Serbia is a small country caught in the middle of games by the Great Powers. Her first choice was to turn West, but the West has repeatedly smacked her down and humiliated her, because the Administration continually plays “let’s kick Russia in the Serbia”. That stupid policy was bound to have repercussions. It forced Serbia to turn elsewhere for support. China supports Serbia’s territorial integrity in the UN Security Council, could Serbia do any less for China even if she wanted to?
True. It was declarative statement and it reffers more to the Kosovo issue then on Tibet. Mutual support to territorial integrity, no more no less. Nobody speeks of supporting violence in Tibet, especially by officials.
And for Russia – the only Power who wanted to help. Only they give mix of declarative support with a little of diplomatic actions. Nobody in Serbia belives in actual russian support and USA knows that. Both countries really do have historical ties, but more abstract ones – like in culture and religion (orthodoxy). But in the field of politics not much – Serbs asked for help of Russia in the past, but not getting much of it. Russia DIDN`T give any big help to Serbia during the fight for liberation of turkish ocupation in XIX century, just collecting some refuges from Serbia. Russian tzar REFUSED to help Serbia during the Habsburg Anexion crisis of Bosnia in 1908. `cose “we are allies now with Austrian Empire” tzar said (even serbian princess was married to one of Romanovs), what later caused WWI. Yugoslav army REFUSED to join Reds in “liberation” of Berlin in 1945 and to be part of USSR, and also there was big diplomatic conflict between Yugoslavia and USSR during Informburo crisis. So Serbs are very sceptical about this one too, just waiting to see what Russians will do for them. I`m afraid selling Oil industry to russian Gasprom under price will do any help. Wait and see.
This is really amusing. So, first Srebrenica, then China. What`s next – Papua New Guinea? Try to do some geography lonestar67 and read the article title first.
I think it`s more amusing to watch Indian Wells final.
I have read the article at least three times now.
My original point was always that the article’s arguments were far from flawless.
I actually do sympathize with the position of Serbs in Kosovo and outside Kosovo.
“Territorial integrity” is something I care very little about in comparison to individual human rights.
The idea that what Russia wants in any way constitutes a model for good public policy is absurd.
I actually can live with people disagreeing with Bush— although Putin and Pals seem to have a problem with people disagreeing with them— but I do not like the pathological reactionary anger that people trot out in debates.
President Bush is neither evil nor stupid. He is not controlled by some dark economic interests. But rather than argue the merits of policy, we have to be treated to hyperbole.
So here you are, stuck with reactionary commentary that you dare not divorce yourselves from. The article contained flaws but rather than concede and seek reasonable dialogue you escalate.
That was your mistake, not mine. Keep going.
I have got plenty more . . .and access to a a map.