First there is the matter of the U.S. being the principal sponsor of the "independent state of Kosova," the illegally occupied and severed province of Serbia. Listening to lies and hatred coming from Daniel Fried and Nicholas Burns, and knowing it is official U.S. policy, has to be infuriating.
Worst of all, though, is the awareness that all three front-runners for the post of Emperor this fall share the dreadful Serbophobia that governs America's Ostpolitik.
Hillary Clinton is, well, a Clinton. She is fully behind her husband's illegal 1999 war, and eagerly uses the Albanian term for the new false state, "Kosova" (even though the Albanians actually declared recognition as "Kosovo," the province's proper name). Riding on her coattails (petticoats?) are Madeleine Albright, Wesley Clark, and Richard Holbrooke, war criminals we all know and love from the 1990s.
John McCain is an enthusiastic supporter of the Albanian cause, and specifically the terrorist KLA. 'nuff said.
What of Obama? Surely, he's got to be better than these two, right? Not so fast.
As Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com puts it today, "there is a problem with Obama's foreign policy stances, and I can boil it down to two words: George Soros."
Kosovo is proof positive that there's no shred of difference between the two major parties governing U.S. affairs. American Serbs voted for George W. Bush in 2004 not because they approved of the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, or anything else he and Darth Cheney have inflicted upon the world, but because John Kerry was in bed with the KLA. Unsurprisingly, though disappointingly, the lesser of two evils turned out to be, well, evil.
"It seems to me," comments Raimondo, "that the division of labor between the two wings of the War Party is, to a large degree, geographical." While the Republicans focus on the Middle East, the Democrats obsess about Europe, and more specifically, Russia. Now, Raimondo holds out some hope that Obama is not entirely in Soros's pockets yet, and may be using Soros as a means of getting to power. So far, however, he seems to be following the same Soros playbook Clinton, Albright, Holbrooke and Clark played by a decade ago.
As Daniel Larison of the American Conservative points out:
Recognizing separatist states... is how the Balkan Wars of the ’90s became international conflicts that drew in outside powers. It is how the West could make the wars of Yugoslav succession into an occasion for isolating and humiliating the rump Yugoslavia [i.e. Serbia] and backing up the historic proxies of… Germany, bizarrely enough. It is through the persistent mistaken belief that outside powers have some stake in the conflicts of the Balkans that great powers collide with one another and risk a more general war.
One question a whole lot of Serbs are asking right about now is WHY the Empire is so hell-bent on supporting Greater Albania and dismembering Serbia? To say that atrocities - both real and quite made up - were the actual cause of Imperial intervention in the Balkans is folly; they were an excuse - hence all the fabrications - nothing more. Ignoring the real genocide in Rwanda while making up a genocide in Bosnia; imposing a UN blockade harsher than the one against Iraq because of alleged "Serb aggression," then launching aggressive wars of its own (1999, 2003); condemning "ethnic cleansing," but sponsoring the largest instances thereof (half a million or so Serbs from today's Croatia and Kosovo) - how much more proof do we need that the Empire does not have a moral compass?
Almost 2000 years ago, Apostle Paul wrote, "there is nothing new under the sun." That is certainly a good description of American foreign policy. Its Russophobia is British in origin; its dislike of Serbs appears to be borrowed from Austria-Hungary and Nazi Germany (as is its choice of "allies" in the region). But the sheer stupidity of demolishing the international order over a patch of land utterly insignificant to anyone but the Serbs and the Albanians... that's 100% Made in America.
They should have outsorced it. Seriously.