Tag: NATO
You wouldn’t be able to publish what I really think
I did this interview Monday for Shpat Blakcori of Kosovo’s TV1:
Q: How do you comment that the Government of Kosovo has taken some measures to ease the situation in the north, but European Union has not removed the measures against Prishtina?
A: You wouldn’t be able to publish what I really think. It is time to stop the nonsense of hyper-pressuring Pristina while allowing Belgrade to encourage attacks on Kosovo police and KFOR peacekeepers, boycott Kosovo elections, and mobilize its military forces.
Q: Do you think that the image of Kosovo has been damaged by measures from the US and the EU?
A: Yes, unquestionably. Neither Brussels nor Washington has made a secret of their distaste for the current authorities in Kosovo. How you could be more concerned with which buildings the mayors work from rather than about attacks on KFOR police and NATO peacekeepers is inexplicable.
Q: Prime Minister Kurti says that the dialogue mediated by the European Union is not balanced. What is your view on this?
A: It has not been balanced for the last year or more. I am glad that the American and European parliamentarians have spoken up against the imbalance.
Q: Do you think that with the upcoming local elections whenever they take place in the north of the country, Serbian List will continue to have full control as in the past?
A: I imagine so. Vucic shows know sign of easing up on his control of the north. That is what Brussels and Washington should be worried about. He is playing Russia’s game, not the West’s.
Q: In your opinion, what should be done to have more pluralism in the northern part of Kosovo?
A: Pristina needs to reach out to the north and do what it has done successfully with at least some of the Serbs who live south of the Ibar: convince them that they will be better off cooperating than defying. I am not seeing enough effort of that sort, though more may go on in private than I know about.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Another Belgrade view on whether Serbia is moving West
The Belgrade Media Center has kindly given me permission to republish in English this interview with Dušan Janjić, the founder of the Forum for Ethnic Relations:
The “Serbia against violence” protest will probably crystallize into a network of political parties, civil movements and interest groups with a pro-reform political offer. The inappropriate attitude of the government towards the needs of citizens and the demands of protests of various kinds, strikes and other outpourings of dissatisfaction, as well as frequent manifestations of the incompetence and irresponsibility of the government create conditions for the spread of protests.”
In his opinion, the government is one of the important generators of violence.
“Violence is one of the instruments of staying in power, but also of defending the economic and other monopolies of those who support it. In that alliance, there was a wide spread of power, money and organized crime, especially the drug business. This makes it impossible to realize the necessary deviation from violence”, Janjić states.
Janjić believes that the summer months are important for the spread of protests throughout Serbia, as well as for the preparation of wide promotion in Serbia and for the international promotion of the goals and demands of the protest.
“Apparently, in the fall, the protest mantra becomes: ‘Stop the mafia.’ This protest will be more massive and united by its political message in its stance against the government and the mantra: “Leave”! Then there will be decisive support for the transition of power,” Janjić points out.
The interlocutor of the Media Center states as the main challenge and responsibility for the “coordinators” of the protest: whether they will manage to build a flexible and effective network of associated actors, as well as to train themselves for joint action in which the key actors, in addition to common messages, by preserving their special identities, attract as wide a range as possible in the circle of supporters and future voters; whether they will manage to build and present to the public an alternative political vision, program and political propaganda and marketing communication with citizens.
He adds that this is a condition to maintain and strengthen the motivations and action of the initial protest, as well as to participate in the “Stop Mafia” movement. Otherwise, the emergence of the “Stop Mafia” movement will involve a much wider circle of opposition parties and other entities. But it would be dangerous for the transition if that movement is imposed and the widespread dissatisfaction of citizens is reduced only to a decision against,” Janjić believes.
Janjić notes that it should be borne in mind that in the fall the ruling old women, their coalitions and movements will be activated.
“Also, influential “patriotic”, “sovereigntist” movements such as the Serbian Right and parapolitical organizations and other anti-reformist, anti-NATO players linked to their “pro-Kremlin” ties and interests will be activated on the stage in the fight for voters’ votes in the upcoming elections. On this wave, there could be a repetition of the “betrayal of citizens’ expectations” as well as the real needs of society,” says our interlocutor.
By ignoring all the demands of the protesting citizens, the government has the following messages: That the government does not have the will, readiness, or ability to properly solve the problems that the protests point to; that every new incident, especially a security one, every affair or involvement of the authorities in connection with organized crime is evidence of the corruption of the authorities and increases the concern for the safety of a wide range of citizens, even members of the army and the police; that he does not respect the voice and dignity of citizens; that the ruling elite and its top itself put their own interests and survival in power first; that it has no vision of improving the situation in the country and that it is wandering in search of Serbia’s place in the world. This, in turn, encourages memories of the experiences of poverty and suffering from the era of sanctions and wars in the 90s; That behind the ignoring,
“All in all, the uncertain government and many unfulfilled promises encourage distrust in the government. And one who cannot be trusted cannot be a guarantor of security. This, in turn, further expands the fears, apprehensions, insecurities and sense of threat of the citizens”, concludes Janjić.
Anti-Western and pro-Putin propaganda and admonition of the authorities for European integration
“Since 2012, when SNS came to power, we have been swearing by “European integration” and very little work has been done on the reforms that are a prerequisite for membership.
From 2015 until today, the government is characterized by disorientation regarding the goals and means of running society. In its operation, there is a noticeable increase in the influence of interest groups that are anti-reform and anti-EU and NATO. This is expected and represents “bad news”. The “good news” is that such regimes, from Trump in the USA, Putin’s Russia and even in the EU itself, such as Orban’s, are collapsing. It shows that populist dictatorships are not a sustainable answer to the challenges of decades of economic and political crisis. Just as the EU is working on the “New Green Deal”, Serbia also needs a “New Deal”, ie a strategy and policy for sustainable reforms of the economy, institutions and society”, believes Janjić.
NATO membership is a necessary stage on the way to full EU membership
“That’s the rule. Through its unilateral internal political decision (Resolution of the National Assembly), Serbia declared itself “militarily neutral” and an exception to the rule. This neutrality has nothing in common with the military neutrality of Austria, Finland and Sweden. With the recent accession of Finland and (soon) Sweden to NATO membership, everything has come down to the exception of Austria, which is a member of the EU, but is not a member of NATO,” says the interlocutor of the Media Center.
According to his opinion, tolerance of Serbia’s self-proclaimed neutrality was the result of geostrategic security “balancing” of EU and US interests towards Russia.
“After all, in the example of Serbia, the source of the idea of ”military neutrality” is Putin’s Moscow from the phase of “Euro-Asian integration”. Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, in February 2022, marked the end of this policy of Moscow, and of tolerance by the EU, USA and NATO. A new distribution of spheres of interest is underway. This exacerbates the issue of Serbia’s membership in NATO. This, on the other hand, is contrary to the current ideological and political commitment of the majority of political and economic, as well as civil society, especially the SPC,” Janjić states.
The normalization of relations between Serbia and Kosovo is a necessary evil for the authorities in Belgrade and Pristina
“The authorities of Kosovo and Serbia have similar views and ways of dealing with crises. The opening of new crises serves them to create a “new reality”, and this one is interpreted with the leading goal of staying in power. Agreement and normalization of their societies and relations between Serbia and Kosovo is only a necessary evil for these authorities. In that kind of politics, the “final agreement” can only be the “final solution” or the elimination of the Other. This creates circumstances in which the Third Party (Quinte Group) is forced to take the initiative in reducing the damage, which gives rise to the obligation to create a framework for the actions of the authorities of Kosovo and Serbia.
Because of all this, it should be expected that the spiral of the crisis will rise to a higher level and include more and more problems and involved actors. For now, it seems that the Serbian government, with the attacks of Serbian demonstrators on KFOR – NATO soldiers, as well as with the announcement that they will return to the UN Security Council, has reached the limit where they recognize the intention of further militarizing the crisis and bringing Russia and China into the game. This would jeopardize the interests of the Quint Group and the citizens of the Western Balkans themselves in maintaining the current state of “unfinished peace”.
The likely answer will be to increase capacity and cooperation to prevent or control possible armed conflicts. In a political sense, this encourages a re-examination of the overall scope and format of the current “Brussels Dialogue”. There are more and more voices in favor of ending this phase of the “dialogue” by means of the International Conference on the Normalization of Relations (that is, on the stabilization of peace and development) between Kosovo and Serbia. The convener or “facilitator” of the conference would be the European Commission, and the guarantors of the implementation of the agreed solution would be the EU, the USA, Great Britain, NATO and Kosovo and Serbia,” explains Janjić.
A new challenge for Europe, NATO and Russia
“With the last summit held in Lithuania, NATO entered the final stage of its “rounding up” in Europe. The end of the war in Ukraine is coming, the enlargement to the Western Balkans, ie Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Moldova and Georgia. Moscow will, without a doubt, continue with various measures to prevent the unification of Europe in NATO and to “push” NATO as far as possible from the borders of Russia. Certainly, it is a challenge for Europe and NATO as well as for Russia.Although , Russia has an even bigger challenge on its territory east of the Urals, and especially on its Central Asian borders.
Also, the USA, the European Union as well as NATO, on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, have to face the challenges of the growing power and influence of China and India. In other words, there is the same challenge before all countries, both for the “Great Powers” and for small countries, such as Serbia: How to adapt to globalization and at the same time ensure their own development”, concluded Janjić.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, July 21
Several items caught my eye this week. More to come later.
– NYT had a big story — a welcome change from the usual campaign horse race stories — on Trump plans for a stronger, more assertive presidency.
– New Yorker had good interview with a law professor on how it might work.
– WSJ sees a visceral clash among Americans in the 2024 elections. Too much hate and fear.
– Anne Applebaum wonders whether Tennessee is still a democracy.
-New Yorker tells how the House Administration committee is the “traffic cop”
– House & Senate appropriators differ on foreign aid including Taiwan.
– National Security Archive has documents on the president’s nuclear “football”
– RollCall explains the administration’s new cybersecurity strategy. Here’s the document.
– SIGAT summarizes its reports on Afghanistan in reply to Senators.
– CRS has new report on covert actions and congressional notifications.
-AEI’s Kori Schake comments on NATO summit
And since ChatGBT seems capable of passing Harvard courses, I’m sticking with my oral exams.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
NATO reborn, but can it win?
NATO this week did itself proud. It renewed its commitment to Ukraine, painted both the Russian and Chinese threats in technicolor, and made commitments to defense expenditure and modernization that could make a real difference, if implemented in coming years. Though the specter of a Donald Trump re-election looms, for now the Alliance is in the safe and steady hands of Joe Biden.
Failure should not be an option
Even more than before the Summit, the fate of the Alliance now depends on the outcome of the Ukraine war. Failure should not be an option. If Kiev’s offensive continues to stall, Moscow will be able to claim a win. The territory Russia has seized is only 15% or so of the country it once sought to subjugate entirely. But that territory would give Moscow the capability of threatening Ukraine’s remaining seacoast and the port of Odesa. Just retaining Crimea, which it seized in 2014, would give Moscow a handsome reward for aggression.
NATO needs to view the remainder of the Ukraine war as its own. Moscow already sees it that way. For good reasons, the Alliance has chosen to fight with both hands tied behind its back. It equips and trains the Ukrainians but does not engage its own military forces. So far Russia has reciprocated that decision by not attacking a NATO member. But President Putin tells his people every day that he is fighting all of NATO.
Would that it were true. European and North American supplies have too often arrived long after the need has become evident. What sense did it make to delay the arrival of battle tanks, longer-range missiles, air defenses, and F-16s? Russia has shown no restraint in attacking Ukrainians, including daily bombardments against civilian targets. It is more than time to give the Ukrainians whatever they need to prevent that from continuing.
The war’s outcome will be decided in Moscow
That said, the war’s outcome will be decided in Moscow. President Putin will not give in. He would not survive if he did. But the Wagner rebellion showed his weakness. He will now have to buy off or repress discontent, which will grow as state resources wither and more bad news from the front comes home. There is no predicting when the regime will blow, but the fuse has been lit.
It would be preferable if the Russian people got to decide when and how. But that is unlikely. They did nothing during the Wagner rebellion. The other possibilities are the cronies, the secret services, and the military. There is little sign of their discontent, but one general has disappeared and another has been fired for complaining about lack of support for his troops in Ukraine. Prigozhin’s whereabouts aren’t known, though the Kremlin claims he met with Putin after abandoning the rebellion.
Go figure.
Patience is a virtue
While supplying Ukraine with training, materiel, and intelligence, the United States will need to exercise patience. That is difficult, especially with an election year approaching. Some Republicans have inclined toward limiting assistance to Ukraine, as do some on the left. Donald Trump has hinted that as president he would have let Putin have what he wanted. That alone should be good reason to vote against him in 2024. A reborn NATO won’t be worth much if it can’t persist into the next presidency.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, July 12
– Unhappy Zelensky takes what he can get.
– The official communique criticizes China as well as Russia.
– Culture wars threaten the NDAA.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, July 11
– NYT sees Biden playing the long game to restore balance in US-China relations
– WaPo tells how Biden at al. got Erdogan to agree to admit Sweden to NATO
– US today said Turkey would get F16s [It’s curious that the Biden people aren’t — yet — claiming credit which they probably deserve.]
– SAIS Prof Mary Sarotte says German model won’t work for Ukraine in NATO
– Ed Luttwak also has an analysis of the Ukraine war.
– House Rules Committee is deciding which of 1400 amendments will be allowed for House NDAA debate. DOD weighs in with SAP [statement of administration policy] on items already in the bill.
– I was struck by Peter Beinart’s discussion of Israel’s long term options, and especially by Finance Minister Smotrich’s 2017 master plan as well as his recent comments.
– I was dismayed by the Gallup poll showing a further deep drop in US confidence in higher education.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
