ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Europe Political & Social Issues

Battle of the Comments in the Media - NATO and EU involvement in Ukraine

Updated on November 25, 2014

NATO attacks on Russian ally Serbia

In my previous blog I mentioned the case of Kosovo and NATO's bombing of Serbia. Classical story about the historic brotherly/sisterly relations between Russia and Serbia, connected through their common religion of Orthodox Christianity, is often being used as a justification for Russia's involvement in Ukraine whose majority of people wanted to join the EU and NATO. There is a firm belief among these commentators that NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 merely because Serbia was a Russian ally. They fail to mention though all of the events that preceded the bombing such as the ethnic cleansing policy conducted by the Serbian government in Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia. When arguing about the wars in the Balkans during the nineties, I insist on doing so by taking the timeline of events into consideration. What happened first should be the question we ask ourselves, not only about the events on territory of former Yugoslavia, but also in all other events, as well as the situation in Ukraine.

Arguing about the bombing of Serbia by NATO often times, if not all, seems useless. This happens for the simple fact that those who opposed it have an excuse for Serbia's influence in Kosovo in the nineties that dates all the way back to 1389 when Serbia lost its province to the Turks. It is absolutely meaningless to use that as a justifying argument for the atrocities committed in Kosovo by Serbian Army and paramilitary troops. My questions often remain unanswered in these arguments: Who bombed and shelled Sarajevo for four years? Who was firing missiles at the historic walls of Dubrovnik, one of the World Heritage Sites? Who attacked and destroyed houses and buildings in Vukovar and Vinkovci in 1991, where bullet holes on most buildings can still be seen to this day? And finally, who was the one who deprived Kosovo Albanians of all rights by coming into power in 1987 and taking away their autonomy, centralizing power in Belgrade and replacing all officials with those of Serbian nationality?

If NATO's decision to bomb Serbia was supported by the fact that it was a Russian ally in question, and not the fact that the Albanians, as well as Bosniaks before that, cried for help in order to stop Milosevic's war machine that was committing genocide over ethnic minorities, then NATO wouldn't have waited until 1999 to bomb it. He would have start with the intervention the first time the Tigers led by Arkan rounded up civilians in Croatia's province of Slavonia in August 1991. It would have had a reason for intervening even before that, when the Serbian Army attacked Slovenia who had declared independence in June the same year, in a war that lasted only ten days, but has nevertheless left around sixty people dead.


Some houses in Vukovar haven't been renovated to this day.
Some houses in Vukovar haven't been renovated to this day.
If Serbia had a surplus in anything, it was the bullets and bombs.
If Serbia had a surplus in anything, it was the bullets and bombs.
The Croats finally liberated the city and the whole province in 1995.
The Croats finally liberated the city and the whole province in 1995.

Inconsistency of pro-Westerners?

I was accused of being inconsistent when I argued about Milosevic's politics and his genocidal intentions on the territory of former Yugoslavia that broke the country into seven pieces, while supporting the territorial integrity in Ukraine and disapproving of Russia's occupation. The accusation went something like this: "So Milosevic was declared a military criminal by US, EU and NATO when he shelled and bombed Sarajevo, trying to keep Yugoslavia together, and when Poroshenko is shelling and bombing Donbas and Lugansk, allegedly trying to keep Ukraine together, he is an example of a legitimate democratic leader? Come on guys, be consistent and honest at least with yourselves!" I don't even know where to start with analyzing this rambling. If Gogol were alive, this quotation would be an excellent material for a possible sequel to his Diary of a Madman. But let's give it a shot, let's put ourselves in the shoes of a psychotherapist (as if we haven't been doing that all along) and try to make some sense (any sense!) out of this.

First of all, like I already explained, Milosevic's aggressive politics towards ethnic minorities is undeniable. He was not trying to sustain the integrity of a country previously known as Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Not under that name, or under that same federal system (he later changed the name to Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, leaving out the Federal part). Yugoslavia was at his time starting to resemble a lot like the one described in 1844 by a Serb Ilija Garasanin in his document called Nacertanije, in which he arrogantly devised a plan of uniting all Serbs on the territories of Bulgaria, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia and Hungary into one big happy family - Greater Serbia. This idea would thoughtlessly include Albania as well during the First Balkan War in 1912. And many historians believe that the same idea drove Princip to assassinate the Austrian Archduke causing the break out of the First World War. Again, it was Russia who blew it up to a world scale by jumping in to help her sister-in-Orthodox Christianity, as the conflict was supposed to remain within the borders of Serbia and Austria-Hungary.

What does this have to do with Ukraine? Well, the idea of a Greater Ukraine emerged in 1904 but did not live to spread outside of the Ukrainian People's Party of Mikhnovsky. Ukraine did not have as vivid nationalist feelings overcome her as was the case with Serbia throughout history. The same idea cannot be attached to the current Ukrainian government who is in fact trying to join the EU where borders wouldn't matter and national pride wouldn't have any impact on economic, social or financial relations with other member states. Russia, on the other hand, has quite a history of such an aspiration that would bring all the Russians under one state. Soviet Union was a strong example, and today we have a Russia who managed to bring Chechnya back inside her borders through a disastrous war, penetrate into Georgian territory and help the pro-Russian extremists in two of its provinces secede from Georgia, play the same scenario in Moldova, and finally annex the southern part of Ukraine and encourage the eastern part to declare independence.

Finally, it's not up to me to prove my consistency, but it's up to those LilliPutins to prove their consistency. If they're defending the actions of Russia's sister in the Balkans during the nineties, if they're justifying the four-year long siege of Sarajevo, and if they're sharply criticizing NATO's intervention in Bosnia (as well as Kosovo and Serbia proper later on), then their consistency should, by their Gogolian logic, support the "bombing and shelling of Donbas and Lugansk" and oppose the Russian intervention in Ukraine. But they're yet again comparing the incomparable and drawing parallels between two completely different cases. It wouldn't come as a surprise to me if these same Kremlin serfs could come up with a mathematical formula where 2 would equal 7684956504. Squared.

This is only a small portion of the illogical way of thinking that's occupying the minds of the so-called Kremlin bots. More will be served to you in the next hub where I will discuss more about the current situation in not Ukraine but - Russia.

Diary of a Madman, and other stories of Kremlin bots.
Diary of a Madman, and other stories of Kremlin bots.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.