latest, NATO
Comments 59

The Intensified ‘Ukrainization’ of New NATO Member Montenegro

by Aleksandar Pavic, via Strategic Culture

If the focus of this article was slightly shifted, the above title could very well read, “The ‘Montenegrinization’ of Ukraine.” For we are essentially talking about analogous processes: the artificial, hostile, (geo)politically driven, outside-induced denationalization (the stripping away or systematic dilution of ethnic identity, status, characteristics, historical, spiritual or cultural attachments, etc.) of a targeted state’s peripheral area(s)/frontier, or of a population in a neighbouring state that nationally/ethnically identifies or is closely tied with the targeted state’s dominant, state-defining nationality/ethnicity. The ultimate goal of the project is the creation of not just a new national/ethnic identity, but one hostile to the original.

While the immediately targeted states in this case are Montenegro and Ukraine, i.e., especially the parts of their populations that identify themselves as Serbs and Russians, respectively, the ultimate targets in question are Serbia and Russia. These two ethnically and religiously closely related states and majority peoples are being targeted for a single essential reason: their resistance to further NATO-led expansion of Western-based globalist/corporate interests – the main difference being that Russia’s reach and, thus, resistance potential is global, while Serbia’s is regional (although the symbolic significance of its existence as the last non-NATO outpost in Southeast Europe potentially reaches far beyond regional boundaries).

Thus, just as, following the Euromaidan coup of 2014, the Western-installed regime in Kiev has engaged in a deliberate policy of “de-Russification” and “language genocide,” so has the Montenegrin regime, ever since its Western-supported exit from its state union with Serbia in 2006, on the basis of a controversial referendum that eliminated up to a third of potential voters that might have opposed secession (Montenegrin citizens residing and registered to vote in Serbia at the time) – engaged in a deliberate policy of “de-Serbization,” in order to eliminate the influence of neighbouring Serbia and, by extension, Russia, and facilitate Montenegro’s Euro-Atlantic integration and “evolution” into a wholly new, ahistorical identity.

After declaring the local dialect of Serbian as the new “Montenegrin” language in its first-post independence constitution in 2007, the tiny new country’s pro-Western rulers have gradually marginalized the Serbian language and its declared speakers (although they still form a majority in Montenegro), changing school curricula in the process, often amidst fierce opposition on the part of both parents and pupils, eliminating the Cyrillic script from official and public use, and drastically reducing school children’s exposure to the country’s most famous poet, Petar II Petrovich Njegosh, a 19th century Prince-Bishop of Montenegro, universally considered to be the greatest Serbian poet of all time.

What’s more, this process has been palpably accelerated and radicalized since Montenegro joined NATO’s “community of values, committed to the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law,” in June 2017:

  • The trial for an alleged Russian and Serbian-backed October 2016 coup has basically turned into a farce, failing to produce results even after two years of “actively searching for irrefutable evidence,” in the words of a recent Russian Foreign Ministry statement. (However, the “coup” served its purpose, as it allowed the regime to whip up anti-Russian hysteria and push the country into NATO half a year later without a referendum, despite protests and massive opposition.)
  • Miras Dedeic, a former defrocked priest and present “metropolitan” of the canonically unrecognized Montenegrin Orthodox Church – originally registered as an NGO in the Montenegrin Ministry of the Interior in 1997 – has recently called for a “Ukrainian scenario” to resolve the church question, and is urging the government to adopt a controversial law that would nationalize the pre-1918 churches and monasteries of the Serbian Orthodox Church, which has been present on the territory of Montenegro for 800 years, and subsequently transfer them to the jurisdiction of his schismatic “Church.” Dedeic has already paid a visit to fellow defrocked priest and leader of the schismatic Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate, Filaret Denisenko (whom the Patriarch of Constantinople has recently reinstated, as part of his controversial, US-backed drive of creating an autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine) in July 2016, and has received his support.
  • As part of the government-led drive against the canonical Orthodox Church, Montenegrin Prime Minister Dusko Markovic has recently threatened to remove a mountaintop church built by the Montenegrin Metropolitanate, claiming that it was illegally built. The Metropolitanate has repeatedly denied this, having erected the church on the site of an older church destroyed by the Turks in 1571. This threat is part of the regime’s broader goal of placing the Serbian Orthodox Church – and other religious communities – under state control, through the above-mentioned draft law.
  • The Montenegrin government has recently banned a group of Serbia-based intellectuals – a poet, two historians and a law professor – from entering the country (and, in the case of the latter, from visiting his childhood home and mother) on the pretext that they could “pose a danger to national security,” and “undermine its reputation and dignity.” Indicatively, some of those on the list were scheduled to participate at a gathering celebrating the centennial of the unification of Serbia and Montenegro at the end of World War I, while all of them have been outspoken supporters of the two states’ unity and critics of the artificial “Montenegrin” identity and language.

In a recent interview for Serbian Sputnik, historian Aleksandar Stamatovic viewed the processes in Montenegro and Ukraine as practical “twins… founded on the Leninist-Bolshevist theory on nations and national identities… with the basic goal of breaking up the Eastern Slavic and Orthodox corps…,” and noted that the seeds were planted in the USSR and communist Yugoslavia, respectively, within which the Ukrainian and Montenegrin identities were nurtured and enforced from above.

What is new is that the said Leninist-Bolshevist processes are now being aggressively supported and, indeed, promoted, by none other than the “democratic West.” It turns out that, for the geostrategists in Washington, London, Berlin, Paris and Brussels, communism wasn’t all that bad, after all, and that it had many quite useful features – from internal, administrative borders that could be easily be recognized as country borders, to newly manufactured national identities and even religions that could be exploited within a broader divide et impera policy. Or, in the immortal words of Chairman Deng Xiaoping: “It doesn’t matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.” As far as NATO and its “community of values” are concerned, a red one will do just as well, as long as it catches geopolitical mice.

 

 

59 Comments

  1. There are countries which “suffer from too much history”. Macario el Viejo posted this BTL Saker on November 20 at 7:47 pm: Paul Valéry on History (1931)

    “History is the most dangerous product evolved from the chemistry of the intellect. Its properties are well know. It causes dreams, it intoxicates whole peoples, gives them false memories, quickens their reflexes, keeps their old wounds open, torments them in their repose, leads them into delusions either of grandeur or persecution, and makes nations bitter, arrogant, insufferable, and vain.

    History will justify anything. It teaches precisely nothing, for it contains everything and furnishes examples of everything.”
    —-
    L’Histoire est le produit le plus dangereux que la chimie de l’intellect ait élaboré. Ses propriétés sont bien connues. Il fait rêver, il enivre les peuples, leur engendre de faux souvenirs, exagère leurs réflexes, entretient leurs vieilles plaies, les tourmente dans leur repos, les conduit au délire des grandeurs ou à celui de la persécution, et rend les nations amères, superbes, insupportables et vaines.
    L’Histoire justifie ce que l’on veut. Elle n’enseigne rigoureusement rien, car elle contient tout, et donne des exemples de tout.

  2. Francis Lee says

    Strange phenomenon how a state simply conspires to give up its national sovereignty and become a vassal for a few yankee dollars. I suppose it makes them feel big and important, equal partners in the war against ‘the other’. In fact, and in the case of war, these pathetic Quislings are very expendable. Their cringing vassalage has actuallly put them in a direct target for Russian nuclear tipped missiles – a rather questionable achievement. You can be sure that the US/NATO is not going to invoke article 5 in the case of and incident between one of these tin-pot statelets and Russia. Looked at objectively – i.e. removing the liberal interventionist spectacles – these mini states are a liability rather than an asset to the US. There will be no thermonuclear war against Russia if one of these liabilities gets it into their thick skull that the US is going to sacrifice New York or Los Angeles, or Chicago in order to defend Latvian or any other tinpot Eastern European regime’s rights.

    As Doug Bandow, a foreign policy realist explains:

    ”The NATO alliance expanded willy-nilly to the Russian border, bringing in nations combining minimal military capabilities and serious potential disputes with Moscow. None had ever mattered to American security, but Washington handed out security guarantees like hotels place chocolates on pillows: everyone got one—including the arch-hawk Poland.

    U.S. and European officials simply assumed that they would never have to make good on their promises. Then came the crisis in Ukraine, which suggested NATO’s Article 5 guarantee might not be a dead letter. The easternmost members of the alliance started clamouring for reassurance. Most importantly, they wanted American troops on station and permanent garrisons to protect their frontiers.

    No one was more insistent than the Poles. Back before he thought the alliance was worthless, Sikorski stated: “America, we hope, has ways of reassuring us that we haven’t even thought about. There are major bases in Britain, in Spain, in Portugal, in Greece, in Italy. Why not here?” He complained that existing facilities were “legacies of the Cold War” and their locations should “take into account the events of the last quarter of a century…

    …There is no security reason for the United States to risk war for Warsaw. Poland never was strategically important for Washington. The United States participated in the Versailles conference, which recreated an independent Polish state, but neither defended the latter from Nazi Germany, nor confronted the Soviet Union on behalf of Poland’s independence at the end of World War II. Washington did nothing during the 1956 Poznan uprising. In the 1976 presidential debate, Jerry Ford chose to claim that Poland didn’t view itself as occupied rather than to call for an American-led liberation campaign. Even the Reagan administration did not consider military intervention in early 1982 when the Polish government cracked down on the Solidarity union after being threatened with a Soviet invasion…

    End of argument

    • Doclea says

      Well west started ww2 because of Poland so learn history before posting nonsense

  3. Doclea says

    “The trial for an alleged Russian and Serbian-backed October 2016 coup has basically turned into a farce, failing to produce results even after two years of “actively searching for irrefutable evidence,” in the words of a recent Russian Foreign Ministry statement. ”
    Who even trust Russians regimes?
    Through history you see how they are.

  4. Dan says

    The ignorance of whoever wrote this is appaling… Russian bots everywhere…How much they pay you filth?

    1
    16
  5. Doclea says

    As montenegrian I just can say that I’m proud to be member of NATO.
    Articles like this are usually sponsored by Kremlin.

    3
    28
    • RealPeter says

      Speak for yourself, Doclea, but I’m certainly not proud to be a member of NATO, fronted by that idiot, Doltenberg. Nobody even asked if I wanted to join. Personally, I just wish it would disappear into the dustbins of history. It’s as expensive as it’s useless, and as useless as it’s dangerous.

      As a Montenegran, you really proud they bombed Belgrade? If so, I certainly wouldn’t trust you as a friend.

      14
      1
      • Doclea says

        I’m speaking for myself, my family and my future…
        Majority of parliament voted for NATO
        “As a Montenegran, you really proud they bombed Belgrade” can you explain me why they bombed them?

        1
        12
        • Jen says

          Maybe you’ll find out from NATO themselves why they bombed Belgrade back in 1999 when you, your children and your grandchildren are conscripted and sent on continuous tours of duty in eastern Ukraine to fight wars that none of you understand because you were never told anything about them.

          7
          1
          • Doclea says

            I don’t think Putin will last that long.
            So no1 wants to say why Belgrade where bombed?
            Amnesia ha?

            • RealPeter says

              Well, we were told a lot of lies about Kosovo to justify the bombings at the time. The real reasons were presumably:

              – The Americans are cowards who prefer bombing civilians from the skies instead of fighting troops on the ground. Cf. all the other countries they’ve bombed since Serbia.

              – Serbia was supported by Russia, so the friend of my enemy is my enemy, especially as my enemy was completely toothless at the time (I don’t think it would work so well now).

              – Dropping bombs means you have to buy more bombs to replace them, which is good for the economy in general and the arms industry in particular.

              – You can test new weapons on people your own flock of brainwashed sheep (aka voters) don’t care about, seeing as they have more important things to worry about like football, Christmas, getting drunk, paying off the house / new car / huge, flatscreen TV, etc.

              (Putin is paying me a big, fat cheque with lots of zeroes for writing this, as you so cunningly suspect, but if Doltenberg pays better I’m willing to consider changing sides. How much do you get?)

    • Mishko says

      I live in the Netherlands, also a NATO member.
      NATO has nothing whatsoever to do with my safety,
      It is just a bunch of gangsters that seek to destroy weaker nations like they did Yugoslavia.
      Friends like these ARE THE ENEMY!
      Don’t take my word for it, try the Wikispooks website, lots of info on NATO and operation Gladio.
      Also: NATO HQ is in Brussels, whicth was the hunting ground of Dutroux.
      Ofcourse, with all the human trafficking and Schengen there will never be lack of opportunity
      for the higher echelons Aka members of the club.

      7
      1
      • Doclea says

        Country was falling apart even in 80s
        I remember the rows for sugar, coffe, vouchers for gasoline, banks taking your dollars or D.marks.
        For years they spent lot of money on stupid things like military, non well planned industry and they even built a hydroelectric dams on places without engouh water.

  6. Here is a travel guide attempting to give an objective and historical account of the origin, solidification and dissolution of YugoSlavia (“Land of the South Slavs” — Yugo means “South”). The South Slavs are separated mainly by religion: Serbs are Greek Catholic, Croats are Latin Catholic, and Bosnians are Muslim.

    https://allthingscruise.com/understanding-yugoslavia-why-did-it-break-up-in-the-1990s/

    I found this historic objectivity very calming, especially in the present fevered atmosphere. And no lack of human interest; for instance, “From the very beginning, the various ethnicities struggled for power within the new union. Croats in particular often felt they were treated as lesser partners under the Serbs. For example, many Croats objected to naming the country’s official language “Serbo-Croatian” — why not “Croato-Serbian?”

    It reminded me of my favourite U$ comedy duo, Abbot and Costello. Why not Costello and Abbot? Lou bitterly refused to accept that it was nothing personal; their fans simply found that “Serbo-Croatian” rolls more easily off the tongue than “Croato-Serbian”. At least, it rolls more easily of an English tongue. Perhaps Croato-Serbian rolls more easily off a Yugo Slav tongue? I feel this is an important question, because it touches on Poetry and Music which are more universal values than religion, and much more universal than politics and finance.

    3
    2
    • Ray Raven says

      Serbs are predominantly Orthodox christians, not Catholic.

      11
        • Ray Raven says

          Yes, and they would be Serbian Orhodox, not Greek Orthodox.
          Two completely different languages used for similar church liturgy services; and with different array of specific saints etc…

      • Catholic from Greek New Testament: Cata Holos — down to the whole. “And this Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached _in the whole world as a testimony to all nations_ ” — Matthew 24

        There is only One Church — Christian, Apostolic and Catholic. These petty ethnic divisions into Greek, Latin and Whatnot make a mockery of Christ’s teaching.

        2
        1
        • @Vexarb.
          Britain was protestant under Henry 8th and the Stuarts, Scotland detested the Catholics and were Presbyterian and France was bought and paid for by the Holy See(which moved to Avignon), so in fact there are many churches and please tell the Catholics murdered by the protestants and the protestants killed by Catholics in Ireland there is only one Church. It was the rise of Catholicism that brought about the most horrific assaults against humanity, worse even than what the Muslims in support of Allah and Mohammed could muster.
          I would agree, however, that there is and can only be one God to those who are monothesiests, to stipulate only one Church being Christian, let alone Apostolic and Catholic is an insult to all other Churches whether they be Synagogues, Hindu Temples or Mosques. But even though I was schooled in a C of E school and went to a Catholic Church every Sunday, I turned away from God altogether but learned to respect other peoples religion.
          Why did you make such a demonstrably insulting and bigoted statement?
          And Admin think I’m contentious????

          • Mohandeer, I make this what you call “‘such a demonstrably insulting and bigoted statement” for two reasons.

            Firstly because I seem to remember reading, as a child, that in The Kingdom there shall be neither Male nor Female, nor Gentile nor Jew, but all shall be One in Christ.

            Secondly because I read, as an adult, that one singular German Jewish refugee asked to declare his Race on an immigration form wrote “Human”.

        • @ Vexarb. The question I asked of you still stands unanswered.
          “There is only One Church — Christian, Apostolic and Catholic. These petty ethnic divisions into Greek, Latin and Whatnot make a mockery of Christ’s teaching.”
          So petty ethnic divisions only apply to those who are not Christian, Apostolic and Catholic?
          I also remember Jesus raging in the Temple at the greed, arrogance and disregard for God on display, the Catholic Church epitomises the reason for his wrath, it’s greedy, murderous and protects it’s own when diddling little kids. I don’t think Christ would approve.

          • Mohandeer, I think we are on the same side; you remind me of St.Peter in Dante’s Paradiso, raging against those false Popes who shamed “Il luogo mio! Il luogo mio”.

            What we are talking about on this thread is Balkanization. Civil war which starts with petty distinctions and petty insults, and ends in massacre.

            Young’s Literal Translation
            Mathew 5:22 — “I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the Gehenna of the fire.”

        • LutovacCG says

          There “WAS” an one apostolic church,and it called Moravska,under Apostol Pavle(Paul). It was established in 1st today Sirminum(Sremska Mitrovica)

    • Ljubodrag says

      Croats officially called the language Cruatiserbian. Later on they tended more to use ‘Croat or Serbian’

      • Ljubodrag, thank you for picking up my point. “Cruatiserbian” (if that is the Croat or Serbian word) certainly rolls off the tongue a little more easily than the English word “Croato-Serbian”. But one more question: When speaking the language that we English call Serbo-Croat, would one say “Cruatiserbian” or simply “Cruatiserb”? Both roll off the tongue, but the longer-breathing, more fluid ending “-ian” would have implications for the music of the language, making it more like Russian or Greek.

        • Curios_cat says

          I have one question regarding this language. If majority of speakers of this language are Serbs, why that language isn’t called only Serbian, and dialects Croatian dialect or Montenegrin or Bosnian dialect of Serbian language? Like with German language. If you ask someone from Austria or some of German speaking cantons of Switzerland they will tell you they speak German not Austro-Swiss-German language. Or English, there isnt Australian-American-Canadian-English.

          • Curious_Cat: I think it depends whether one wants to draw a line — define a separate species — or not. As BigB said above (and Darwin and Goethe said centuries earlier) taxonomy reduces to genealogy. The germ line is continually embracing and splitting, so one can go on forever identifying with a particular group of ancestors — or denying them. In my youth they used to talk about “England” and “America” as Two Nations Separated by a Common Language. But by 1950-1960 I heard a US American shouting at a Latino American, “Say it in American! We talk American, American!” — meaning say it in English. “Yankees” of course was merely the Red Indian word for English.

            If you want to pick a fight you can always find a difference. The difference between Serbo-Croat and Cruati-Serb is probably one of those petty picky points. As Hamlet says, Greatness can find a quarrel in a straw. And Ophelia says, You must wear your rue with a difference.

            Re Einstein’s description of his own Race as “Human”, I believe this is the current definition: Biologically, a species is simply a group of creatures that does not interbreed with another similar group. Humans form a single, freely interbreeding species,

            Hence, the old prewar definition of race had no biological meaning. The modern (post-Nazi) definition of Race is sociological: A group of humans that is unwilling to intermarry with some other group. Thus, as Scott FitzGerald famously said to Ernest Hemingway, The Rich are a Different Race from us.

          • Jen says

            Custom and the history of the Serbo-Croatian language itself, along with the histories and cultures of the peoples who speak the various dialects, which you need to read for yourself, have led to the situation where Croatians call the language “Croatian”, Serbs call it “Serbian”, Montenegrins call it “Montenegrin” and Bosnians call it “Bosnian”.

            To complicate the matter further, Croatians write the language using the Latin alphabet and Serbians write it using the Cyrillic alphabet. So a religious element is introduced as well (because the Latin alphabet came with Roman Catholicism in the western Balkans, and the Cyrillic language came with Orthodox Christian missionaries from the Byzantine empire).

    • Jen says

      @ Vexarb: A Greek Catholic is one who follows Orthodox rite but acknowledges the Pope in the Vatican as head. Being a Greek Catholic and being an Orthodox Christian are two very different things.

  7. Sparta says

    Ridiculously chauvinistic article written by a Russian propaganda Sputnik journalist from Serbia.
    Montenegrins have had their own identity forged over the centuries of wars and battles for independence from the Ottoman Empire, for so many years the only free South Slavic country.
    Having origins from Doclean Slavs who inhabited Balkans alongside Serbs and Croats, trough their history conquered only a few times, they’ve been annexed by “brotherly” Serbs and occupied by their army in 1918, even though Montenegrins did not spare their lives fighting to save Serbian army only two years before.
    Serbs have since 1844 and “Načertanije” devised sad projects for a “Greater Serbia” spreading their hatred filled nationalism wherever they can, and where they couldn’t, they killed.
    And as for Montenegrin church, it had existed as autocephalous for hundreds of years (even at times when the Serbian Church wasn’t operating) until it had been extinguished after illegal Podgorica Assembly and all property of Montenegrin Church was illegaly written to Serbian one.
    These sad attempts at undermining Montenegrins are luckily the only thing that’s left in these sad people’s hands now that Montenegro is a NATO member (which is why they hate that fact so much).

    6
    26
    • Loverat says

      Sad isn’t it? Rather than find a middle ground, Montenegro joins an alliance hell-bent on the destruction of humanity.

      If there is nuclear war the humble country of Montenegro will take its fair share of the blame. Nuclear missiles heading into London are a real prospect. Meanwhile the posturing of Montenegro and other states selling up to the highest bidder guarantees the destruction of humanity.

      The shame is that Montenegro actually has a proud history. I just hope Serbia doesn’t go the same way.

      16
      2
      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        It’s not ‘Montenegro’ at fault. As everywhere around a human world careering towards self-destruction, it is Evil, venal, hate-crazed Rightists led, financed and encouraged by the greatest force for Evil, destruction and genocide in history, the United States of America.

        17
        2
          • Mulga Mumblebrain says

            They control the monster. No doubt they have their malevolent fingers on the Eastern European mess. Their ambitions, after all, are global, indeed cosmic.

    • Ljubodrag says

      And this in turn, is a sad albeit precise, example of a backed official new pseudo – Montenegrin anti – Serbian chant that viciously builds its power and domain on aligning themselves with the Serbian enemies in the region and parroting back their propaganda. At the same time it simply ignores quotidian bullying of its one third of population – which by the way is still stauntly Serbian and didn’t sell out. Shane, shame eternal, on you sell – outs.

      8
      1
    • Martin Usher says

      We have a word in the west to describe chopping something up into little warring factions — “Balkanization”. Europe is only too well aware of the problems of little states fighting among themselves which is why Yugoslavia was created in the first place. Back in the 90s the Cold Warriors were so high that they’d ‘won’ that instead of doing the obvious thing of integrating Yugoslavia into the EU — the country was never part of the Warsaw Pact, BTW — it (primarily the Germans) formented trouble among the Croats and engineered a breakup of the country into these little — and dare I say, irrelevant — pieces. This sort of thing might suit the geopolitics of modern Cold Warriors but it serves no useful purpose for the peoples who live there or the region as a whole. The best they can hope for is living like their neighbors in Kosovo on handouts.

      Disclaimer — No, I’m not a Kremlin stooge, I’m an US taxpayer who’s watching our Federal government’s deficit go nova while it plays at being the Global Policeman. (…and the rest of you lot take notice — I don’t give a damn what you call yourselves, you’ll always be “Yugoslavia” to me)

      16
  8. Loverat says

    I guess the other point is about different people being forced to live under one state.

    Bosnia and Croatia were under the Austrio-Hungary Empire before which had collasped. Any re-drawing of the borders would have been a problem in any event as Serbs occupied half the land in Bosnia and there was large Serb population in Eastern Croatia and Knin, the heart of Croatia where Serbs had lived for centuries.

    So I think the Treaty of Versailles had to deal with the realities.

    Perhaps if Slovenia had been left out of the equation things could have been resolved. Macedonia probably would not have been an issue. The Vatican and Germany (being wartime allies to the Croats) recognising Croatia was like holding a red flag in front of a bull.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      The Vatican under the Polish fascist and protector of priestly child-molesters, Wojtyla, and Germany rewarding the Croats, Bosniaks and Slovenes for their services to the Reich during WW2, were instrumental in the destruction of Yugoslavia by revanchist fascists.

      15
      2
    • RealPeter says

      Germany’s recognition of Croatia just two or three days after the latter’s announcement of its scission with Yugoslavia was the watershed event in getting the whole NATO expansion juggernaut rolling. We’ve on track for WW3 ever since.

      Leopards don’t change their spots. Once a fascist, always a fascist.

  9. summitflyer says

    I know very little about Montenegro and the countries that used to make up Yugoslavia other than to know that the interference in those nations was caused by the West ,namely the US through their CIA and affiliated criminal agencies to spread hate and divisions in these countries.It is always the same ,divide and the conquer as a fractured nation is a weak nation.To do so , always focus on religion and ethnicity . Humanity be damned as it never enters into the equation .

    23
  10. Loverat says

    Interesting article. As mentioned, a good analogy with what’s going on elsewhere and a familiar pattern.

    There is I understand significant opposition to this within Montenegro. But what is not clear is whether the current Serbian leadership in Belgrade will sell out to NATO. NATO seem to be buying up any opposition with regime change on the menu if money fails. As another reader adaply described things on another article I read here recently, NATO/USA is effectively a protection racket.

    And wasn’t the Montenegro leader on a charge for cigarette smuggling a few years ago? No surprise if NATO are yet again backing a regime based on criminality.

    I don’t think Russia has a great deal of influence in Serbia. Hence why I think things will depend on whether the Serbs and opposition in Montenegro have a backbone. They did in the past but the model to look to now is the unity of Syria and their great people. Success against tyranny is achieved by standing up against it and looking out for your people If the Serbian leadership opts for the back-handers, history will judge them harshly.

    Not sure what the Serbian PM’s recent trip was to Moscow was about. My guess he’s sitting on the fence. Trying not to upset NATO but showing his people are not happy with events in Montenegro and Kosovo. This stance probably makes no difference to the determined warmongers in Washington though and some new thinking required.

    But whatever happens, one day, NATO is going to receive payback on a massive scale.

    12
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      Everywhere, particularly here in Austfailia, the worst, the vilest Rightwing thugs, the environmental destroyers, the class haters, the insatiably greedy, the racist, the homophobic etc, are, inevitably, the most pro-US and pro-Israel. And they grow worse, more Evil and more omnicidal with each new generation. Evil rules from Thanatopolis DC and it is destroying Life on Earth. Fermi Paradox resolved.

      4
      1
  11. Whilst I am fully with the Russian and Serbian people in the face of NATO aggression and expansionism, I am left wondering why you have published this particular piece. Its peroration is an anti-communist diatribe based on the writings of the “historian” Aleksandar Stamatovic. Stamatovic’s paranoid views and conspiracy theories about anti-slavic plots by the Vatican and its world freemasonry allies have more in common with the pseudo-scientific views of 3rd Reich ideologues than they do with any rational discourse for the 21st century. Surely we can defend Serbia (and there is no end of solid evidence to corroborate NATO’s plans concerning anyone who does not fall into line) without resorting to bullshit?

    11
    • @ Labrebisgalloise. Apart from the one paragraph mentioning Stamatovic, what of any of the remaining article did you find was a diatribe evolved from paranoid views and conspiracy theories about anti-slavic plots by the vatican?
      You’ll have to forgive my ignorance regarding Stamatovic, but I can’t find much fault with the rest of the article, or for that matter any mention of such posits. If I’m missing something, can you elaborate?

  12. I have no connection with Serbia but much sympathy because the gang rape of Serbia by WC.Clinton, TB.Liar and NATZO (“our irresistible armed might”, New Labour minister for war) tore the smiling mask off Liberal Interventionism, and revealed the vampire fangs of Anglo Zio Capitalism, This bloody deed (“a foolish thing to say a bloody deed”?) was what set WC and TB on the road to what B.Liar called “only a moderate fortune” as acknowledged Rothschild lackeys (the Clintons $80 Billion) and bare faced Rothschild employees (B.Liar 80 Million pounds and a directorship, G.Brown a directorship).

    Just off the top of my head.
    “Mesopotamia, Gateway to Oil. Serbia, Gateway to Mesopotamia” — pre-WW1 motto on a board in the British Foreign and Colonial Office.
    “Serbia started WW1” — what I was taught at school.
    “Serbs are committing genocide in Bosnia” — what my children were taught at school.
    “Serbs are committing genocide in Kosovo” — what my grandchildren were taught at school.

    And now, according to the above article:
    “Serbia delenda est” — what Montenegren children are taught at school.

    18
    • Frankly Speaking says

      The break up of Yugoslavia was sad to see, but the Serbs are not free of guilt for some of the reasons as to why that happened, nor some of the atrocities commited upon the other states and peoples of Yugoslavia.

      The bigger issue for me is that Yugoslavia was artificially and forcefully put together in the first place and it was arguably going to fail sooner or later because of the wide gap between 3 religions and cultures forced together into that union.

      I’m not saying there was no external interference, of course there was, and NATO perhaps took advantage of the situation at the time when Russia was weak and struggling with its own massive internal problems.

      Ukraine however is a far more deliberate and strong push against Russians and Orthodox Christians. It’s appalling the lack of real debate in our media as to the causes, our interference, and now its collapse into a failed state. Its clearly part of NATO’s and the neoliberal playbook.

      Yugoslavia was less so, but the timing and opportunity for them was excellent as the USSR had just collapsed and Yugoslavia was already at strife internally, so they grabbed the opportunity, they could justify their continued existence to their electorates. Once done, they saw the possibilities of continual expansion and keeping the war machine and profits ongoing…QED.

      5
      1
      • Loverat says

        Frankly Speaking

        The point is accepted about the differences between the people. Some of the history created tensions between Serbs/Croats/Bosniaks.

        But I think had Yugoslavia been left alone for 10 years more it could have stayed united. One country then is now seven or eight – mainly non-viable. I think some of the people must at least regret the path they took.

        Franjo Tudjman and Milosevic could perhaps have avoided this – again if left alone. Tudjman a nationalist rather much like today’s Turkish leader – but Milosevic more pragmatic and a deal maker..

        Basically in Europe, if left alone the people want to be well off – I don’t think 10 years on or today they would have chosen to fight each other. But again the West sticking their nose in meant the unity of Yugoslavia was not a possibility.

        If the people of Yugoslavia had the benefit of seeing the model of Syria and their fight against outside interference, they may opted to talk to each other more seriously.

        9
        1
        • Frankly Speaking says

          Loverat, the reality is that as soon as Tito died the dominant Serbs in the Yugoslav military started a program of replacing the senior ranks with their countrymen.

          This is not generally known outside of Yugoslavia at least not in the public domain. It was a clear Serbian tactic to dominate post Tito Yugoslavia who incidentally was a Croat. This inevitably caused concerns in the other Yugoslav states.

          The Yugoslav communist party was also hugely corrupt and this continued post Tito.

          Year by year the economy got worse, eventually the IMF got involved and started playing games, but the rot had already set in years earlier.

          Add to that the hijacking of Yugoslav state structures by one group and it was inevitable that the others would peel away after negotiations for more equal representation failed.

          Yugoslavia might have continued but only for as long as Tito lived. He kept three diverse religious and cultural groups together with a strong fist but it could not last forever, in fact Yugoslavia was a false construct from the start, it was bound to fail sooner or later.

          4
          4
          • Loverat says

            I don’t agree that the split was inevitable had the Yugoslavs been left to resolve their own issues The external factors were very important.

            They are the same people. The religions might have been different but Islam was never a problem. Assad has many more religions and ethnic groups to contend with but it is still a country. Yugoslavia is different to Syria I grant but I think there are similarities in terms of foreign meddling.

            As for it being a false construct, I’m not sure how compared to the Austrio-Hungary Empire an alternative would have worked unless you drew the borders strictly along religious lines – which would have meant Serbs being recognised in half of Bosnia and a third in Croatia.

            I think alot of what you write is based on a mainstream premise which has long been in doubt.

            Interesting that back then that US/UK policy was for non- partition (except when Croatia/Bosnia declared indepenence) but not for Bosnian/Croatian Serbs. But again was so for Albanians in Kosovo, And today partition is acceptable for Syria when there is absolutely no basis for it, apart from Western interests.

            Foreign interference has had more influence in this than we have been led to believe.

            8
            2
            • Mulga Mumblebrain says

              The Forces of Evil centred in Thanatopolis DC can and will destroy any targeted state, by exacerbating hatreds along class, sectarian, racial, tribal or any other lines, and can easily find willing stooges to do the dirty work from among any country’s filth, the psychopathic and xenophobic haters, the type that nearly always gravitate towards the USA, like moths to a sulphurous flame.

              3
              1
            • Antonym says

              The young Yugoslavs that I knew were a well mixed happy group; they were sad and disbelieving about the split up afterwards. Foreign interference might have well been the main driver of antipathies.

              6
              1
          • shane brennan says

            This is nicely consonant with the BBC (neo-liberal) documentary on the dissolution of Yugoslavia. I was convinced by their take until I read Michael Parenti and watched Boris Malagurski’s ”The Weight of Chains”

          • Jen says

            If Yugoslavia was doing so badly after Tito’s death, please explain how the country was able to host the Winter Olympic Games in 1984.

            It was during Prime Minister Ante Markovic’s leadership – when he began introducing economic “reforms” advised by the IMF – that social and economic inequalities between Yugoslavia’s republics came to the fore and Croatia and Slovenia (the richest parts of the country) began to resent subsidising the poorer areas in Kosovo, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Macedonia.

            1
            1
            • Frankly Speaking says

              To host the 1984 games, they had to be selected at least 8 years earlier, i.e. 1978, when Tito was still alive.

            • Frankly Speaking says

              If you actually spoke to Yugoslavs from other republics than Serbia you would learn that social and economic inequalities between Yugoslavia’s republics started decades before Tito’s death.
              Tito was a Croat, but he had to appease the massively dominant Serbs. Croats and others felt they were working very long and hard hours and the benefits of their efforts being poured into a corrupt communist party centred in Belgrade.
              You can disagree with your opinions, but the facts remain that this is what people knew about and talked about in Zagreb, Ljubljana, Sarajevo and elsewhere.

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole