Serbia: Harking back to cold war policy

Obviously Western based think-tanks have their own opinion that mostly requires any nation in the Balkans to do EXACTLY what USA wants them to do. I think that represents "schizophrenic" Western policy of inconsistency (i.e."We'll carve up your territory but you should join NATO") and thus it will never have acceptance with Serbs anywhere. NATO can't have both ways with Serbia, no way.

Is he kidding? Serbia should ignore China?

This has nothing to do with Cold War but the reality that China is a Super Power, maybe THE Super power today, and not America.

keep cool analyst, not everything is about the broke state usa ...

china will help in the relations with russia, america ain´t a topic at all.

and against the analysts believe, china is not dumb. it gets the same thing as russia, 6 serbian commissioners within eu. and that if you only count the serbian states serbia, montenegro and bosnia, not counting macedonia and croatia, where serbian political parties will have a kingmaker role ...

Seems that some people are getting nervous about Serbia making friends with China and Russia.
Nothing to do with cold war but everything to do with surrounding yourself with powerful friends. Isn't that what gave Albanians Kosovo?

Serbia is also friendly with India and some Muslim countries. What will the author say about that? Serbia is now a member of the Islamic Council?

Well, at the end of the day it's wise to have emerging powers as friends rather than delcining powers as friends.

I am not Serbian--I do not know. But from afar it doesn't show payoff. Only seems to stick a thumb in eyes of the EU and USA. Once again, perhaps emotionally gratifying, but where is the pragmatic payoff?
(Charli, 28 August 2009 16:28)

Charli, and what do you think America and UK deserve after the bombed Serbia for over 70 days and bombed mainly civilian targets?

Was this not a poke in the eye? Do you think Serbia should consider the west her new best friend of go to where she is considered a friend?

What would you do?

China and Russia as guardians of international law. These are sad days. It is time 1244 is fully implemented. Time to save international law.

The West should un-recognize Kosovo now!

As a Westerner that lived and worked in Belgrade for one year, I found this opinion piece extremely insightful and well articulated. It also piqued several questions I have. Maybe someone can help me: 1) Why does Serbia count on the Russians so much--where and/or when have they been such great allies? 2) How long has Serbia been a significant arms exporter and how is this perceived in the EU community? 3) Why would Tadic think anyone was seriously interested in re-invigorating the "Non-Aligned Movement?" Does he still use 8-track tapes? And who in the former YU is willing to have Belgrade be the host? Maybe Macedonia?

Living in Belgrade I personally experienced Serbian innat. While such stubborness may be emotionally gratifying, it has become foolish. Serbs are a smart, hard-working people. But they have been left with few strong cards to play. Continued flittering between wanting to be with the EU/USA and simultaneously with the Russians, may leave them with neither. The author of the op-ed was right: Tadic is not Tito and this is not 1960. At the very least, it is dragging things out an extra decade or so. And continued outrage over the the results of the wars of the 1990's is also wasted effort. Most of the world doesn't want to hear it any more than they want to hear about America's suffering on 9-11 as a justification for the US's lies, illegality, and inhumanity.

Ideas like buying the port in Montenegro seem progressive to me. Also, turn over Mladic. That one man has been such a drag on millions of people. If possible, protect your university system. Unfortunately the professors are paid ridiculous wages and invest their brain power elsewhere. The possibilities of the future are just that--in the future. It is time to bury certain dead horses of the past and move on.

Well written, though not entirely accurate rant - there is more to it than meets the eye.

Of course, the article would be better served had it not been titled so terribly..Very misleading.

Even after reading it, i see no signs of cold war policy, but rather political pragmatism..

But methinks the authour makes too much ado about nothing.

Although Tadic is doing alot of grandstanding for home audiences, the fact of the matter is, China made the effort to welcome Serbia on a diplomatic scale that hasn't been enjoyed since the days of Tito..There's a lot to be said for that, considering where Serbia was only a decade ago.

The article seems to make large on Serbia's international irrelavence, but quickly passes by her acheivements, just to get the point across.

I can't help but chuckle at Stratfor articles sometimes..
But somebody in this think tank institution will have to come to the realization, one day, that Western ideology and strength is potentially "Paper Thin"...

I'm just waiting for the "wake up call"....

The national strategy should be vary pragmatic and serve only two goals:
to ensure security and peace and commit itself to morally and economically rebuild the Serbian nation.
Every megalomanic project of becoming a "bridge between east and west" and become the leader of the "block free countries" is just a waste of time.

Let`s look at the facts:
1) We have a free trade agreement with Russia which offers tremendous opportunities.
(For example Russia plans over the next ten years to invest over 150 bn dollars in healthcare,Serb Galenika and Hemofarm could profit exponentionally from this since they have a custom free access to this market and are already present there with their products.)
Also,politically we depend on their Kosovo veto.
2)Geographically we are surrounded by NATO countries and the economic power of the EU .
That means security can only be obtained and other things achieved (big weapon exports to countries like Iraq with Western support) if we strongly cooperate with NATO short of joining it!
Why not join it?
Not because of emotional reasons but because of the potential devastating implications on Serbian-Russian relations (they could cancel the free trade agreement and support over Kosovo).
Joining the EU is a natural thing and I hope it will happen with time but we should keep our cards close to the chest and insist that the free trade agreement with Russia still remains in force,even with Serbia becoming an EU member.

1)Maintain and solidify strong and friendly relations with Russia.
2)Cooperate with NATO short of joining it.
3)Join the EU but insist the free trade agreement with Russia still remains in force.
4)Do not sell strategic assets and big corporations to foreigners.

"Which leads me to Tadic's speech. Where to start? "China is the future world economic leader." Emerging power, yes. But news flash---you can take the combined economies of BOTH India and China and DOUBLE them and still not have the economic power of the US, as crippled as it is. And I haven't even added in the EU yet."

The US economic power appears big because they spend (and spend and spend) money which they never had to begin with. http://www.federalbudget.com/

And they printed, and are now resorting to printing ever more and more dollar notes to fund their financial rescue packages and upcoming health reform. The only differnece is that the world has woken up and are no longer be suckers financing America's spendthriftness anymore. The Chinese are defintely no longer bankrolling the Yankees and are now focusing on consumer spending in their own country instead. How much longer do you think so called wealthy USA can hold out now that no one is buying en masse their financial IOUs?

"Of course, that is why I questioned what China was up to. Bottom line to Serbs: Is it more appealing to have EU/US factories and/or buying your assets or the Chinese? Maybe it doesn't matter.....an investor is an investor. But the geographical reality is you are surrounded by EU countries. Do you truly not care what your neighbors think and the possible consequences? I completely agree with the comments expressed in #8 and #9. This does NOT have to do with sucking up to the West; it has everything to do with Serbia achieving their own goals of peace and economic vitality. "

Did it ever occur to you that not everyone is like the Yankees out to dominate other countries? Is it not possible that the Chinese simply felt there were good economic reasons to do business with Belgrade?

As for your claim that Serbia is being surrounded by the EU, well, I am not aware that Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia and "Kosova" are joining the EU anytime soon, if ever.

I don't anderstand some of these remarks especially #10 remark. Why should Serbia choose one over the other. Serbs are trying to be neutral and friendly with everyone. It is other countries like EU and US that are always trying to stear the trouble in order to keep control. Just look what kind of trouble they brought to Bolcan, so now don't know what to do with it. They would not leave well alone. Yugo was established for a good reason in order for all people to live in peace. Serbs knew that and desparately tryed to save Yugo, but all others had different ideas. They, with help of west, distroyed the country thinking it is going to be milk and honey and menaged put all the blame on Serbs. What now?

To Nick #17
Absolutely, that is my point. While srbs were going about their daily life, others were plotting distruction of Yugo. Serbs woken up too late, by that time plot was well on the way. Planed and delivered prfectly by putting all the blames on serbs. Others did not want to talk. West stood with them letting them do what they always wanted. Their dirty deeds are hardly mentioned or punished.

After reading Tadic's "Four Pillars of Democracy" pablum, what more can possibly be said? An absolutely ridiculous speech with an equally incoherent foreign policy. He wants to be "friends" with politically, ideologically, and economically opposed constituents. If Tadic can't even keep fellow Serbs happy with this 'friend' philosophy, why in the world does he think it will work on an international level? To paraphrase another: Success is complicated. Failure straight forward--try to please everyone.

Peggy--I respect your comment as being genuine. And with equal respect I will tell you what I believe: There are no eternal "friends", only eternal self-interest. I think this is true for all--whether Western, Asian, European, and yes Americans. Why people act so shocked that they operate in (what they perceive to be) their own best interests, is beyond me. On both a local and global level, people do things for their own reasons, not yours. Even when they contribute to a charity. The smart thing is to dovetail YOUR interests with those going your direction. If someone wants a friend, they should get a dog.

Which leads me to Tadic's speech. Where to start? "China is the future world economic leader." Emerging power, yes. But news flash---you can take the combined economies of BOTH India and China and DOUBLE them and still not have the economic power of the US, as crippled as it is. And I haven't even added in the EU yet.

"Most important [part of these talks] were to create economic ties to attract Chinese investors."

Of course, that is why I questioned what China was up to. Bottom line to Serbs: Is it more appealing to have EU/US factories and/or buying your assets or the Chinese? Maybe it doesn't matter.....an investor is an investor. But the geographical reality is you are surrounded by EU countries. Do you truly not care what your neighbors think and the possible consequences? I completely agree with the comments expressed in #8 and #9. This does NOT have to do with sucking up to the West; it has everything to do with Serbia achieving their own goals of peace and economic vitality.

The idea of staying out of NATO, but part of the EU, is quite clever. I hope it can be achieved. How will Russia shine to this fuzzy, new friendship?

"We are not intending to join the Non-Aligned Movement." What?! This was Tadic's brainchild, albeit for two weeks. But he still thinks a 50th anniversary is a keen idea. Couldn't even believe what I was reading.

Well, I hope Serbia at least gets their bridge. Real bridges are always a good thing. Personally, I will believe it when I see it.

NATO is finished and will not expand, but is earmarked for quite abandonment just as the US’s anti missile systems. This was total capitulation to Russia’s demands and one has to understand that this is not 1999 even thought some in the west are still living in that period. For the information of the author of this article China is the emerging economic superpower of this world, not the EU or US.

For your further information Serbia together Srpska Republica control the vast majority of arable land as well as mineral and water resource in the former Yugoslavia. As Serbs are not greedy they have left the rest for the EU and US to prop up for ever.

Why would Serbia object to the EU wasting its limited resources maintaining Kosovo, Montenegro or the rest, Serbia did it between 1918 to 1991 and with little thanks from any of these people.

Here is another item of fact about the oscillation between Russia and the EU. The people hate NATO and the west while most of the politicians currently in power are paid by the EU to carry out its bidding.

The article is written by one of many Think Tank organisations - in this case a Western one. The facts and some "suggestions" are normal in such studies and I do not understand why Serbs feel offended and provoced. It is matter of fact that Serbia is in strugle to define its international strategy and which is a very tough and challenging task. For me the problem of Serbian foreign policy is that body seems to be young, but the brain has stoped in the 60-70ies. Serbs should understand and accept that Serbia is not Yugoslavia, which was a totaly different configuration. Serbia has its own right to strenght its relationship with Russia and China. This is a very pragmatic way. But, as somebody already mentioned, you can not "serve" 4 masters at the same time-knowing that EU+USA are still in ideological confilicts with Russia and China. There is a huge difference between western/american think tank and Russian or Chinese one. I do not think that Serbia has a long term strategy which direction to go. The slogan is simple "democracy". But unfortunately democracy is not the same everywhere. USA and EU will are and will remain for a long long time the only functioning democracies. Serbia should maintain and improve the relationship with all the countries of the world, but the strategic relationship should be with the EU. Good or bad, Europe created Yugoslavia and Europe dismanteld it.

I would disagree that people, overall, are uncomfortable with Serbia being friends with China. I think, overall, it will not register at all. Fairly irrelevant.

The real question for me would be: What is it that China really hopes to gain from Serbia (they already have cheap labor and Serbs cannot be a big importer of Chinese goods)? And, how does this goal fit, in the long haul, with a complementary foreign policy for Serbia? Serbs are so afraid of being used by the West--ok. Why are they so sure that Asia will not use them also? Is Serbia planning on trying to get along with the EU or not? Isn't it in their greater interests (visas, investment, etc.) to want this?

I am not Serbian--I do not know. But from afar it doesn't show payoff. Only seems to stick a thumb in eyes of the EU and USA. Once again, perhaps emotionally gratifying, but where is the pragmatic payoff?

the most interesting part of the article is this:

"Belgrade foreign policy of reinvigorating its Cold War links has admittedly had some successes. Serbia’s ability to pass a U.N. resolution in October 2008 that asked the International Court of Justice to offer a legal opinion on Kosovo’s independence – despite staunch U.S. and Western resistance – illustrated that Belgrade can still mobilize its links with the Third World at the United Nations.

There is also evidence that Belgrade is again becoming a palatable arms exporter to its former Non-Aligned Movement allies, with Iraq recently signing a deal for Serbian arms. But a foreign policy strategy designed primarily to avoid domestic political upheaval is not viable in the long term. Belgrade will therefore have to wait for a firm political hand at home before it can calibrate a clear policy abroad."

so, while the article says this kind of policy is "obsolete" at the same time it admits it has had some success. but i think it goes from a false premise. i do not think yugoslavia was ever as much of a bridge between the east and the west as it was a country that used antagonisms between the east and the west in order to pursue an independent policy and engage with the countries of the south which tried to do the same as much as each country could. the south (and china arguably still can be seen as a part of it), not the east is the key. because while the relations between russia and the west may have changed, there is still a continuity of the policies of the west in the south that go back all the way to the colonial times. it is not about having one or more masters, it is about stepping out of your master's shadow.

the south is also the key in serbia's struggle to preserve kosovo. russia is important in the security council, but outside of it it is the south that will support serbia most. because they know well what it looks like when the west ignores the international law.

i am not sure if this is a viable way for a country that is indeed much weaker than yugoslavia, but who knows.

Serbs knew that and desparately tryed to save Yugo, but all others had different ideas. They, with help of west, distroyed the country ...

L, you are absolutely right. But how do you expect a marriage or a country to last if only one of the sides wants it and the othe(s) do not. It is bound to fail. The West tried to preserve Yugoslavia until it became clear that it could not been done. Only honest talks for peaceful divorce could have prevented the violent outbreak.

Re: Military

In 1989, Belgrade was the capital of a country of 23 million people, had a large Adriatic coastline, possessed the fourth largest military in Europe (and probably the third most effective after the Soviet Union and Turkey

This comment is completely innaccurate and was used by the west as justification for the dismmemberment of the former Yugoslavia.


(1) The Structure of the JNA forces was set up purely as defensive to protect itself from any invations of the former Soviet Union. As such, the JNA military did not have a modern tank or armored vehicle arnaments. (Most of the 2000 Tanks were outdated from the 60's and 70's other than the M-84) This is the reason that the dismembered Yugoslav federation was able to withstand 70 days of bombing with an outdated air defense system and modern defense tactics.

(2) The JNA forces in 1989 did not even come close to the larger Soviet blocs at that time, namely E. Germany, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria.

(3) The most effective military after Turkey and the Soviet Union? Again, the JNA forces were highly trained but did not have the military arnaments to be compared with the Soviet Union or Turkey for that matter.

It is no secret that Greece has the strongest military in the region, possibly Europe, this includes the air force, navy and armed forces.The reason? To defend itself against Turkey.

Charli,

Congratulations for the one year well spent in Belgrade. I was amazed to see how well you assess the situation of Serbia.

Joe--I have a sincere interest in Serbia's future and hope for the best.

Jeremic was spouting the Four-Pillars nonsense again. This time to youngsters. I guess he thought it might fly with 16 year-olds. He and Tadic look like a keystone cop routine. But it is beyond schizophrenic and sadly comic, their policies and trips are irresponsible to Serbian citizens who (for the majority) desire EU integration. Libya?! When most of Europe is in Poland commemorating WWII?! What would the encore be? Flowers to Ahmedinejad? I picture average citizens coughing up blood over that one. Thank god their summer vacation is over.

I have an idea: fire Tadic and Jeremic and put in their place Djokovic and Ana Ivanovic. They would be great "Young Leaders in Diplomacy " and are considered quite hot on YouTube. Silly? Well, it is brilliant compared to the "Four-Pillars" diplomatic strategy.

I'm keeping an eye on the NBS Governor Jelasic--he strikes me as very smart. I'm getting the feeling, though, that from his last press conference politics are giving him a lot of heartburn in working with the IMF. Another good reason to fire the dynamic duo.

It is amazing what is peddled as 'analysis' these days. This piece is simply cobbling together a bunch of observations combined with a heavy dose of 'west is best' that any half-intelligent student at university could rapidly produce.

Comments about the 'Cold War' are ridiculous and out of place. It is curious that the West and their unofficial representatives often blame Russia and others about maintaining a cold war mentality, yet they are also incessantly bringing up the Cold War. Priceless.

Not wanting to give Tadic any undue praise (or any kind of praise as a matter of fact), if anything the non-aligned ideal fits perfectly into a globalized world. It is not about choosing East or West, it is about mixing and matching what best serves the state and the citizen. By tying Serbia tightly to EU countries and the US comes inevitably the political aspect and blackmail.

Tadic is spreading his bets which means that no single grouping has such an absolute strangle hold over either Serbia's politics or economy.

The posed question of what does Serbia have to do with China also shows 20th century thinking. This is a globalized world. People can complain about 'China' and their machinations that they are only doing things in their own interest, but how is this any different than that practiced by the West over the centuries? Are we supposed to buy in to this widespread propagated fear of 'the Yellow Peril' that the media peddles without expressly articulating it as such? They want us to believe that Western business is 'good' and 'safe' and Chinese is 'bad' and 'risky'.

The Chinese didn't bomb Belgrade.

If anything such an article says more about the authors, i.e. that they fear the rise of China and the challenge that China (and less so India) poses to Western dominance of politics through to economics, because they are 'not like us'.

As for Stratfor, they can peddle as much third rate junk as they want but that does not make any of it worthy of calling it 'analysis'.

Exactly why should Serbia hitch itself so closely to a corrupt and imploding organization such as NATO or the crumbling American empire so closely? As for the EU, it is the product of compromise and is more flexible than many people think. Not only that, it is still a project in creation and not a fixed point. The Lisbon treaty (if it ever is ratified by EU27) is only a single point of many necessary in this project which is still in its early days.

Aleks--I find your comments well stated, but I fundamentally disagree with you on several points:

1) You may disagree with the STRATFOR analysis, but to shrug off the basic thesis as not even being worthwhile, is sophomoric.

2) When Tadic was dewey-eyed about an anniversary meeting for the Non-Aligned Movement, what else is one to think except "Cold War?" That's why it was so ridiculous. Everyone knows (except Tadic and Jeremic) that the dynamics of that world and era are gone.

3. Your thesis: Serbia should spread their cards and loyalty wide and free. This is an opinion worth thinking about and debating. But, I will disagree. When a person, and/ or country, has a lot of money or power, they are in a position to put numerous chips across the board. When a country has limited power and resources, I would argue that this country needs a laser-like focus on where they are going and how best to get there. Trying to suck up to everyone wins the respect and loyalty of no one.

Tadic has essentially been using your strategy. How do you think that is working for Serbia?

4) You are right, the West is nervous with China. Presently, China only has about a third of the US's GDP and the PPP is about HALF of a Serbian's. On average, China is a very poor country. That said, I have the utmost respect for China, and so does anyone with sense. They are smart, patient, and also ruthless. Ask anyone from Taiwan or Tibet. I am now thinking, when approached with eyes wide-open, China is so mature compared to many other governments. Look at how absurd Iran looks at the moment. I appreciate this maturity.

5)"China didn't bomb Serbia." Of course not. China is, above all, pragmatic. Geographically, ideologically,and economically it was not in their interests to get involved. Plus they have their own dissidents (millions). Come on, the Chinese have put blocks on FaceBook. After Tiennamen, the Statue of Liberty was put up, not Lenin.

Let's hypothesize. Let's say that the ICJ rules in favor of Serbia. Kosovo needs to go "back." All hell breaks loose. The US says--fine, we will obey the court. The EU wrings their hands, but is limited to stop the bloodshed. China will send medical supplies and smooth words. Are you okay with that? China will be fine.

6) You say NATO and the US are 'imploding." Transitional, yes. I think you show your own prejudices here. Only time will tell. But if the past is the best predictor of the future, who do you want to bet on?

I will be completely apparent about my own beliefs: I believe in American and European ideals of human rights and rule of law, despite its imperfections. Financially, the EU and the US are clearly dominant if they don't screw it up. I respect China, but don't want their leaders to be my leaders.

Unlike Tadic, I know exactly who I am willing to double down on.

Charli,

1: I don't know how many STRATFOR analyses you have seen before but I have been aware of them since they launched, with their free e-mail bullitin. Supposedly ex-spooks and experts, they are decidedly hit and miss, more often miss, as they are in this case.

2: Being head of the NAM is a significant part of Yugo's history so it does a disservice to dismiss it so lightly, especially when all the ex-Yu states were invited to join. If the Non-Aligned Movement is supposedly so 'Cold War', then what does that make NATO? The fundamental reasons for the NAM's existence are still there. The EU has its own interests, as does the US, LatAm and the African Union. What are the others supposed to do, continue to hang on coat-tails of the powers and beg for favor?

3: A diversified foreign and economic policy is not about 'sucking up to everyone' as in your own words you claim it is. Serbia is blessed with a strategic geography between East and West (particularly as a trade route, Corridor 10 and all that etc.) and should play to its strengths it is not only the EU's money and business acumen that is either good or available.

Or do you think 'sucking up', to use your phrase' to the EU is the answer? Serbia is being squeezed by its 'friends' who make half baked promises and are at will to change conditions 'unofficially' and behind closed doors. If you are the EU's friend, you get special treatment, the most obvious example being Bulgaria and Romania (both close to hopelessly corrupt) who would never have got into the EU if the acquis communautaire had been properly adopted and implemented. Bulgaria has been the Mafia's main hub in the Balkans for the last few years (and still joined the EU) whilst Serbia has cleaned most of theirs up.

What favors is Serbia getting? It's just carrot and stick politics that also tend to be dependent on the whims of member state domestic politics and grand standing. Promises, promises.

4: Yes, the chinese are pragmatists, that is why there is massive taiwanese investment in China and is where they make most of their profits. Sure they can claim protection from the US, but they make they money in China. Oh, the irony! As for Tibet, it is a long history, for much of which the tibetians were neither peaceful nor democratic (both fairly new additions), not to mention the run ins they've had with other foreigners (Sir Francis Younghusband for example). I wonder if that is a mission NATO would relish? ;)

5: China has to develop in its own way. It's lovely and rosy to believe that democracy is the solution to everything but it doesn't feed people. Russia had an approved 'democracy' by the West and economic advice and 'help' in the 1990s and it is not at all recalled with happiness by the vast majority of its citizens. China, like Russia has neither enjoyed real trappings of western style democracy in history, not to mention a 1b population.

The result of the ICJ case is almost irrelevant.

I fail to see either any relevance to the subject of your 'hypothesis'. Who is arguing that the Chinese will or won't run to Serbia's aid in such and occurrence? You are arguing with yourself here and the argument serves absolutely no purpose.

Let's rather make a different, more realistic hypothesis...if it goes Serbia's way it is highly unlikely that those countries that have 'recognized' its independence will not change their minds. The Serbs know they will not get 'Kosovo back' (apart from maybe the north at the cost of the rest of the serbs being ethnically cleansed from the rest of Kosovo).

The point of such an outcome is a moral and legal victory in Serbia's favor. Moral because NATO bombed Serbia by basically lying to the UN and their own populations and inventing a humanitarian crisis that did not exist, NATOs action actually creating a real crisis(!).

A legal victory because it will make it very difficult for any other country that is even thinking of recognizing Kosovo, let alone being pressured by the US et al, justify ignoring such a legal ruling to themselves. It would be declaring open season on just about every restive region around the globe. It would also strengthen belief in the UN by its members that the UN charter cannot be so simply ignored, bent or manipulated by the big powers at will.

However much one can call Ghadaffi a clown, throwing the UN charter over his shoulder to make the point that it is barely worth the paper it is written on is unfortunately true.

Either way, it will probably be a fudge and both sides will claim victory, but the genie is out of the bottle. Kosovo has been shown not an 'unique' event (Abkhazia/S. Ossetia) and has directly caused other problems.

6: Eh, I said the US is "crumbling", it is not the same as "imploding", though you reinterpretation of my words tells more about your own prejudices. ;) I personally don't think the US will implode because they have an amazing ability to reinvent themselves, though yet again, anything is possible these days...

Let's get this right, you don't think that the argument used by NATO to go to war in 1999 to "protect its credibility" was a sign of institutional weakness? Or that it didn't even change the 'defensive' nature of its charter until afterwards so that it could go suddenly a bombing? Have you read the excerpts from those who believed that "a couple of days bombing would do the trick"? So who did the miscalculation here, NATO or the Serbs? And who's credibility was damaged despite claiming the action was necessary to retain credibility? Come on.


That's not 'transitional', that's panic. Transitional happens over time and is well thought out. NATO has been floundering for 'a mission' throughout the 1990s' and 00's and its leaders at various points have openly said this. Many column inches have been written about this too.

NATO now declares one of its future fundamental missions is that of "energy security" which has massive implications.

Where's this 'stability' that NATO brings by being right up against Russia's borders then?

Where's its cohesiveness in Afghanistan where its members still refuse to pony up troop and equipment and apply special conditions as to how each nation can use their contributions?

NATO is a mess. It was a strategic blunder of enormous proportions when it was not decided to wind down NATO in Europe and its role to be taken over by the WEU.

US nukes will be leaving Germany territory with the new election results there. Germany, the EU's powerhouse, has a long term strategic policy of engagement with Russia which is counter to that of US policy for the last 20 years (despite the brief love in in the early 90's).

How long do you think Obama's administration is going to continue to subsidize Europe's defense as justified to US tax payers (in this financial crisis) when the EU is fully capable of paying for itself? $$$ker-ching!$$$

"Financially, the EU and the US are clearly dominant if they don't screw it up."

So they didn't "screw it up" over the last couple of decades then? The rest of the world can continue to revel in the West's mastery of all things economic and political? There's a reason the Romans spoke of "sitting on one's laurels"...

History is its own master.

As a Westerner that lived and worked in Belgrade for one year, I found this opinion piece extremely insightful and well articulated. It also piqued several questions I have. Maybe someone can help me: 1) Why does Serbia count on the Russians so much--where and/or when have they been such great allies? 2) How long has Serbia been a significant arms exporter and how is this perceived in the EU community? 3) Why would Tadic think anyone was seriously interested in re-invigorating the "Non-Aligned Movement?" Does he still use 8-track tapes? And who in the former YU is willing to have Belgrade be the host? Maybe Macedonia?

Living in Belgrade I personally experienced Serbian innat. While such stubborness may be emotionally gratifying, it has become foolish. Serbs are a smart, hard-working people. But they have been left with few strong cards to play. Continued flittering between wanting to be with the EU/USA and simultaneously with the Russians, may leave them with neither. The author of the op-ed was right: Tadic is not Tito and this is not 1960. At the very least, it is dragging things out an extra decade or so. And continued outrage over the the results of the wars of the 1990's is also wasted effort. Most of the world doesn't want to hear it any more than they want to hear about America's suffering on 9-11 as a justification for the US's lies, illegality, and inhumanity.

Ideas like buying the port in Montenegro seem progressive to me. Also, turn over Mladic. That one man has been such a drag on millions of people. If possible, protect your university system. Unfortunately the professors are paid ridiculous wages and invest their brain power elsewhere. The possibilities of the future are just that--in the future. It is time to bury certain dead horses of the past and move on.

I would disagree that people, overall, are uncomfortable with Serbia being friends with China. I think, overall, it will not register at all. Fairly irrelevant.

The real question for me would be: What is it that China really hopes to gain from Serbia (they already have cheap labor and Serbs cannot be a big importer of Chinese goods)? And, how does this goal fit, in the long haul, with a complementary foreign policy for Serbia? Serbs are so afraid of being used by the West--ok. Why are they so sure that Asia will not use them also? Is Serbia planning on trying to get along with the EU or not? Isn't it in their greater interests (visas, investment, etc.) to want this?

I am not Serbian--I do not know. But from afar it doesn't show payoff. Only seems to stick a thumb in eyes of the EU and USA. Once again, perhaps emotionally gratifying, but where is the pragmatic payoff?

The article is written by one of many Think Tank organisations - in this case a Western one. The facts and some "suggestions" are normal in such studies and I do not understand why Serbs feel offended and provoced. It is matter of fact that Serbia is in strugle to define its international strategy and which is a very tough and challenging task. For me the problem of Serbian foreign policy is that body seems to be young, but the brain has stoped in the 60-70ies. Serbs should understand and accept that Serbia is not Yugoslavia, which was a totaly different configuration. Serbia has its own right to strenght its relationship with Russia and China. This is a very pragmatic way. But, as somebody already mentioned, you can not "serve" 4 masters at the same time-knowing that EU+USA are still in ideological confilicts with Russia and China. There is a huge difference between western/american think tank and Russian or Chinese one. I do not think that Serbia has a long term strategy which direction to go. The slogan is simple "democracy". But unfortunately democracy is not the same everywhere. USA and EU will are and will remain for a long long time the only functioning democracies. Serbia should maintain and improve the relationship with all the countries of the world, but the strategic relationship should be with the EU. Good or bad, Europe created Yugoslavia and Europe dismanteld it.

After reading Tadic's "Four Pillars of Democracy" pablum, what more can possibly be said? An absolutely ridiculous speech with an equally incoherent foreign policy. He wants to be "friends" with politically, ideologically, and economically opposed constituents. If Tadic can't even keep fellow Serbs happy with this 'friend' philosophy, why in the world does he think it will work on an international level? To paraphrase another: Success is complicated. Failure straight forward--try to please everyone.

Peggy--I respect your comment as being genuine. And with equal respect I will tell you what I believe: There are no eternal "friends", only eternal self-interest. I think this is true for all--whether Western, Asian, European, and yes Americans. Why people act so shocked that they operate in (what they perceive to be) their own best interests, is beyond me. On both a local and global level, people do things for their own reasons, not yours. Even when they contribute to a charity. The smart thing is to dovetail YOUR interests with those going your direction. If someone wants a friend, they should get a dog.

Which leads me to Tadic's speech. Where to start? "China is the future world economic leader." Emerging power, yes. But news flash---you can take the combined economies of BOTH India and China and DOUBLE them and still not have the economic power of the US, as crippled as it is. And I haven't even added in the EU yet.

"Most important [part of these talks] were to create economic ties to attract Chinese investors."

Of course, that is why I questioned what China was up to. Bottom line to Serbs: Is it more appealing to have EU/US factories and/or buying your assets or the Chinese? Maybe it doesn't matter.....an investor is an investor. But the geographical reality is you are surrounded by EU countries. Do you truly not care what your neighbors think and the possible consequences? I completely agree with the comments expressed in #8 and #9. This does NOT have to do with sucking up to the West; it has everything to do with Serbia achieving their own goals of peace and economic vitality.

The idea of staying out of NATO, but part of the EU, is quite clever. I hope it can be achieved. How will Russia shine to this fuzzy, new friendship?

"We are not intending to join the Non-Aligned Movement." What?! This was Tadic's brainchild, albeit for two weeks. But he still thinks a 50th anniversary is a keen idea. Couldn't even believe what I was reading.

Well, I hope Serbia at least gets their bridge. Real bridges are always a good thing. Personally, I will believe it when I see it.

keep cool analyst, not everything is about the broke state usa ...

china will help in the relations with russia, america ain´t a topic at all.

and against the analysts believe, china is not dumb. it gets the same thing as russia, 6 serbian commissioners within eu. and that if you only count the serbian states serbia, montenegro and bosnia, not counting macedonia and croatia, where serbian political parties will have a kingmaker role ...

Obviously Western based think-tanks have their own opinion that mostly requires any nation in the Balkans to do EXACTLY what USA wants them to do. I think that represents "schizophrenic" Western policy of inconsistency (i.e."We'll carve up your territory but you should join NATO") and thus it will never have acceptance with Serbs anywhere. NATO can't have both ways with Serbia, no way.

Of course, the article would be better served had it not been titled so terribly..Very misleading.

Even after reading it, i see no signs of cold war policy, but rather political pragmatism..

But methinks the authour makes too much ado about nothing.

Although Tadic is doing alot of grandstanding for home audiences, the fact of the matter is, China made the effort to welcome Serbia on a diplomatic scale that hasn't been enjoyed since the days of Tito..There's a lot to be said for that, considering where Serbia was only a decade ago.

The article seems to make large on Serbia's international irrelavence, but quickly passes by her acheivements, just to get the point across.

I can't help but chuckle at Stratfor articles sometimes..
But somebody in this think tank institution will have to come to the realization, one day, that Western ideology and strength is potentially "Paper Thin"...

I'm just waiting for the "wake up call"....

Joe--I have a sincere interest in Serbia's future and hope for the best.

Jeremic was spouting the Four-Pillars nonsense again. This time to youngsters. I guess he thought it might fly with 16 year-olds. He and Tadic look like a keystone cop routine. But it is beyond schizophrenic and sadly comic, their policies and trips are irresponsible to Serbian citizens who (for the majority) desire EU integration. Libya?! When most of Europe is in Poland commemorating WWII?! What would the encore be? Flowers to Ahmedinejad? I picture average citizens coughing up blood over that one. Thank god their summer vacation is over.

I have an idea: fire Tadic and Jeremic and put in their place Djokovic and Ana Ivanovic. They would be great "Young Leaders in Diplomacy " and are considered quite hot on YouTube. Silly? Well, it is brilliant compared to the "Four-Pillars" diplomatic strategy.

I'm keeping an eye on the NBS Governor Jelasic--he strikes me as very smart. I'm getting the feeling, though, that from his last press conference politics are giving him a lot of heartburn in working with the IMF. Another good reason to fire the dynamic duo.

Seems that some people are getting nervous about Serbia making friends with China and Russia.
Nothing to do with cold war but everything to do with surrounding yourself with powerful friends. Isn't that what gave Albanians Kosovo?

Serbia is also friendly with India and some Muslim countries. What will the author say about that? Serbia is now a member of the Islamic Council?

Well, at the end of the day it's wise to have emerging powers as friends rather than delcining powers as friends.

China and Russia as guardians of international law. These are sad days. It is time 1244 is fully implemented. Time to save international law.

The West should un-recognize Kosovo now!

Serbs knew that and desparately tryed to save Yugo, but all others had different ideas. They, with help of west, distroyed the country ...

L, you are absolutely right. But how do you expect a marriage or a country to last if only one of the sides wants it and the othe(s) do not. It is bound to fail. The West tried to preserve Yugoslavia until it became clear that it could not been done. Only honest talks for peaceful divorce could have prevented the violent outbreak.

Charli,

Congratulations for the one year well spent in Belgrade. I was amazed to see how well you assess the situation of Serbia.

Is he kidding? Serbia should ignore China?

This has nothing to do with Cold War but the reality that China is a Super Power, maybe THE Super power today, and not America.

The national strategy should be vary pragmatic and serve only two goals:
to ensure security and peace and commit itself to morally and economically rebuild the Serbian nation.
Every megalomanic project of becoming a "bridge between east and west" and become the leader of the "block free countries" is just a waste of time.

Let`s look at the facts:
1) We have a free trade agreement with Russia which offers tremendous opportunities.
(For example Russia plans over the next ten years to invest over 150 bn dollars in healthcare,Serb Galenika and Hemofarm could profit exponentionally from this since they have a custom free access to this market and are already present there with their products.)
Also,politically we depend on their Kosovo veto.
2)Geographically we are surrounded by NATO countries and the economic power of the EU .
That means security can only be obtained and other things achieved (big weapon exports to countries like Iraq with Western support) if we strongly cooperate with NATO short of joining it!
Why not join it?
Not because of emotional reasons but because of the potential devastating implications on Serbian-Russian relations (they could cancel the free trade agreement and support over Kosovo).
Joining the EU is a natural thing and I hope it will happen with time but we should keep our cards close to the chest and insist that the free trade agreement with Russia still remains in force,even with Serbia becoming an EU member.

1)Maintain and solidify strong and friendly relations with Russia.
2)Cooperate with NATO short of joining it.
3)Join the EU but insist the free trade agreement with Russia still remains in force.
4)Do not sell strategic assets and big corporations to foreigners.

Well written, though not entirely accurate rant - there is more to it than meets the eye.

the most interesting part of the article is this:

"Belgrade foreign policy of reinvigorating its Cold War links has admittedly had some successes. Serbia’s ability to pass a U.N. resolution in October 2008 that asked the International Court of Justice to offer a legal opinion on Kosovo’s independence – despite staunch U.S. and Western resistance – illustrated that Belgrade can still mobilize its links with the Third World at the United Nations.

There is also evidence that Belgrade is again becoming a palatable arms exporter to its former Non-Aligned Movement allies, with Iraq recently signing a deal for Serbian arms. But a foreign policy strategy designed primarily to avoid domestic political upheaval is not viable in the long term. Belgrade will therefore have to wait for a firm political hand at home before it can calibrate a clear policy abroad."

so, while the article says this kind of policy is "obsolete" at the same time it admits it has had some success. but i think it goes from a false premise. i do not think yugoslavia was ever as much of a bridge between the east and the west as it was a country that used antagonisms between the east and the west in order to pursue an independent policy and engage with the countries of the south which tried to do the same as much as each country could. the south (and china arguably still can be seen as a part of it), not the east is the key. because while the relations between russia and the west may have changed, there is still a continuity of the policies of the west in the south that go back all the way to the colonial times. it is not about having one or more masters, it is about stepping out of your master's shadow.

the south is also the key in serbia's struggle to preserve kosovo. russia is important in the security council, but outside of it it is the south that will support serbia most. because they know well what it looks like when the west ignores the international law.

i am not sure if this is a viable way for a country that is indeed much weaker than yugoslavia, but who knows.

"Which leads me to Tadic's speech. Where to start? "China is the future world economic leader." Emerging power, yes. But news flash---you can take the combined economies of BOTH India and China and DOUBLE them and still not have the economic power of the US, as crippled as it is. And I haven't even added in the EU yet."

The US economic power appears big because they spend (and spend and spend) money which they never had to begin with. http://www.federalbudget.com/

And they printed, and are now resorting to printing ever more and more dollar notes to fund their financial rescue packages and upcoming health reform. The only differnece is that the world has woken up and are no longer be suckers financing America's spendthriftness anymore. The Chinese are defintely no longer bankrolling the Yankees and are now focusing on consumer spending in their own country instead. How much longer do you think so called wealthy USA can hold out now that no one is buying en masse their financial IOUs?

"Of course, that is why I questioned what China was up to. Bottom line to Serbs: Is it more appealing to have EU/US factories and/or buying your assets or the Chinese? Maybe it doesn't matter.....an investor is an investor. But the geographical reality is you are surrounded by EU countries. Do you truly not care what your neighbors think and the possible consequences? I completely agree with the comments expressed in #8 and #9. This does NOT have to do with sucking up to the West; it has everything to do with Serbia achieving their own goals of peace and economic vitality. "

Did it ever occur to you that not everyone is like the Yankees out to dominate other countries? Is it not possible that the Chinese simply felt there were good economic reasons to do business with Belgrade?

As for your claim that Serbia is being surrounded by the EU, well, I am not aware that Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia and "Kosova" are joining the EU anytime soon, if ever.

NATO is finished and will not expand, but is earmarked for quite abandonment just as the US’s anti missile systems. This was total capitulation to Russia’s demands and one has to understand that this is not 1999 even thought some in the west are still living in that period. For the information of the author of this article China is the emerging economic superpower of this world, not the EU or US.

For your further information Serbia together Srpska Republica control the vast majority of arable land as well as mineral and water resource in the former Yugoslavia. As Serbs are not greedy they have left the rest for the EU and US to prop up for ever.

Why would Serbia object to the EU wasting its limited resources maintaining Kosovo, Montenegro or the rest, Serbia did it between 1918 to 1991 and with little thanks from any of these people.

Here is another item of fact about the oscillation between Russia and the EU. The people hate NATO and the west while most of the politicians currently in power are paid by the EU to carry out its bidding.

Aleks--I find your comments well stated, but I fundamentally disagree with you on several points:

1) You may disagree with the STRATFOR analysis, but to shrug off the basic thesis as not even being worthwhile, is sophomoric.

2) When Tadic was dewey-eyed about an anniversary meeting for the Non-Aligned Movement, what else is one to think except "Cold War?" That's why it was so ridiculous. Everyone knows (except Tadic and Jeremic) that the dynamics of that world and era are gone.

3. Your thesis: Serbia should spread their cards and loyalty wide and free. This is an opinion worth thinking about and debating. But, I will disagree. When a person, and/ or country, has a lot of money or power, they are in a position to put numerous chips across the board. When a country has limited power and resources, I would argue that this country needs a laser-like focus on where they are going and how best to get there. Trying to suck up to everyone wins the respect and loyalty of no one.

Tadic has essentially been using your strategy. How do you think that is working for Serbia?

4) You are right, the West is nervous with China. Presently, China only has about a third of the US's GDP and the PPP is about HALF of a Serbian's. On average, China is a very poor country. That said, I have the utmost respect for China, and so does anyone with sense. They are smart, patient, and also ruthless. Ask anyone from Taiwan or Tibet. I am now thinking, when approached with eyes wide-open, China is so mature compared to many other governments. Look at how absurd Iran looks at the moment. I appreciate this maturity.

5)"China didn't bomb Serbia." Of course not. China is, above all, pragmatic. Geographically, ideologically,and economically it was not in their interests to get involved. Plus they have their own dissidents (millions). Come on, the Chinese have put blocks on FaceBook. After Tiennamen, the Statue of Liberty was put up, not Lenin.

Let's hypothesize. Let's say that the ICJ rules in favor of Serbia. Kosovo needs to go "back." All hell breaks loose. The US says--fine, we will obey the court. The EU wrings their hands, but is limited to stop the bloodshed. China will send medical supplies and smooth words. Are you okay with that? China will be fine.

6) You say NATO and the US are 'imploding." Transitional, yes. I think you show your own prejudices here. Only time will tell. But if the past is the best predictor of the future, who do you want to bet on?

I will be completely apparent about my own beliefs: I believe in American and European ideals of human rights and rule of law, despite its imperfections. Financially, the EU and the US are clearly dominant if they don't screw it up. I respect China, but don't want their leaders to be my leaders.

Unlike Tadic, I know exactly who I am willing to double down on.

I don't anderstand some of these remarks especially #10 remark. Why should Serbia choose one over the other. Serbs are trying to be neutral and friendly with everyone. It is other countries like EU and US that are always trying to stear the trouble in order to keep control. Just look what kind of trouble they brought to Bolcan, so now don't know what to do with it. They would not leave well alone. Yugo was established for a good reason in order for all people to live in peace. Serbs knew that and desparately tryed to save Yugo, but all others had different ideas. They, with help of west, distroyed the country thinking it is going to be milk and honey and menaged put all the blame on Serbs. What now?

Re: Military

In 1989, Belgrade was the capital of a country of 23 million people, had a large Adriatic coastline, possessed the fourth largest military in Europe (and probably the third most effective after the Soviet Union and Turkey

This comment is completely innaccurate and was used by the west as justification for the dismmemberment of the former Yugoslavia.


(1) The Structure of the JNA forces was set up purely as defensive to protect itself from any invations of the former Soviet Union. As such, the JNA military did not have a modern tank or armored vehicle arnaments. (Most of the 2000 Tanks were outdated from the 60's and 70's other than the M-84) This is the reason that the dismembered Yugoslav federation was able to withstand 70 days of bombing with an outdated air defense system and modern defense tactics.

(2) The JNA forces in 1989 did not even come close to the larger Soviet blocs at that time, namely E. Germany, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria.

(3) The most effective military after Turkey and the Soviet Union? Again, the JNA forces were highly trained but did not have the military arnaments to be compared with the Soviet Union or Turkey for that matter.

It is no secret that Greece has the strongest military in the region, possibly Europe, this includes the air force, navy and armed forces.The reason? To defend itself against Turkey.

I am not Serbian--I do not know. But from afar it doesn't show payoff. Only seems to stick a thumb in eyes of the EU and USA. Once again, perhaps emotionally gratifying, but where is the pragmatic payoff?
(Charli, 28 August 2009 16:28)

Charli, and what do you think America and UK deserve after the bombed Serbia for over 70 days and bombed mainly civilian targets?

Was this not a poke in the eye? Do you think Serbia should consider the west her new best friend of go to where she is considered a friend?

What would you do?

To Nick #17
Absolutely, that is my point. While srbs were going about their daily life, others were plotting distruction of Yugo. Serbs woken up too late, by that time plot was well on the way. Planed and delivered prfectly by putting all the blames on serbs. Others did not want to talk. West stood with them letting them do what they always wanted. Their dirty deeds are hardly mentioned or punished.

It is amazing what is peddled as 'analysis' these days. This piece is simply cobbling together a bunch of observations combined with a heavy dose of 'west is best' that any half-intelligent student at university could rapidly produce.

Comments about the 'Cold War' are ridiculous and out of place. It is curious that the West and their unofficial representatives often blame Russia and others about maintaining a cold war mentality, yet they are also incessantly bringing up the Cold War. Priceless.

Not wanting to give Tadic any undue praise (or any kind of praise as a matter of fact), if anything the non-aligned ideal fits perfectly into a globalized world. It is not about choosing East or West, it is about mixing and matching what best serves the state and the citizen. By tying Serbia tightly to EU countries and the US comes inevitably the political aspect and blackmail.

Tadic is spreading his bets which means that no single grouping has such an absolute strangle hold over either Serbia's politics or economy.

The posed question of what does Serbia have to do with China also shows 20th century thinking. This is a globalized world. People can complain about 'China' and their machinations that they are only doing things in their own interest, but how is this any different than that practiced by the West over the centuries? Are we supposed to buy in to this widespread propagated fear of 'the Yellow Peril' that the media peddles without expressly articulating it as such? They want us to believe that Western business is 'good' and 'safe' and Chinese is 'bad' and 'risky'.

The Chinese didn't bomb Belgrade.

If anything such an article says more about the authors, i.e. that they fear the rise of China and the challenge that China (and less so India) poses to Western dominance of politics through to economics, because they are 'not like us'.

As for Stratfor, they can peddle as much third rate junk as they want but that does not make any of it worthy of calling it 'analysis'.

Exactly why should Serbia hitch itself so closely to a corrupt and imploding organization such as NATO or the crumbling American empire so closely? As for the EU, it is the product of compromise and is more flexible than many people think. Not only that, it is still a project in creation and not a fixed point. The Lisbon treaty (if it ever is ratified by EU27) is only a single point of many necessary in this project which is still in its early days.

Charli,

1: I don't know how many STRATFOR analyses you have seen before but I have been aware of them since they launched, with their free e-mail bullitin. Supposedly ex-spooks and experts, they are decidedly hit and miss, more often miss, as they are in this case.

2: Being head of the NAM is a significant part of Yugo's history so it does a disservice to dismiss it so lightly, especially when all the ex-Yu states were invited to join. If the Non-Aligned Movement is supposedly so 'Cold War', then what does that make NATO? The fundamental reasons for the NAM's existence are still there. The EU has its own interests, as does the US, LatAm and the African Union. What are the others supposed to do, continue to hang on coat-tails of the powers and beg for favor?

3: A diversified foreign and economic policy is not about 'sucking up to everyone' as in your own words you claim it is. Serbia is blessed with a strategic geography between East and West (particularly as a trade route, Corridor 10 and all that etc.) and should play to its strengths it is not only the EU's money and business acumen that is either good or available.

Or do you think 'sucking up', to use your phrase' to the EU is the answer? Serbia is being squeezed by its 'friends' who make half baked promises and are at will to change conditions 'unofficially' and behind closed doors. If you are the EU's friend, you get special treatment, the most obvious example being Bulgaria and Romania (both close to hopelessly corrupt) who would never have got into the EU if the acquis communautaire had been properly adopted and implemented. Bulgaria has been the Mafia's main hub in the Balkans for the last few years (and still joined the EU) whilst Serbia has cleaned most of theirs up.

What favors is Serbia getting? It's just carrot and stick politics that also tend to be dependent on the whims of member state domestic politics and grand standing. Promises, promises.

4: Yes, the chinese are pragmatists, that is why there is massive taiwanese investment in China and is where they make most of their profits. Sure they can claim protection from the US, but they make they money in China. Oh, the irony! As for Tibet, it is a long history, for much of which the tibetians were neither peaceful nor democratic (both fairly new additions), not to mention the run ins they've had with other foreigners (Sir Francis Younghusband for example). I wonder if that is a mission NATO would relish? ;)

5: China has to develop in its own way. It's lovely and rosy to believe that democracy is the solution to everything but it doesn't feed people. Russia had an approved 'democracy' by the West and economic advice and 'help' in the 1990s and it is not at all recalled with happiness by the vast majority of its citizens. China, like Russia has neither enjoyed real trappings of western style democracy in history, not to mention a 1b population.

The result of the ICJ case is almost irrelevant.

I fail to see either any relevance to the subject of your 'hypothesis'. Who is arguing that the Chinese will or won't run to Serbia's aid in such and occurrence? You are arguing with yourself here and the argument serves absolutely no purpose.

Let's rather make a different, more realistic hypothesis...if it goes Serbia's way it is highly unlikely that those countries that have 'recognized' its independence will not change their minds. The Serbs know they will not get 'Kosovo back' (apart from maybe the north at the cost of the rest of the serbs being ethnically cleansed from the rest of Kosovo).

The point of such an outcome is a moral and legal victory in Serbia's favor. Moral because NATO bombed Serbia by basically lying to the UN and their own populations and inventing a humanitarian crisis that did not exist, NATOs action actually creating a real crisis(!).

A legal victory because it will make it very difficult for any other country that is even thinking of recognizing Kosovo, let alone being pressured by the US et al, justify ignoring such a legal ruling to themselves. It would be declaring open season on just about every restive region around the globe. It would also strengthen belief in the UN by its members that the UN charter cannot be so simply ignored, bent or manipulated by the big powers at will.

However much one can call Ghadaffi a clown, throwing the UN charter over his shoulder to make the point that it is barely worth the paper it is written on is unfortunately true.

Either way, it will probably be a fudge and both sides will claim victory, but the genie is out of the bottle. Kosovo has been shown not an 'unique' event (Abkhazia/S. Ossetia) and has directly caused other problems.

6: Eh, I said the US is "crumbling", it is not the same as "imploding", though you reinterpretation of my words tells more about your own prejudices. ;) I personally don't think the US will implode because they have an amazing ability to reinvent themselves, though yet again, anything is possible these days...

Let's get this right, you don't think that the argument used by NATO to go to war in 1999 to "protect its credibility" was a sign of institutional weakness? Or that it didn't even change the 'defensive' nature of its charter until afterwards so that it could go suddenly a bombing? Have you read the excerpts from those who believed that "a couple of days bombing would do the trick"? So who did the miscalculation here, NATO or the Serbs? And who's credibility was damaged despite claiming the action was necessary to retain credibility? Come on.


That's not 'transitional', that's panic. Transitional happens over time and is well thought out. NATO has been floundering for 'a mission' throughout the 1990s' and 00's and its leaders at various points have openly said this. Many column inches have been written about this too.

NATO now declares one of its future fundamental missions is that of "energy security" which has massive implications.

Where's this 'stability' that NATO brings by being right up against Russia's borders then?

Where's its cohesiveness in Afghanistan where its members still refuse to pony up troop and equipment and apply special conditions as to how each nation can use their contributions?

NATO is a mess. It was a strategic blunder of enormous proportions when it was not decided to wind down NATO in Europe and its role to be taken over by the WEU.

US nukes will be leaving Germany territory with the new election results there. Germany, the EU's powerhouse, has a long term strategic policy of engagement with Russia which is counter to that of US policy for the last 20 years (despite the brief love in in the early 90's).

How long do you think Obama's administration is going to continue to subsidize Europe's defense as justified to US tax payers (in this financial crisis) when the EU is fully capable of paying for itself? $$$ker-ching!$$$

"Financially, the EU and the US are clearly dominant if they don't screw it up."

So they didn't "screw it up" over the last couple of decades then? The rest of the world can continue to revel in the West's mastery of all things economic and political? There's a reason the Romans spoke of "sitting on one's laurels"...

History is its own master.