White House warns of ‘unprecedented’ Serbian troop buildup on Kosovo border | Hacker News Reader

White House warns of ‘unprecedented’ Serbian troop buildup on Kosovo border

theguardian.com

149 pointsperihelions169 comments

It will deescalate.

KFOR, the NATO peacekeeping force in Kosovo, has gotten a larger troop deployment in the last week [0].

Serbian soldiers crossing into Kosovo is a clear violation of the Kumanova Agreement AND unlike Russia-Ukraine they will be de facto declaring war against the US and NATO due to the American and EU boots on the ground, and bye bye 25 years of work to try and join the EU.

It's just election posturing by Serbia, as Vucic promised calling a snap election in the coming weeks in the aftermath of a mass shooting in May 2023 [1] destroying his popularity and sparking mass protests reminiscent of Euromaidan and Gezi Park.

[0] - https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-builds-up-forces-kosovo...

[1] - https://www.politico.eu/article/serbia-snap-election-2023-al...

A Serbian emigrant here. There hasn't been 25 years of work to join EU. The actual work has been done between 2001 and 2004 and between 2008 and 2012. Since then, since the current governing parties are in power, there hasn't been anything done. They don't care.

For the first time I am actually concerned and I don't believe the de-escalation is a given. If you read the government tabloids, it's a frightening picture.

My current estimate is that it's about 50-50 chance that there will be a very short war, that will end up in Serbian defeat of course, and a probable exodus of the Serbian population of northern Kosova. It will also leave Serbia under Western/EU economic sanctions, renewal of the visa regime to Schengen, and an even tighter grip of President Vučić on the country.

I just hope NATO does us a favor and actually go all the way and occupies the country. That's the only way to neuter Serbia for a generation of two, and the only hope that I have for a return to normalcy.

I can't read Serbian so I don't have as deep an understanding of internal structures, but I would assume that enough powerful people within Serbia would be hurt economically by warmongering, and Vucic has nowhere near the level of control that Putin or even Erdogan has. I'd assume a coup would happen, similar to what happened in Egypt, Portugal in the 70s, or Greece in the 70s

While wishing you are right, I honestly doubt it. I think the situation is more like in Russia, where the loyalty to Putin is absolute and the powerful people try to make do in whatever situation he throws on them.

Don't forget, this isn't Vučić's first rodeo. He was already a part of the government that plunged the country in war against NATO back in 1999. He already proved he's willing to do it.

Very true. Though he must have personally known Slobodan Milošević, who died after 6 years of UN detention.

Economic damage is not necessarily bad if it’ll hurt your political opponents. Suddenly, the guy who doesn’t have a good grip like Putin has a pretty decent one. In a very short amount of time.

It hurts everyone when 70-75% of all trade happens with NATO+ members - countries that Serbia would directly be in a state of war with if they enter Kosovo and break the Kumanova Agreement.

Even Russia never had that level of dependency on NATO+ trade partners before 2022 or before 2014.

Russian trade volume was 57% NATO members before the war, and close to 80 if you count Western allies.

I'm just counting NATO, EU, and Montenegro. 70-75% of all trade in Serbia was from NATO, EU, and Montenegro, which is still significant.

Not even necessarily a coup and no need to look to far away. In 1999, Serbian troupes eventually accepted to leave Kosovo because the economic elites was being hurt by NATO bombardment of critical infrastructures [1].

[1]: https://nitter.net/mewalters101/status/1579936624703868928#m

> northern Kosova

Readers should note that the above post used the _Albanian_ form of this name, and compare with the Britannica's reference:

https://www.britannica.com/place/Kosovo

"The name Kosovo is derived from a Serbian place-name meaning “field of blackbirds.” After serving as the centre of a medieval Serbian empire, Kosovo was ruled by the Ottoman Empire from the mid-15th to the early 20th century, a period when Islam grew in importance and the population of Albanian speakers in the region increased."

Then research the political background behind the recent use of "Kosova" form.

Also:

BBC: "Kosovo: Why is violence flaring between ethnic Serbs and Albanians?"

https://www.bbc.com/news/62382069

> northern Kosova

Yes, because that's how autocorrect chose to end the word and I was too lazy to return and correct it.

The apparent declining quality of keyboards available on Android is a completely another story.

Anyway, if you read carefully what I wrote, you'll see the text is full of small grammar mistakes very typical for Slavic native speakers. I am who I say I am.

If it wasn't clear enough: your ethnicity, whether claimed or factual doesn't make your claims more or less valid.

The choice of names, however, reflects in this case a political side of a writer. Even if the cause is mere "autocorrect" I still claim the autocorrect sublimes your political views correctly, and I never claimed that you hide them. On the contrary, they can't be more obvious, inviting literal occupation: "I just hope NATO ... actually go all the way and occupies the country."

Inviting a war is a terrible position, good only for those who, ignoring all the bodies of the victims, profit from them. Long term, neither war inside own borders nor occupation resulted in the net benefit of the attacked and/or occupied nations. Any claims to the opposite stem from the specific political agenda, which I invite the readers to be aware of in discussions with political consequences.

You are misstating their position. They said “If Serbia starts a war, I hope NATO goes all the way and finishes it”. Big emphasis on IF. The only party inviting a war in that scenario is the Serbian government.

> You are misstating their position

I'd say you are doing it to both his an mine.

> Big emphasis on IF

I don't see any conditional in that post AT ALL. The paragraph starts with the explicit invitation and also states the (false and, let's be clear, if targeted at most other ethnicities/nations, immediately recognized as profoundly racist) "reason": "I just hope NATO ... actually go all the way and occupies the country. That's the only way to neuter Serbia for a generation of two ..."

Put as a thought example Native Americans in these sentences and consider how it was "better" for them to be eliminated, and how a text of anonymous self-claimed "Native American" saying that sentence targeted at their own people would appear today.

NATO would only intervene if Serbia invades. I think that was clear in the original post. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills.

I however think you can't cite any statement in that post directly containing that assumption, if it was "clear" to you it says more about your assumptions than about the actual content discussed.

The person who wrote the original post replied above saying that my interpretation of his post was correct. What other “proofs” do you need?

I'm simply not interested in person's later claims, the post does not contain any conditionals. That is exactly what I argue, let me repeat if it wasn't clear enough: if somebody "sees" them where they aren't it's due to their assumptions existing independently of what is actually written in the post.

Correct, thank you.

Kosova is also genitive form in Serbian/Croatian (sa s(j)evernog Kosova - from northern Kosovo). And Bojan is a Serbian name.

> A Serbian emigrant here... > I just hope NATO does us a favor and actually go all the way and occupies the country

Yeah, it is good that you are no longer in Serbia, but you should stop calling yourself Serbian because you very clearly are not.

I think it'll deescalate too but never underestimate the stupidity of some people.

Perhaps you are right. However, from the article:

>The US warnings come at the end of a week of high tension, beginning with an ambush by well-armed Serb paramilitaries on a Kosovan police patrol, in which a policeman was killed. Three Serb gunmen were killed in the ensuing battle, near the village of Banjskë. >Serbia declared a day of mourning for the three dead Kosovo Serbs, and Vučić falsely claimed Kosovo forces were conducting a campaign of “brutal ethnic cleansing” against ethnic Serbs.

This is textbook prelude to invasion. Additionally, Serbia has a fairly recent history (30 years ago was not that long ago) of warring in Croatia and Bosnia, where the predominant sentiment just before was that there is no way that Serbia would unleash the former Yugoslavian army on countries it just "yesterday" called brothers and sisters. Then they unleashed the army and gave full support to paramilitary forces spreading terror and reintroducing concentration camps to Europe. Moreover, the current president is a past pupil of a nationalist leader from the 90s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vojislav_%C5%A0e%C5%A1elj) who played a huge role in supporting wars and warcrimes that painted the west of the former Yugoslavia red with blood. Given the context of this, and given the history of the country and its president who is "just posturing", it would be extremely foolish if Kosovo does not fully prepare for an invasion.

And it deescalated - https://www.ft.com/content/92e0416b-046a-47dd-a785-07091e632...

"In a statement issued to the Financial Times on Saturday, Aleksandar Vučić said that he would draw down Serbia’s forces in the area because an escalation of the conflict would be counter-productive for Belgrade’s EU aspirations."

Apart from KFOR troops there is also the US Carrier strike group of USS Gerald R. Ford enjoying the sights of Adriatic Sea.

https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/navy-ships/US%20Aircraft...

This exact sentiment around Russian forces on Ukraine borders is why people like Snowden are being accused of spreading Russian propaganda.

Sometimes it deescalates.

Many times it doesn't:

long list of regions NATO meddling escalated.

Did NATO bombing achieve anything:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

Are you selectively reading from that Wikipedia article or something? It doesn’t back up your assertion at all.

It's a shitshow on both sides.

On the one side, the Serbian president is exactly what the rest of the comments here describe him as, and worse. The situation would be infinitely better if he recognised Kosovo and moved on. Instead, he keeps the question open purely for his own political advantage, ensuring that the tensions remain at the expense of the people.

On the other side, Kosovo is a military industrial complex puppet state that they've cut ties with/lost control of (intentionally or otherwise). It has been ramping up its opportunistic bullying and provocative abuse of the minority population in the north, who as of last year have no representation at all in local government, and are pretty helpless.

The unfortunate victims at this point in time are the minority Serbs in northern Kosovo, and more widely, the general Serbian population, who just like in the case of Brexit are being held hostage by their predominantly older, state-owned TV-watching, voting population who overwhelmingly vote for Vucic. Meanwhile, weapons have been flooding into the region from both the east and the west at alarming rates for the last couple of years, so he must be useful to someone.

Nobody wants this, but war is money, so here we are.

It's as if creating a new state from a thin air without any consideration for the ethnical minorities that will stay there was a bad idea. The problem here is that US politics in the region was never meant to create peace, it was meant to get influence and push Russia out. The solutions for both Kosovo and Bosnia were pretty obviously leading to failed state territory from the get go and the whole region will be devastated by these decisions in the decades to come.

Especially Bosnia, there was very much no correlation between territory and ethnicity, so the difficulty is built in. I don't know if this was much better in Kosovo, it does seem like that sliver of mostly Serbians are on the wrong side of the border, but since this is, you know, the Balkans, I expect the answer to be more complicated than a simple "America did what was in it's best interest".

Pushing Russia out is always a good thing, if stability and human rights are of interest though. It's tons better in either country now than it was before.

Technically there's also a path where people become less racist so ethnicities matter less.

I think that's an area where the average person in the U.S. struggles. For all our issues with race, we are generally fairly integrated, so the thought that national borders need to very closely reflect ethnicities isn't top of mind.

Well, you should ask native Americans how they feel about that

There is not much of racism in Serbia and Balkans (other than to Romas — but even that's never about their abilities but rather about their incompatible culture — they are "dirty and lazy" for the most part): nationalism is, like everywhere else in the world (including the USA), easy to spark in rural areas, and it's only the question of how much urban, educated population there is that will have the energy to supress the desires of the minority.

Serbia proper has not seen much war other than the NATO bombing, and if you look at population statistics from 1991 and 2001 census in Balkan countries, you'll notice that it was mostly Serbian population that ended up displaced: instead of looking at the news narratives, we've got an opportunity to look at outcomes this far removed from the events.

USA has systemic, widespread racism, which is harder to get a concentrated effort against since the 0.1% minority inflicting harm with it are spread around a huge area and 300M+ people.

In tiny countries like Serbia (7M), Croatia (4M), Bosnia (3M), Kosovo (1.5-2M), an unscrupolous populist like Vučić or Kurti can easily get the entire minority acting together, and 0.1% ready to do damage can do a lot of damage against the other peaceful 99.9% who are slow to react.

And once shit hits the fan, it's "us" vs "them", so hard for voice of reason to prevail on either side.

> who as of last year have no representation at all in local government

It's very misleading to mention this without stating the reason: they boycotted the elections

If you don't vote, you don't get any representation

It's very misleading from your side. People don't just boycott elections for the heck of it.

"Serbia and the Kosovo Serbs are demanding the creation of an association of Kosovo Serb municipalities, in line with a decade-old EU-brokered deal with the Kosovo government in Pristina, before they take part in the vote."[0]

[0]https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/serbs-north-kosovo-boyc...

Kurti said that they will never implement the agreement they signed and here we are. If only 'countries' honored what they signed.

I don't think it's misleading. It is an accurate description of the current situation. They also no longer have any representation in their local police force[0].

Along similar lines, it would be misleading to say the reason for the current situation is simply that "they boycotted the elections", without unpacking the reasons behind that boycott. For example, US actually penalised Kosovo[1] for their conduct following that election, and the EU went as far as to accuse their authorities of intentionally destabilising the situation.

It's important to be mindful of succumbing to reductionism if you're looking to understand complex political situations (assuming that's what you're looking to do).

[0]: https://www.euronews.com/2022/11/05/serb-mps-and-police-resi... [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65759214

> who as of last year have no representation at all in local government

Well, if you refuse to stand-up candidates in local elections, that's what happens.

You're trying to muddy the waters here by saying each side is as bad as the other, but it's really not the case. Vucic is a tinpot wannabe dictator who is trying to rustle up a provocation to prop up his support at home.

The fact that you are right about Vučić does not mean it's not exactly the same for Kurti: EU and USA were warning that side of escalating tensions mere months ago and threatening repercussions too.

Each side is as bad as the other. As a Serbian, I find it worse that Serbian side is no better, but populism wins everywhere (US had four years of Trump, there's Brexit...).

The attitudes of some peoples in these regions reminds me of a story:

Two peasants lived across the road from each other. One morning, one of them found his milk cow dead in the barn. Without his milk cow he had no income and no future. Despairing, he fell upon the ground, wailing and begging God's mercy. So deep was his agony and so eloquent his prayers that God Himself heard and spoke to him: "Your entreaties have touched me, my son, and I shall grant you mercy. How may I help you?"

Thinking for a moment, the peasant replied: "Kill my neighbor’s milk cow."

-------------------------------

Here's another more complex version of the joke with analysis of the attitude/psychology that may underlie it:

https://andrewtobias.com/kill-my-neighbors-cow/

(Scroll to the bottom under "RUSSIA PERSPECTIVE")

Its worth mentioning that there is a second perspective to this being a matter of EU/NATO vs Serbia. Aljazeera had an interesting opinion piece framing it as Kosovo getting dropped to achieve Serbian integration into the western block

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/7/14/does-the-west-s...

Cant say anything about the plausibility but the references to EU sanctions against Kosovo and the former president of Kosovo being currently on trial in the Hague are interesting points.

Non opinion piece on the background https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/24/why-kosovos-standof...

Would be happy to hear from anyone familiar with that perspective, it was news to me. But pressuring Kosovo to play ball in the negotiations doesnt seem to be out of the question?

This is from before the latest events. Since then Serbia has escalated the situation.

The current President of Kosovo is a hard-liner that refuses to implement agreement made before he got elected. He is being rightly pressured on that point, even though I understand and even partially agree with his reasons.

Thaci is also on trial with a good reason. There are a lot of indications he did commit crimes. It's a good thing the matter will be put to rest one way or another.

So they aren't really pressuring Kosovo, they are being neutralan, trying to get both sides to co-operate using the few tools they have on their disposal.

seems like two dogs barking https://old.reddit.com/r/serbia/comments/16vlpkv/napadi_na_s...

It's election season in Serbia, and the ruling president Vucic (basically a Serbian Erdogan) might actually lose.

Whatever happens, I just pray that Kosovo's population doesn't decide to come to my country again and not leave when the war is over, again (if a war was to happen). I'm from (North) Macedonia.

There was a lot of borderline propaganda on US news media during the war in the 90s that a lot of people swallowed whole without thinking about it too much: "Serbs are bad. Everything they do is bad. Albanians and Croats are just simple innocent victims." (To the point that even the reporter doing most of the coverage at CNN was Albanian and no one thought that was a conflict of interest).

The reality is, of course, a lot messier and more unpleasant: The region is filled with people who hate each other and tend to massacre each other along ethnic lines whenever one group gets the upper hand over the others. There's a reason every World War starts there. So NATO stepped in and basically said to Serbia "If there are non-Serbs in _your_ borders, they may form breakaway republics and you must let them secede. However, in Kosovo (your former state) Serbs may not do the same thing." Serbs were basically ethnically cleansed out of Kosovo under the "protection" of NATO Kfor. There are multiple accounts of NATO forces standing a few feet away and watching as Albanians burn and loot Serbian Orthodox churches and villages.

I'm not sure what "the way out" of this is, but I think US/NATO has a responsibility to treat all the sides equally, which they don't exactly have a great track record of doing.

WWII started with Germany invading Poland. That's a few good kilometres North of Kosovo.

> Germany invading Poland

Germany and Russia.

Outrageous!

The army of USSR just took a field-trip to Poland to protect Soviet minorities!

They then rounded up about 22,000 Polish military officers, took them to the Katyn Forest outside of Smolensk for a lovely picnic - as a show of good will.

How these thousands of Polish officers ended up in mass graves with bullet holes in the back of their heads remains a mystery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

> I'm not sure what "the way out" of this is

An EU assension leading to a shared economic zone and open borders. This is what brought peace to North Ireland, Romania-Hungary, Greece-Bulgaria, etc.

It didn't stop Brexit however. Europe might get nasty at some point, if we think of all the far-right posturing and their recent successes. These people are dangerous.

NI doesn't make or break elections in the UK. That's why brexit happened.

UK still got bitten hard by the realities of Brexit, which were made very clear by EU officials (and everyone with an IQ above room temperature) over the whole process.

> Serbs were basically ethnically cleansed out of Kosovo under the "protection" of NATO Kfor. There are multiple accounts of NATO forces standing a few feet away and watching as Albanians burn and loot Serbian Orthodox churches and villages.

I want to learn more about this, but I can't find a reliable source. For what it's worth, the Wikipedia article about the "2004 unrest in Kosovo" (AKA the "Pogrom against the Serbs") [1] has many accounts of Kfor protecting Serbs.

Where can I find accounts of NATO forces doing nothing?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo

I think that’s referring to one this week:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/24/one-police-officer-...

And Zociste in 2009

But they weren’t looting the monastery this week

The article at present reads “The Serbian Orthodox Church also confirmed that gunmen had stormed the monastery in Banjska“

Serbian gunmen not the Kosovo police at that point.

Again that doesn't support the claim that the Serbs lack protection. In that case the Kosovo police protected the Serbs and "the NATO-led KFOR mission said its forces were present in the area, “standing ready to respond if required”."

Let me know if you find reliable reporting toward the gp description.

"Between the arrival of the Kosovo Force (KFOR) in June 1999 and the 2004 unrest in Kosovo, more than 140 holy sites were destroyed, about half of the historical ones from the 14th and 15th centuries"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Serbian_herit...

Among other things, this is just what's findable in 40 seconds on Wikipedia.

The claim above was that Kfor merely watches it happen - does your link support that claim?

It doesn't seem to. In fact, that source says "Due to vandalization, the need arose for the armed force of the UN to protect locations containing Serbian religious heritage in Kosovo."

Another 20 seconds using Google yields from HRW:

"In others areas, local KFOR units have been unable or unwilling to intervene to prevent displacement or destruction of property"

https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kosov2/

Even that source, while critical of the work of Kfor, acknowledges that "In some areas, such as Gorazdevac, Podujevo, and Kosovo Polje, KFOR is providing direct protection to at-risk Serb and Roma populations."

And I don't see where it supports your claim that "There are multiple accounts of NATO forces standing a few feet away and watching as Albanians burn and loot Serbian Orthodox churches and villages."

But thank you for that link. It seems to offer a balanced assessment of the situation.

I'm up to like a whole two minutes now. I'm done after this, but here's some more pretty direct quotes:

"French KFOR troops refused to come to the assistance of the Serb residents of Svinjare, even though their main base is located just a few hundred meters from that village. The entire village of Svinjare—all 137 homes—were burned to the ground within viewing distance of the main French KFOR base."

"In the large town of Kosovo Polje, only a few UNMIK police and no KFOR personnel came to the assistance of the besieged Serbs, leaving a handful of local KPS officers to protect more than one hundred Serb families scattered around the city. One Serb was beaten to death, and at least one hundred Serb homes were burned, as was the main post office, the Serbian school, and the Serbian hospital."

link: https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/kosovo0704/6.htm

It goes on and on and on. For anyone who knows much about the region, this is pretty close to "common knowledge". But you won't hear much about it in the Western Media - which circles back up to my original point that "Maybe the Western media has been telling us the easy/policy-confirming story instead of the real but messy one".

Yeah, lets treat all "sides" equally, since they are all bad (sarcasm ends)

Go to https://www.icty.org/, read about cases, verdicts and pleas:

https://www.icty.org/en/cases/key-figures-cases care to search for the GENOCIDE word in there?

Serbia did bad the things in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and was going to do the same in Kosovo until NATO bombarded them. (Kosovo was already critical in 80ies)

That doesn't absolve any party of the commited (war) crimes, but it is perfectly clear who was/is the regional bully and who commited aggression against neighbours.

I also don't buy tipical lines "they all hate each other", or this is the revenge for what " they" did to "us" in WW2, WW1, during Ottoman times, during Roman times ... Historical crimes are not excuse for new ones, vicious circle must stop somewhere.

You are aware that Milošević and Tuđman both agreed to carve up Bosnia, right? And there was Varivode, "Operation Storm" where the Krajina Serbs who didn't flee quick enough were raped and pillaged, and a whole bunch of other cases. Milošević, the JNA, Srpska, or the Serb "volunteer guard" may have been the worst but there are plenty of contenders for second place. Not to mention the Bosnian mujahideen.

Everything you wrote is correct, and I would just like to add that in all the wars during the 90s, all Serbia had to do in order to avoid war was to not attack other countries and support paramilitary groups inside other countries. They were not defending their territory, they were invading others. Same with this possible invasion that they might be preparing right now, all Serbia needs to do is not attack.

Trying to paint this as "all groups hate and massacre each other" is equating the motives of the attacker/invader/bully with the victim, and is just pure propaganda or invention of alternate reality in order to soothe one's guilty conscience. To draw a parallel with something more people might be able to more clearly visualise, Serbia is the armed robber that breaks into your house and starts stealing your stuff and beating you, your wife and your children. By the logic of the "all sides" propaganda here, you are engaging in "mutual hatred" if you try to defend yourself.

This reads like propaganda piece. Today we know it was not black and white like that. Balkans is relatively peaceful these days yet we see constant attacks on Serbs in Kosovo (primary school got demolished the other day which is pure fascism) and sometimes in eastern Croatia as well (not allowing the use of Serbian language/Cyrillic alphabet).

All in all when can we expect Serbs to have paid their 'debt' not to see attacks on Serbian children anymore for example?

You bring a lot of past into the debate and somehow try to portray that Serbs today are guilty and deserve it when they get oppressed, beaten or killed. Sounds like a witch hunt to me.

Just today three more Serbs were beaten by police in Kosovo.They accused them of illegally crossing the border, booked them and then let them leave. Those three people went home to their houses in, wait for it ... Kosovo. Fine, if they illegally crossed the border you book them. No need to beat them right. But unfortunately this is now standard procedure there.

If there are illegal attacks on Serbs (especially children, as you put it), then they should stop and no country should mistreat its citizens. Furthermore, it would be better for everyone to reduce tensions and promote unity and peace, obviously. So that covers that.

Now, Serbia needs to stop waging wars in other countries and stop promoting nationalism that has historically lead to constant violence. Serbia has its history and it earned its reputation by its own acts. It would be extremely foolish for Serbia's neighbouring countries to ignore that history.

Why do you keep saying Serbia should stop waging wars when Serbia actually didn't wage any wars in the last 24 years at least? If you don't count Kosovo war (considering it's Serbia's territory as per the UN) then it's more like 28 years.

It would also be extremely foolish for Serbia to ignore hostilities towards Serbs from others. How long into the past can we go? 24 years, 20, 50, 100, 200, 300? Violence in 2004 on Kosovo? I mean you seems to be perfectly fine excusing current terror against Serbs by something that happened 25 years ago. The whole issue in the Balkans is lack of trust due to experience with each other, which is not really good. You can't have favourites here.

What you're writing is pure nonsensical propaganda with throwing out 'promoting nationalism, constant violence'. Show me an example of Serbia promoting violence in the last 20 years? I think they are quite pacified. Kosovo is a complex issue and you can't just expect a sovereign country to give a part of their internationally recognized territory away. I guess you equate Serbia not recognising Kosovo as independent country as promoting nationalism and violence. It's like saying Ukraine is promoting violence when they fight in Donbas. Serbia and Kosovo were on their way to peace and some kind of normality when EU negotiated the treaty 10 years ago. Guess who it is that didn't implement what they signed. What is happening today is a direct consequence of that.

Oops, please not again…

Literally my first thought upon reading the headline… “oh not this shit again”…. I mean really I know tensions can simmer for decades but seriously I thought this was one place that after all the breakups and border redefining we had some kind of lasting if somewhat tenuous peace…

>one place that after all the breakups and border redefining we had some kind of lasting if somewhat tenuous peace…

The Balkans?! Where each country borders its own borders/territories of old.

I don't think the conflict would escalate, though.

I mean yeah, I knew it wasn’t “settled” but it had the feel of the bar/pub fight just after the owner brings out the baseball bat and everyone quickly realised it’s a good idea to stop punching… everyone still has some grudges but they mostly got it out of their system and until someone actively starts some new shit… no one feels particularly compelled to start a fight themselves… its the “grumbling about grievances you don’t quite feel strongly enough to start a fight over” not the “I’ve got a knife on me and I’m trying to stir someone else up to start the fight so no one pins it on me”.

>everyone quickly realised it’s a good idea to stop punching…

The Balkans have been boiling for ~1400 years or so (more if you include Macedonia's claim on Alexander the Great's empire). Modern day (19th century) massacres of thousands of people originate on the Balkans, too... no idea how/when it might be over.

More like Europe in general. There is hardly a country in Europe that wasn't in a number of wars and/or its borders redefined several times.

Europe's history is full of clashes between & within its states.

Ah young Willie McBride, I can't help wonder why

Do those that lie here know why did they die?

And did they believe when they answered the cause

Did they really believe that this war would end wars?

Well the sorrow, the suffering, the glory, the pain

The killing and dying, were all done in vain

For young Willie McBride, it all happened again

And again, and again, and again, and again

Love this Furies song. Great one for singing over a trad session in Dublin

This is really playing with fire by the Serbian government, and I don't think I can understand their strategy if it involves trying to force out kfor.

I'm also very concerned about Bosnia situation where similar nonsense is brewing up.

What I find even more laughable is that Serbia could have been the majority player in the region if they weren't just doing imperialism.

For Serbia to be anywhere a remotely important player would need to join the EU - looks at the former Yugoslavia states - Croatia and Slovenia (which Serbia had wars with), they are doing way better. However, if Serbs are to the EU, they would have to fall in-line, so ain't gonna happen (become a player)

They would have to fall in line until they join.

After that it will be one more country to pull the EU in its direction.

I am very much pro-European but the way the organization works is not viable. Particularly the requirement to have agreement from everyone on everything is not scalable.

"Particularly the requirement to have agreement from everyone on everything is not scalable."

So far it mostly works, no?

I really do not want the EU to become a unionized state that engages in imperialism.

My main problem with the EU is the lack of transparency and democracy.

> So far it mostly works, no?

Not really. It works in some cases but globally you have laws that are not applied in countries because it is how it works.

I am not an economist and would love to see hard numbers about how the EU in its current constitution is better than having the core members alone.

I am in France and see that we are a net payer which does not make me happy. Not because we pay, but rather because how countries that receive this money use it.

Well, I am in germany and I am already not happy how our own government uses the tax money, despite that it pays also other members who do even worse things.

I would change lots of things if I could. But my point was that I don't think the problem of the EU is that it does not have too much centralized power.

Still, it mostly works. We have peace within the EU. We can go anywhere and start a new life just like that, that is pretty amazing.

Especially if you consider how it was before.

Yes, there are plenty of good things that happened (especially at the beginning) that are positive to everyone (travel, mobile rates, ...).

But look at how the slightest controversial point is vetoed. Sometimes by the Poland/Hungary team, sometimes by France, sometimes by Germany, or Spain, or anybody else.

Normally functioning democracies work on majorities. Do you think that your country would work is every citizen would need to agree to some law? It would be the end (like it was, BTW, in Poland at the end of the 18 century because of exactly this way of functioning of their parliament).

The other thing is that the money France pays (a net debit, like Germany) goes to countries that are openly anti-EU and prefer to buy South Korean weapons and not EU ones. There is no common direction the EU points to.

"Do you think that your country would work is every citizen would need to agree to some law?"

I like how switzerland works. If there is no broad support for a new law, then it does not happen. So not everyone has to agree, but yes there must be a broad consensus. I think this can also work on the european level, but of course not, if every small detail has to decided on the top level. Only the questions of europe wide concern should be debated there. There need to be some standards, but not universal standards for everything. I mean, we cannot even decide for Strassbourg or Bruessel for parliamanet..

It is just a definition of "broad" that is needed. Today for the EU is "every country must agree". If we set up a definition o f"broad" based on population or contribution (or contribution per population) then it could work.

I understand that this is not ideal for smaller countries (or the ones that do not participate enough) but it is difficult to admit that whole countries are taken hostage by others, independently of their participation.

This veto-based system simply does not work at scale

Yeah, that is true. There also should be a mechanism for kicking members out, if they are not constructive, yet remain on the receiving end. Just the threat of it, might help.

about scalability, what's the alternative? We already have the bright example of the UK not liking their own [special] deal/fate.

Use a majoritarian vote (with some fraction of the EU parliament required to pass the law/decision) - like in other democratic places.

Well that will never work, see the remark about the UK - also it effectively removes any small country from any decision making, and the EU consists of mostly 'small' countries.

"Particularly the requirement to have agreement from everyone on everything is not scalable."

Imho that is a feature: the EU's power depends directly on how much its members' noses are in the same direction.

Where this breaks down is exactly when it's "majority decides, decision is forced top-down onto member states, even those who didn't agree".

EU-wide cooperation (with willing members) is good. Some kind of 'EU superstate' is not.

A place where everyone must agree on everything is bound to fail. It has never worked in the history of humanity (which may be an exaggeration and I would be curious to learn about a case that did)

The EU is a construction that in average is expected to be profitable to everyone. If you have someone who can veto this just because they can it will not move forward. I am actually surprised that Brexit did not end with side agreements between UK and individual EU countries as it is usually the case.

> What I find even more laughable is that Serbia could have been the majority player in the region if they weren't just doing imperialism

All the Balkan states (Serbia is Balkan as well) are much smaller, and would end up being economically subsumed by larger neighbors like Greece, Romania, Germany, Italy, Türkiye, and Russia. This is already the case across the Balkans today, and nothing would have changed if Serbia were less belligerent.

Bulgaria and Greece are Balkan countries. How are they much smaller than Serbia?

I'd recommend reading my post again. I was saying the former Yugoslav states in the Balkans are much smaller economically and power projection wise than Greece, Russia, Türkiye, Romania, and Germany - all major players within the Balkans economically and politically.

Smaller countries have less weight, sure, what are you saying exactly? Nobody but Yugoslavs (or more precisely Serbs) themselves broke their state down, they were not forced into genocide and break up.

Had they chosen not to sperg out, who knows how well Yugoslavia would have done.

You use Balkan as a synonym for Yugoslav, which is wrong.

Except, maybe, bloodshed? Ask anyone, they would rather be economically dependent on Germany rather than have their land invaded by Serbian troops.

Why is Hungary omitted from the list? It is between Türkiye and Greece in economic size and has a history of local imperialism, surely it's a notable contender?

Hungary isn't a major FDI player in the Balkans. Actually, I should add Italy to the list above.

Economy of Hungary is smaller than that of Greece.

>I don't think I can understand their strategy

When it was obvious in February 2022 russia was about to attack both UK and US quickly packed every single soldier and ran away.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/12/uk-troops-se...

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/12/pentagon-orders-departure-of...

The play here is forcing same outcome.

Ran away to not start WW3, they didn't run away because they were afraid of conflict, since Serbia starting a war with NATO will not drag anyone but Serbia along.

“My troops are merely passing by”

"We are just doing an exercise"

Cool, they can have their ethnic warfare, the WH and US should quit the interventionist BS

“Stop intervening while I’m trying to genocide! I’m super serious this time guys!”

The region never healed after NATO bombings on the former Yugoslavia

The region has been unstable for centuries. Instability in the Balkans sparked World War I! NATO bombings may not have helped matters, but you make it sound like everything would have been calm and happy there if NATO had just stayed out of it.

Yeah, I'm sure it was the 1500 killed by NATO and not the 140,000 killed + 4 million displaced from 7 separate wars

How dare big bad NATO not let me genocide my neighbors. Clearly NATO is the source of all the problems in the region.

Clearly they didn't prevent any genocide, from the multiple sides in the region

Clearly?

Only supporting the "rebels" from the "opresive" government

NATO comes bombs everything, the country stays in conflict for many years to come

Same story everytime, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Yugoslavia...

Only in Ukraine the "rebels" were the bad guys

Documentary on Illegal NATO War in Serbia Kosovo propaganda https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Y9WAZjmXk

Here we go again more war. Never stops.

None of you know what you're talking about.

And if you know this, you could drop some knowledge. Even better, you could drop some sources of knowledge.

Good job proving me right.

Stirring up shit for Russia. Next level.

I don't think there's any relation to the war in Ukraine. There just isn't really a mechanism for one to influence the other.

Yes there is. Western and EU attention will pivot to Kosovo. This could undermine the focus and resolve the of the west with Ukraine.

Distracting NATO with a second conflict doesn't influence the first? Come on.

NATO could send Serbia back to the Stone Age with their pinky finger. If anything, a second military conflict in Eastern Europe might further increase support and military budget in NATO countries.

> NATO could send Serbia back to the Stone Age with their pinky finger.

Yes, nuclear genocide is indeed quick, but not super viable. Even the limited air strikes in 1999 took months, and pretending it wouldn't all be a diplomatic and military distraction is just silly.

Nobody said anything about nukes.

"NATO could send Serbia back to the Stone Age with their pinky finger" isn't true without nukes.

If you don't use nukes, it's at least months of airstrikes. A ground operation would be even slower, and bloodier.

Not even close. Vucic got a lot of people angry by eroding the country with corruption and is now trying to stir up shit before yet another "sudden" election to continue his reign. The man is a bitch and nothing will come of this.

I'm not challenging this, but wondering if it's true; then, why have more British troops been commited to the region already; and why are the White House warning of the events already?

It's not a good look to not call out parties for obvious bullshit like this.

Imagine that NATO did not increase manning, and the White House did not mention the troop build up. The headline now reads "Serbian troop massing on border, NATO says 'don't worry about it'". Bad look for NATO, and maybe makes future bullshit more likely.

Note that the British troops that have been "committed" are already there in the region, on "exercises". The only change the Brits have made is to place those units under direct KFOR command.

Modern imperialism... I remember in the late 90's at Uni I was hearing lectures refer to 'Information Warfare' and naively chuckling at how one could even have wars over information... and... The Kremlin's sphere of influence are masters of it. Money, weapons, murder, clickbait... in that order.

I don't understand why you are being downvoted. Modern Serbia is a Russian puppet state. Belgrade does nothing without the Kremlin's permission. Even its previous "good cop" posturing was all about becoming a member of the EU to push Russia's interests.

This couldn't be further from the truth. The whole Kosovo thing has nothing to do with Russia.

GP is getting downvoted because it's a shit take. ethnic tensions in Kosovo date back to before the break up of Yugoslavia -- like early 1980s at the latest. Serbia may feel that now is an opportune moment to stir shit up again, and Russia may be supportive, but to suggest that Kremlin is pulling all the strings here is plain wrong.

other commenters in this thread display much more nuanced and informed perspectives.

I just know one thing about this conflict. It is not my business and NATO should get out of Kosovo. Bismarck was right that time.

All that is happening today is because Kosovo government didn't implement what they signed[0]. Further, Kosovo is not recognised as a country by the majority of the world and multiple EU and NATO countries, and is officially still Serbia as per UN[1]. Current Kosovo government is completely anti-democratic[2].

We have a tricky situation of double standards here. Serbia(Kosovo), Ukraine(Donbas) and Azerbaijan(Nagorno-Karabakh). That's what's wrong with the world. We apply different solutions to same problems and people are hurting. I don't know what the way out from this is apart from being nice to eachother and put arms down.

[0]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/30/serbia-kosovo-... [1]https://peacemaker.un.org/kosovo-resolution1244 [2]https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement-neighbourhood/n...

If you write that list of countries and the regions they claim, wouldn’t Ukraine(Donbas) change into Russia(Donbas)?

This is just short sighted regardless of that, that agreement in context is unfair to the people of Kosovo.

No, as all provinces mentioned are actually internationally recognised (UN) as part of mentioned countries.

These three countries don't claim anything. They are recognised as such by the UN. The claim is actually on the other side.

The UN recognizing a country or not does not change history, Serbia is once again agitating for war but using this as an excuse now

Changed the subject now and went with realpolitik did you. You can't just ignore it like that. You'll have anarchy. Either rules apply or they don't. You can't have it as you want it per specific case. Either international law applies or not. Sui generis is not recognised.

Reality now that becomes history tomorrow is being changed all the time by good and bad actors. It looks to me you are the one who advocates for 'boots on the ground' reality and history. Reality today is that Serbs in Kosovo are oppressed. I don't see it like you that Serbia is agitating anything, especially not for war. The status quo works more in Serbia's favour. They are developing into a decent to live country slowly, connected with EU and wider world. Data is there. Why would they risk it? I know, I know, Serbs are the bad guys, so easy to point finger at, no matter who did what.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com