)

Albanians did the same, converted to Islam thinking this will save their land occupied by Slavs and Ottomans. It didn’t help. Soon they were left down by defeated Ottoman Empire and that’s why Kosovo Villayet as a Villayet of defeated Ottoman Empire was forced to join Yugoslavia with Russia’s help and France and United Kingdom standing by and doing nothing.
Kosovo is a case now because of 1913 injustice. And if someone wants to go that far to leave Serbia with Beograd only I want to ask a question: Wasn’t the Serbia borders in 10th century just around Beograd only? So, even that wouldn’t be injustice, just going back at time where you belong.

Kosova will be Serbian in 500 years? Will Serbia last that long?

I have really had enough of Kosovo and Serbia and the EU, NATO UN and USA. We are Serbian! period we are not American or English or Russian. We as Serbs need to drop everything we have and go back to Serbia. We need to quit not caring and drop going to MacDonalds and Walmart and watching TV. We Serbs need to pilgram our way to Serbia we need to walk as a group of 10,000,000 to Kosovo and take our land back! I know what I am talking about but many of you reading this don't thats why you will respond with critics. Kosovo is Serbia and all us Serbs around the world who really don't care and thats almost all of us outside of Serbia need to wake up. Need to wake up and let the world know our home is our heart and no one can have it. Forget the EU forget Russia like I always say "Srbima netreba EU, Srbima treba Srbija"! Us Serbs might as well convert to Islam if we keep letting people take our land away we will be left with only Belgrade, and believe me thats what will happen if Serbs are not united and right now we are not!

"The elections truly will point Serbia in one of two very different directions"
Really? It seems to me unlikely that either Tadic and his allies or the Radicals will get an absolute majority. That will mean that there is the need for a coalition. Which coalition will depend to a large extent on Western diplomats to whom Tadic tends to listen - probably more than is good for him. I found the confrontational course that led to the early elections not very smart.

"The Serbian public is united and energized in a common view of how Kosovo was illegally and unjustly taken from it. Five hundred years from now, this will still be the Serbian view."
The US and the EU are pursuing the same policy in Kosovo as they did 17 years ago in Croatia. Then as now ethnic cleansing is the inevitable outcome. Milosevic made a mess of the situation so that US propaganda could claim that it was the fault of the Serbs. Kostunica has handled the situation better and now it has become hard for US propaganda to claim that their course is right.
The problem with the "Ahtisaari plan" is that it supposes that Serbs cannot be trusted to rule Albanians while Albanians can be trusted to rule Serbs. This went so far that anything above local autonomy for Kosovo's Serbs was rejected in this plan. Unlogically the main argument was that more autonomy might anger the Albanians and lead them to mistreat Kosovo's Serbs.
To name just one aspect where the plan doesn't work: education. The plan gives the Albanians control over the Serb curriculum (Bosnia had a better solution) and does not take into account that many Serbs will have to go to Serbia for specific types of education. It simply makes sense to partially integrate the eduction of Kosovo's Serbs with that in Serbia.

"the hard line. Based on their public statements, this seems to be the view of both Pieter Feith[] and Joachim Rucker"
Since Haekkerup's departure in 2002 it has been an informal selection criteria for international representatives in Kosovo that they should be enough pro-Albanian and "respect the will of the Albanian people". A good argument not to place too much trust in those people when it comes to neutrality.
The hard line is based on a misperception about how to solve ethnic conflicts. Such conflicts are always solved by reaching some balance of power. By supporting one side too much you make a conflict unsolvable.

In my opinion there are four scenarios to handle Kosovo:
- the hard line, that will inevitably end in an ethnically cleansed Kosovo. That will remembered for a very long time.
- the Finland-Aland option that was Belgrade last proposal.
- a partition where Kosovo's north tip comes to Belgrade and Belgrade gets more rights to support the enclaves.
- a big partition where the Albanians get Presevo but the Serbs get some of the enclaves.

The Kosovo project orchestrated by the evil forces has failed. When the next Balkan conflict begins - look back at the events leading to the illegal servering of historic territory of an independent and soveregin nation for your answers to the question of - "Why?."

Not irrelevant at all Jovan!

I thought it was quite a good article. And it put a small glimpse on what the US and EU should be $itting bricks about in the not so distant future.

What are the Kosovo Albanians going to do once the excitement of independence wears off, no more countries recognize Kosovo anymore, and they wind up in this strange limbo state? More importantly, what are they going to start to do to the Serbians that live in Kosovo?

Will we have more of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkgHkxIfgBc

Montgomery despite the realism now finally sinking in that the US and its 'few' EU war dogs and poodles set about to create ever greater instability while deveiving that this was now settled and would bring stability you still continue to fail to fully comprehend the self indoctrinated deceit that you are so oveerwhelmed by and thus will fail to ever comprehend the way out of your self created mess.

The 2 lines that shows your clear deceit and continual denial;

"Deciding how to react to a provocation, such as the occupation of the courthouse in Northern Mitrovica"

"The courthouse protest .... was based on a legitimate grievance of the Kosovo Serb community: so many of them have been prevented from returning to their pre-war jobs."

Continue to view that Serbs in Serbia sitting in their courthouse as an "occupation" and you will continue to fail in comprehending the consequences of the ill-principled and illegal acts set by the US and their war dogs in dictating their imperialism to the world not just to the Serbs.

The instability will just continue to get gereater and greater until some realise their mistakes and correct them fully. All this is predictable but you write as if it was not so! Suggest you prepare for the unpredictable that you have not even considered yet from such ill-thought illegality!

- Oh what a tangled web we weave....

I will not comment much on Montgomery's artcle itself this time. I will rather comment on comment No. 13 by Maks. Few things from the article need to be noticed, however.

"As much as two years ago, the Western nations informally planned for a phase-out of UNMIK and its replacement by a EU Mission. This was common knowledge in UN circles and as a result, many of the best personnel in UNMIK moved on to other jobs.

Those plans all fell apart when Serbia and Russia fiercely resisted the EULEX Mission and simultaneously began to "appreciate" UNMIK. In fact, it became impossible to get rid of UNMIK, as a UN Security Council Resolution doing so was impossible to pass due to a certain Russian veto. "

Thank you for confirming something we all knew all too well. UNMIK guys pretended that they are working under resolution 1244 while they were playing by tunes of what "Western nations informally planned for" since the beginning. In the last two years what they "informally planned for" was UNMIK's replacement by EU Mission.
And all the actors played well their roles, Ahtisaari was there pretending to search for a solution (that was already informally planned by Western nations, no doubt)et cetera.
All that was needed was some sort of UN approval to put a legal face to a violation of numorous international treaties such as the Helsinki Final Act, the Montevideo Convention and the United Nations Charter. Why not? It worked with Badinter, didn't it?
Alas, these are not 90's and US will is having a hard times pushing its will through the UN.
Sure, it would be much easier if UN approved Ahtisaari Plan, as it did Badinter's finding. Or transfer of power to EU mission that still wants to implement the plan that was never authorized by UN.
No wonder "the EU is scratching its collective head, trying to figure out how to weave through the legalities of operating in Kosovo and what the EULEX Mission will actually be able to do."
There are no legalities to weave through this time. Not even a tiniest ones.

"The first is to take a hard line that Kosovo is an independent country within its current boundaries and that any efforts to undercut that independence via parallel structures, etc need to be firmly resisted. "

If we only see those guys were there back in 90's to "take a hard line" that Serbia is is an independent country within its current boundaries and that any efforts to undercut that independence via parallel structures, etc need to be firmly resisted. "

Parallel structures were fine then, I guess.

As for Albanians.
"But they have done so, based in very large part on the assurances from people such as Rucker and Feith that the International Community would use its full force to enforce the sovereignty of the new State of Kosovo throughout its territory; would stop the operations of parallel institutions; and would prevent any sort of partition."

Oh, if only could have Serbia had support of those guys to "enforce the sovereignty throughout its territory", and have them "stop the operations of parallel institutions; and prevent any sort of partition."
Today we would not be in this mess.
But, I wouldn't comment any more on the article itself. There are lots of good comments, including foreigners.
Mike your comments are always good and I'm glad to see Wim ( Wim Roffel, I presume) back. If only Walters would start writting again too...
Now, Maks...

"And if someone wants to go that far to leave Serbia with Beograd only I want to ask a question: Wasn’t the Serbia borders in 10th century just around Beograd only? So, even that wouldn’t be injustice, just going back at time where you belong."

You are probably Albanian, from some place in Kosovo with Serbian name. Uroshevac maybe ( Uroševac, Урошевац )founded and named after Serbia king Urosh the Weak ( Uroš , Урош ) ? Just think about the names in Kosovo. But I want to write few words about thesis that is comming out often from the Albanians side.
"Kosovo is a case now because of 1913 injustice."
This is exactly what UN Charter, Helsinki Final Act, etc. were there to prevent. Even if we say that Serbs had no right to Kosovo and that injustice was done, it's not suppose to be a case now.
Do you think that all other borders were justly drawn? What would you say about Texas then? It was injustly taken from existing state of Mexico (while Kosovo was never part of Albanians state). Should that be a case now? Should there be TLA (Texas Liberation Army) killing the US police officers and non-spanish speaking population alike (and even spanish-speaking population that is "collaborating" with US government, being government employees of say, US Mail) ?
Or do you think that Texas should remain within USA, regardless of how it bacame part of it? It's USA today, and minorities don't have right of self-determination.
You have to stop lookin at just Albanians, and see the greater picture.
Just few days ago NATO summit in Romania ended. Despite of strong US backing for their bid two ex-Soviet republics, Ukraine and Georgia, were not offered the chance to join a program that would have put them on the track to join the military alliance, but promised that the decision would be reviewed in December. EU countries were uneasy about them joining NATO. Why?
Situation in Ukraine is very complicated. Country is almost evenly split not only on this issue but on the others as well, between western Ukrainian-speaking part, and Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine. Forging closer ties with the West would almost inevitably lead to further division and allienation of eastern part of the country that is seeking closer ties with Russia.
Consider this.
The Crimea, now an autonomous region within Ukraine, is a predominantly Russian-speaking territory. Since the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union, the Crimea has unsuccessfully sought independence from Ukraine. A 1994 referendum in the Crimea supported demands for a broader autonomy and closer links with Russia.
But, did they end up in Ukraine by some sort of injustice?
Of course. Authoritarian Soviet leader were doing whatever they wanted. Former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who grew up in Ukraine, made the Crimean Peninsula part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954. The peninsula had formerly been a part of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic.
Nikita Khrushchev just gave part of Russia to Ukraine, a gift to his people. And it wasn't a first time a Soviet leader gave something away like that. Stallin (who was Georgian, not Russian) gave South Ossetia to his Georgians with the stroke of the pen.
Injustice, no doubt, but should it matter? Not at all. During the break-up of Soviet Union the fact that was taken into account was that unlike Yugoslavian constitution where souvereignty was with the constituing nations, Soviet constitution was based on souvereignty of the Soviet Socialist Republics. Soviet Union fell apart, and legally - situation is clear, Russians in Ukraine are minority, just as Ukrainians in Russia are. Minority, no right of self-determination. No right of seccession.
Same goes with Ossetians, majority of whom live in North Ossetia in Russia. Russia is their country. In Georgia they are minority and are entitled to minority rights. Period. Weather they bacame part of Georgia justly or injustly, doesn't matter. Or at least it shouldn't matter. But, it does now. International treaties and laws that were used to regulate international relationships for the second half of 20th century are proving to be obsolete and abandoned in 21st century.
One of the new practices established just this year is for some countries to recognize parts of other countries as independent countries (while others and UN don't) and to establish billateral relationship with newly recognize countries by sending them weapons like US did with Kosovo recently (for details see last Montgomery's article "It's only logical..").
It's not happening yet, but don't you think, Maks, that others would want to "right" injustices done to them, or you think that only Albanians are entitled to that?
Imagine the following scenario.
Eastern Ukraine decides to right the wrongs done to them, and unilaterally declares independence. This country is recognized by few others (like Russia) while it isn't by the West that continues to consider Easter Ukraine as integral part of Ukraine. Russia establishes billateral relationship with country that it recognizes. Thos relationships were best established by sending them weapons (It's only logical). They could even send them some Russian mission to carry out some plan of supervised independence that was rejected by UN due to Western objections. (perhaps mission could be called RULEX or something). They could even enter into military alliance with newly created country.
Thus, every attemp made by Ukrainian authorities to establish its souvereignty over its territory, would be considered aggression against independent (in their view) country of Eastern Ukraine. Furthermore, as a military ally of a new country, they would be obliged to defend it militarilly.
On the other side, presence of Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine would be inevitably seen in the West as Russian aggression against Ukraine (as they would see eastern Ukraine as integral part of the country). In case of Ukraine's NATO membership they would then be obliged to defend Ukraine against the Russian agression... I don't dare continue thinking along those lines.
Luckily for all of us, Russian leadership appears to be sober (unlike Yeltzin) and is thus far discouraging separatist movements in those parts. We can only wish that their western counterparts are just as sober.
But, let's get back to the Balkans.
I know that Albanian view is that this was injustice, and they spent most of the 20th century in rejection of the state they ended up in, and trying to "right the wrong" on several occasion by becoming an ally of whatever force came along with their own interests. And powers loved them. They always try to relly on local ally, or proxy force, and they put them in priviledged position, etc. " Divede and conquer " is not a new idea. But, you have to be aware that Great Powers are in it for their own interests, not for yours.
Montgomery ends article with omnious warning.
"All that we can be sure of is that regardless of who wins the May 11 elections in Serbia, the conflict in Kosovo will be played out over years and that for all of this time, the region will not be fully stabile and the fires of nationalism will consistently be given more fuel."
Sure, scores of Western leaders verbally want stability, etc. But, their actions create more instability. Is it because "their utter stupidity and arrogance." as Mike pointed out? I doubt it.
Instability makes them needed. Makes them in control and ones making all the decisions. With lasting peace and friendly relationship between Serbs and Albanians, who would need the largest US base in Europe? And unlike in other places, where they have to pay suitcases of money to the host, Kosovo will never be given a cent for it, you can rest assured.
But, how can a lasting peace be achieved?
Reliance on foreign powers to achieve ones goals or get whatever you can is not a good policy. Look back for centuries, 20th century at least. Powers come and go, Serbs and Albanians are still here. The only chance for a lasting peace and friendly relationship comes from fair and good agreement between Serbs and Albanians, not on the reliance on foreign powers to enforce injust and unfair agreements.
So, you spent much of 20th century trying to reverse the injustice done to you. But, even if we say that Kosovo really IS a country and if it is recognized by UN it would only mean that you will have a minority in Kosovo that is much like you were in Serbia and Yugoslavia. I don't know if it will continue for 500 years as Montgomery siad, but you can rest assured that they will reject Kosovo for another century. By all means, inluding establishment of parallel sturctures, etc. They have you for a teacher. I have no doubt that they would be labelled "terrorists" should they resort to some NKLA (North Kosovo Liberation Army) should their Rugova-like peaceful resistance fail to bring desired results. But, they could wait for opportune historical moment and ally themselves with some foreign power like Russia, China or who knows -West could have change of heart. Wasn't it Sir Winston Churchill who brushed critisizam of British betrayal of "traditional ally" in Asia, and start of support for opposing faction with words: "We don't have constant friends, only constant interests."
No, Maks. They way out if all this is in fair solution and agreement.
Albanians like to think that great injustice have been done to them in 1912. Parts of their people ended up in other countries (like Serbia, Greece, etc.) something that Albanians considered borders drawn between them. They consider themselves right to fight for overthrow of foreign rule (in their view) and for unified Albanian nation. I don't want to use term Greater Albania.
But, okey. I can understand your point of view. And I can understand your desire to be united.
Why is it then so hard for you to understand mine? Why is it so hard to understand desire of Serbs in Northern Kosovo to be united with their brethen and to overthrow a foreign Pristina rule (in their view)? Or Sarajevo rule? Or Zagreb rule? Why do you think that Serbians should enjoy having part of their people ending up in other countries (like Bosnia, or Kosovo) and having borders drawn between them?
Let's not even talk about secession. But, Serbs are required to trust Tudjman, Izetbegovic and Tachi. As Wim said "The problem with the "Ahtisaari plan" is that it supposes that Serbs cannot be trusted to rule Albanians while Albanians can be trusted to rule Serbs."
Look at your Kosovo , Maks, and say honestly if they should trust it.
"This went so far that anything above local autonomy for Kosovo's Serbs was rejected in this plan. Unlogically the main argument was that more autonomy might anger the Albanians and lead them to mistreat Kosovo's Serbs. "

Absolutelly right. In your view Croats, Muslims and Albanians were all terribly mistreated in Yugoslavia (where Albanians enjoyed wide autonomy, while Croatia and Bosnia had most competences of any independent state.) but Serbs were all required to accept not only to be separated into different states but the unitary ones at that.
You read B92 obviously. Here is a link.
http://xs4.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=02&nav_id=48105
Title tells it all.
"No autonomy, canton for Serbs in north"

Until you realise that you are not the only one that wants something, we will not have an agreement. Until you realise that what you consider to be injustice when done to you, is also an injustice when done to someone else, we will not have an agreement.
I'm sure that should Northern Kosovo ever declare independence, everyone in the West would start screaming about Greater Serbia (I avoided the term Greater Albanian on purpose above). Do you really think that you will profit by reflecting their views? I know that many of the western politicians ceirtanly would like to see Serbia left with only Belgrade. To them question "How small should Serbia become not to be called Greater?" is a stupid question, it's never small enough.
I understand them, as that's what makes them "needed". I don't understand you and your position on such views.
"So, even that wouldn’t be injustice, just going back at time where you belong." you said.
Maks, your ideas of justice and injustice are very, very strange.

is Montgomery paying B92 to publish his propaganda-letters...?

or is B92 paying for that sort of "information"?

anyway, quite irrelevant what he has to say.

I am against the recognition of Kosovo and the constant demonising of the Serbs. If the western press were unbiased in their reporting and gave a balanced view this would help- not aggrevate the situation. Kosovo's best offer was extensive automony within Serbia- the Albanians are now at the mercy of terrorists and 'ex' KLA members and will find that America does not have 'friends/equals' in the countries they occupy- they have minions! The Albanians will never have 'democracy'. The USA's love affair with the Albanians will be dropped like a hot potato if it goes against their economic and millitary interests- we still have to see how far Russia will go. What a mess!!!I'm sure many Iraqies are not happy with America's 'help' and 'democracy'!!!

Once again Monty bestows us with his wonderful imagination.

If you read carefully, Monty always directs the issue of blame towards the Serbs. But in general the Serbian government is to blame for all the obstacles and difficulties which hinder all progress within the province of Kosovo as Monty would have us believe. Monty you choose your words carefully.

I do enjoy reading your fantasy articles.

All the best in your Absolute Menifesto mission!!!

Kosovo is quickly becoming the land everyone wants, but no one can produce a bill of sale. Each side claims to have authority to exert sovereignty over the whole land, but realities on the ground constantly remind them of their fanciful dreams. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the only one with a realistic idea of Kosovo is Slobodan Samaradzic with his "functional separation" plan. Here, he's basically saying to EULEX "you want the Albanians? Take'em. But we're taking care of our Serb brethren. Draw a line and let's call it a day."

The weeks and months ahead will continue to be a headache for Feith, Thaci, and the rest of the League of Super Friends in Pristina as they see increasingly Serb activity in the north and the enclaves, but with little solutions to counteract. Voting stations will be set up in Kosovo, and most likely the SRS will sweep. Those that won elections in May 11 will then seek to establish themselves as the rightful and elected representatives of the K Serb communities, and will create even further ties with Belgrade. Yes, Thaci and his sipahi from Brussels will complain, and probably try to nullify the results, but then Belgrade can easily turn around and say "Hey, I thought Kosovo was supposed to be a democracy! Now the EU is nullifying votes and suppressing the people's will?" --> Bad publicity stunt if you ask me, and it will make the courthouse storming seem like a teaparty in comparison.

The bottom line is this: full sovereingty over Kosovo cannot and will not be enforced unless force itself is used. If Sipahi Feith gives the order for KFOR to crack down on the Serb enclaves, all ideas for any stability in the region are irrevocably lost. Those hardlines that Montgomery mentions: Feith, Ruecker, Holbrook, etc., have deliberately designed post Feb 17 Kosovo to look like this. Their pig-headed approaches have ruled out any compromise with Belgrade and have simply reified the sentiments and warnings coming from the nationalist circles. And while the enclaves MAY be persuaded to cooperate due to geographical location, the north is, for all intents and purposes, lost.

Those EUrocrats that are looking for a more pragmatic approach, coupled with a renewed desire to see Serbia within the EU, may now begin to exert pressure for a more compromised solution over Kosovo. If it means keeping the territory whole, it may certainly lead to the calling of Kosovo's Daytonization, which I still think is the optimal solution.

But then again, I really don't think the witch-doctors primarily responsible for the creation of this zombie-state were really interested in compromise in the first place: instability leads to constant external supervision and intervention. It's a great strategy Washington has been using now for decades.

I have no sympathy for those now trying to sell this lemon of a country. They need to sleep in the bed they deliberately and knowlingly made. And if they were truly caught off guard by Serbia's expected resilience, they need to be sacked and replaced for their utter stupidity and arrogance.

Incredible, Mr Montgomery fails to comment on and even omitted his fellow countrymen's (Mr Bush and Co.) involvement in this whole mess and how their blind and misguided foreign policies and dreams of expansionism have led to this situation.
Yes, culpability also lies with the international organisations on the ground, who have wrongly developed allegiances and now at odds with themselves and no longer committed to their remit. Their only saviour is the western press who divert the truth by still continuing to blame Serbia for all the ills of the world.

Over the last nine years Mr Montgomery points to the Albanians, as being wise and sitting on the sidelines. I really think that it is not as simple as he puts it. In fact the truth would be that the albanian side have the most to lose in this, throughout this time regardless of the words of reconcilation as he puts it, The Albanians under thaci continue to systematically keep (with the exception of northern Kosovo) all the non albanian enclaves in check through a well organised campaign of fear and more recently (shooting in Mitrovica), its been clear that they are quite prepared to bear arms again. Far from sitting on the sidelines, much more sinister, waiting in the shadows!!!

Kosovo will not remain as it is now, It is only the promises made by the US that keep them at this time from all out conflict but how long will this last when the promises don’t meet their expectations? As for adding fuel to fire of nationalism, well it would be naïve of Mr Montgomery to place the responsibility of this on either the Serbian or Albanian doorstep you need to look further west for the stoker of this fire.

"Those who were pushing hardest for Kosovo independence in the US and EU saw it as the "end of the story, the goal."... How naive!

Answer to the question of Why? Lies on the map of the locations of American bases around the world in relation to Russia and China, feel free to look it up. Also show of power ex: do anything without UN's approval like bombing independent nations around the world and go unchalenged doing so gives some great authority.

Hi Mike,
Don't know if you're still on this thread but good commentary as usual. The possibility of the "Daytonization" of Kosovo boggles the mind: behind Dayton of course was the principle of BH's territorial integrity, the principle (for Serbia) that seems to have been behind the adoption of Resolution 1244 as well... The "Daytonization" of Kosovo would leave us in a hall of mirrors, as if we weren't already there...
Sreten, you bring up interesting points too, but please drop the comparison with Ukraine. Ukraine's "Balkanization" and disintegration has been predicted (drooled over, by some) since 1991; it has not happened and is not likely to happen: both because of the interests of entrenched elites on either side of the overplayed "East-West divide," and (more importantly) because most Russophones in Ukraine do not consider themselves Russians but ethnic Ukrainians, hence they identify with the same myths and symbols as do the Ukrainophones. You've been listening to too much Russian media -- take a break, there'll be time enough for that after Nikolic wins! ;)
Peace, C