Five facts about Kosovo the #fakenews media is lying to you about

1. Kosovo is not ancient Albanian land. 

Its very name comes from the Serbian word "kos," meaning blackbird. Its Albanian name, "Kosova," means nothing whatsoever.

Kosovo was the heartland of medieval Serbian state and the site of the 1389 battle in which both the Serbian prince and the Ottoman sultan died, checking the Turkish expansion into the Balkans for almost 70 years. Ethnic Albanians were settled there by the Ottomans over the intervening centuries, and became a majority due to pogroms and persecution of Serbs - which began under Ottoman rule but continued under Austro-Hungarian occupation in WWI and German/Italian occupation in WWII.

Kosovo was never a political entity of any kind until 1945, when the Communist regime that reconstructed Yugoslavia after Axis occupation (with which Albanians overwhelmingly collaborated) created the "Autonomous Region of Kosovo & Metohija" - the latter being a Greek word describing church lands.

The Communists also forbid any Serbs expelled in WW2 to return to Kosovo, cementing its ethnic Albanian majority, which further grew through an influx of illegal immigrants from Enver Hoxha's Albania and the ethnic cleansing of non-Albanians since the NATO occupation began in 1999.

Aftermath of the March 2004 pogrom: burned-out Serbian church with "UCK" (KLA) graffitti

2. Operation Allied Force, the 1999 NATO bombing campaign, was not a legitimate humanitarian intervention approved by the UN.

It was a war of aggression, in violation of both the NATO and the UN charter. Contrary to what the mainstream Narrative says today, NATO's justification for the war was not Serbian "human rights violations" against the Albanians. No, the bombing began as a way to force Serbia to accept the ultimatum issued at the French chateau of Rambouillet, in which NATO demanded a 3-year occupation of the province and a NATO-organized referendum that would give the ethnic Albanians independence.

It was at Rambouillet that the US negotiated on behalf of the "Kosovo Liberation Army," a separatist group it had previously acknowledged as terrorists. As part of its terrorist campaign to separate Kosovo from Serbia, the KLA has engaged in murder, assassination, extortion, torture, and trafficking in drugs, guns, sex slaves and even human organs.

KLA commander Ramush Haradinaj was greeted as a hero after a NATO-backed war crimes court acquitted him of torturing Serb captives. Haradinaj was provisionally released, and witnesses against him were intimidated and killed.

3. Serbia did not kill 10,000 ethnic Albanian civilians during the 1999 war.

That figure is an estimate based on assertions by NATO, entirely unsupported by any facts whatsoever - same as the "up to 100,000 men" speculated by NATO propagandists during the war itself. Western media continue to repeat it the same way they repeated the claim of 300,000 dead in Bosnia, which was later revised down to under 100,000.

4. There was no Serbian plan to deport a million ethnic Albanians.

The so-called "Operation Horseshoe" was concocted by German and Bulgarian intelligence to provide justification for the illegal and illegitimate NATO war (see #2 above), to the point where they used the Croatian word for horseshoe. While there was a mass exodus of Albanians towards Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro (odd, since it was part of Yugoslavia same as Serbia), some evidence suggests that may have been orchestrated by NATO and the KLA.

5. Kosovo's "independence" is neither legal nor legitimate. 

UN Resolution 1244, which authorized a NATO-led peacekeeping mission after the June 1999 armistice, reaffirmed Kosovo's status as a part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Legally, it remained a province of Serbia, whose integrity was sacrosanct on the same grounds as Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia (and later Montenegro) were recognized in their Communist-drawn borders when the proto-European Union and the US decided to declare Yugoslavia nonexistent in 1992.

In February 2008, the provisional administration of Kosovo set up under the UN viceroy and NATO occupation, declared independence - based on a plan rejected by the UN Security Council, the final arbiter of Resolution 1244.

The International Court of Justice later tortured logic and language to rule that international law didn't say anything about random people making such declarations - but these were not random people. Their very legitimacy rested on the UN mandate, which their declaration violated.

President Barack Obama lied in March 2014 that there was internationally recognized and supervised referendum on the issue; there wasn't. No mainstream media outlet ever called him on it, though.

A somber reminder

Last month, I wrote about NATO's takeover of Montenegro as part of the alliance's moves to encircle Russia, arguing that the logical end of this sort of behavior was a "Barbarossa II" invasion. Well, today is the 75th anniversary of the original "Barbarossa,"  which - while spearheaded by Nazi Germany - involved legions of their European "allies and partners."

If that sounds familiar, that's because it is.

Phantom dangers, imperial networks: How Pentagon sees the world (Op-Edge by @NebojsaMalic) https://t.co/7OzqSAOR7p pic.twitter.com/KDkbpnBLZg

— RT (@RT_com) June 22, 2016

Let's not mince words here, folks. In the West - well, the US, specifically - 75 years is a long time and war has become something that happens elsewhere, to other people. Sure, some American soldiers get killed or maimed or driven insane, but those are "heroes defending our freedoms and way of life" and hey, what's Kim Kardashian doing today?

In Russia, there is no family that was not touched by the war that began with an invasion of their country 75 years ago this day, and went on for 1,418 days to claim the lives of 26.6 million. No wonder the Russians remember.

There is a Russian saying, attributed to Prince Aleksander Nevsky of Novgorod: "Whoever comes to us with a sword, will perish by the sword." He put those words in practice in 1242, defeating the Teutonic Knights in the Battle on the Ice.

Many have since tried taking Russia at sword- and gun-point - the Swedish Empire, Grand Duchy Poland-Lithuania, Napoleon's Grande Armee and Hitler's "Anti-Bolshevik Coalition" are just a few examples. All of them not only failed, but their empires perished in the attempt.

There's a lesson there, for those willing and able to learn.

Montenegro, NATO and 'Barbarossa II'

#NATO in Montenegro: Securing the rear before Barbarossa II? (Op-Edge) https://t.co/cQAgqbvZMI pic.twitter.com/7lbFHZLPy6

— RT (@RT_com) May 26, 2016

Yugoslavia was literally decimated, and the USSR lost almost 27 million people fighting the Nazis, only for the modern map of Europe to look eerily like it did in 1942. Many of Hitler’s allies then are NATO members now, and German troops are once again in artillery range of Leningrad (now called St. Petersburg). Having secured Montenegro and expecting no resistance from “softly” occupied Serbia, NATO may be emboldened to act even more aggressively towards Russia. This is madness, of course, but there is an alarming lack of sanity in Brussels and Washington these days.

That is why Montenegro matters.

Read the rest at RT

Mad about Serbia

Seeing as it's the anniversary of the 1999 armistice that ended NATO's aggression, and began the Alliance's occupation of Kosovo, I wanted to comment on a recent attempt to force Russia into the US narrative about the Balkans.

Shocking, I know.

A few weeks back (May 22, to be precise), the Washington Times ran an opinion piece by L. Todd Wood about why the Russians love Putin regardless of Western propaganda, sanctions, etc. Wood's explanation is that Putin restored Russia's honor by confronting NATO, "mad" (angry, not crazy) over the 1999 war on Serbia.

Left to right: KLA terror boss Hashim Thaci; NATO viceroy Bernard Kouchner; UK general Michael Jackson
KLA "general" Agim Ceku; US general Wesley Clark. Occupied Kosovo, 1999.

Way to discover the obvious! I've said as much a year ago, and Putin has indeed mentioned 1999's evil little war (seriously, read that) time and again. But Wood appears to be so devoted to the mainstream Western narrative about Russia - and Serbia - that he turns Russia's justified anger over NATO's illegal, illegitimate aggression into some kind of proof that Putin is a fascist.

I'm not using that word lightly, either. Wood literally writes: "Russians would much rather have a leader who makes the trains run on time and can stand up to perceived Western aggression." The particular phrase I italicized up there has been commonly used to describe Benito Mussolini, the father of actual fascism.

The other propaganda trick in that sentence is describing Western behavior as "perceived aggression." Yeah, because when Washington backs an illegal coup and endorses a Russian-hating regime dead-set on glorifying its Nazi ancestors - and proceeds to gruesomely murder anyone who objects - everything's just peachy and any idea this might be wrong or objectionable is entirely in Vladimir Putin's head. Right?

Then there is Wood's description of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic (my take on him here):

"[Milosevic] presided over a reign of terror in several of the Yugoslav provinces; that is a fact. He used mass media to delegitimize certain ethnic groups and accused them of fascist tendencies, setting up justification for military action. Sound familiar? He turned a blind eye to genocide, especially in Kosovo, and supported ethnic cleansing of Kosovo for Serbia." 

One sentence at a time, shall we?

He did not; this is not a fact, it's pure fiction. What some Serbian media (others were paid by the West and actually defended any and all Serb-killing) pointed out were not "fascist tendencies" but actual fascism (see here, and here, and here). This only "sounds familiar" because Wood is trying to shoehorn Putin into the "mythical Milosevic" mold. That last sentence doesn't even make sense; for years the West accused Milosevic of committing "genocide," and now he's merely supposed to have looked the other way? Well, which is it? Plus, the phrase "ethnic cleansing" actually originated from an Albanian appalled by Albanian efforts to expel or kill the Serbs in the 1980s - efforts that eventually succeeded only thanks to NATO's aggression and the subsequent trampling of the 1999 armistice.

Wood also mentions that Milosevic died in a holding cell while being on trial for genocide by the ICTY. That "court" has been a bonfire of absurdities since its very beginning, but its greatest "accomplishment" surely has to be using third-hand perjured hearsay to accuse the Serbs of genocide by invoking a Nazi Croatian plot to genocide the Serbs. Enough said.

Anyway, in Wood's telling, Putin is as bad as the Very Evil Milosevic, and Russia is just like Serbia only (a lot) bigger. While he doesn't actually follow through to the natural conclusion of that "logic", I have to: therefore, the West (meaning the US, really) must do to Russia what they have done unto Serbia.

Just to be clear, the mainstream Western narrative is that Serbia was "liberated" in October 2000, when a popular revolution (albeit assisted with "suitcases of cash" and overseen by the National Endowment for Democracy and a series of US ambassadors) overthrew the Very Evil Milosevic and introduced the country to progressive liberal democracy and human rights. Naturally, it took several election cycles to "filter out" the "recidivists" until the country could get its Most Progressive Government Ever.

Washington isn't even bothering to hide that the ultimate objective of the sanctions and the propaganda is "regime change" in Moscow. What they want is a return to the 1990s, when Russia was systematically looted by a cabal of US "advisers", while its president was a drunken puppet who shelled the parliament and stole at least one election.

That's the real reason the noun "democracy" and the adjective "liberal" are considered insults in modern Russian, right there on par with "fascist."

(see the Disclaimer at top right of page)

The East Remembers

1999 - 2015

Unforgotten.

Unforgiven.

The East Remembers.

Trouble in Kosovo? Must be the Serbs' Fault

Something strange is going on in the "Independent state of Kosovia" these days - but only if you're a mainstream Western media reporter.

Voice of America is stumped by the fact that some ten thousand "Kosovianians" have fled for the EU since the beginning of the year. Their explanation? It's Serbia's fault (of course, always) for making it easy for the "Kosovistanis" to travel freely, which "coincided" with "political turmoil and street unrest in Kosovo fueled by poverty, high unemployment and economically debilitating corruption."

Now wait just a bloody, bombed-out minute. Aren't "poverty" and "high unemployment" trotted out every time to explain every riot in "Kosovia"? Remember the 2004 pogrom resulting in the expulsion of some 40,000 Serbs? Within days, the Albanians' Western apologists were spinning it as a natural consequence of unemployment, poverty, etc. Their proposed solution? Independence, independence, independence!

NATO soldiers inspect a destroyed Serbian church in Prizren, following the March 2004 pogrom; the graffiti (in gutter Albanian) reads "Death to Serbs" (photo: SrbijaDanas)

You see, at the time Kosovo was legally considered a province of Serbia, albeit under NATO and UN occupation since NATO's illegal war of 1999. After almost four years of pro-independence propaganda, in February 2008 the provisional government proclaimed the "Republic of Kosovo." Two years later, the International Court of Justice tortured logic into declaring that this wasn't necessarily illegal.

Fast-forward to 2015. "Kosovia" has been recognized by some 100 states, mostly vassals of the Atlantic Empire. Moreover, the quisling government in Serbia has de facto recognized the province's independence - government, flag, borders, customs, documents, etc. - and sold the remaining Serbs down the river, basically forcing them to participate in "Kosovarian" elections. Never mind that only a handful of Serbs vote, and that even fewer agree to be token symbols of "Kosovian" tolerance and multicultural democracy or whatnot. And there is still a problem?

Convoys

Just how many convoys are there in Novorossia (or "Eastern Ukraine", if you swing that way)? It reads as a riddle, but the punchline is death.

There is the Russian EMERCOM convoy, white trucks bearing humanitarian aid for the beleaguered civilians of Donetsk and Lugansk regions - declared "terrorists" by the junta in Kiev and subjected to airstrikes, artillery, and deliberate destruction of utilities.

Then there is the phantom "Russian armored convoy" that Kiev and two British reporters claimed - but with zero evidence - had crossed over into Ukraine. Moreover, the Banderites then claimed they'd destroyed the said convoy. Offering no evidence, of course. Because there was none: no such convoy ever existed. In this age of ubiquitous cell phones (and their cameras), does anyone seriously think a mere assertion will suffice?

And then there was the convoy of refugees, allegedly hit by rocket fire on Monday. Kiev claims the separatists launched the strike that killed "dozens of people including women and children", but even Reuters has felt the need to add "it has yet to provide visual evidence."

Another Reuters report quotes a Ukie military spokesman who placed the strike "near the area of Khryashchuvatye and Novosvitlivka." That would be the two suburbs of Lugansk that recently came under attack by junta forces. Take a look at this map:

(via Colonel Cassad)

This is a detail from a bigger map of military activities in the region, between August 10-18, 2014. In case you do not read Cyrillic, allow me to explain: blue lines and arrows are Kiev troops. Red lines and arrows are the Donetsk self-defense forces ("separatists"). The blue bubble below Lugansk (ЛУГАНСК) is the airport pocket, where the 80th Brigade and "Aydar" Nazi Guard battallions have been surrounded for weeks.

At some point last week, the junta troops - probably somewhat resupplied from the air - struck at the village of Novosvetlovka (Новосветловка), cutting the road between Lugansk and Krasnodon (bottom right, near the circled "4"), and onward to Izvarino. This was done to block the Russian aid convoy from reaching Lugansk.

Now, pay attention to the blue arrow labeled 14.08 (for August 14), the red X marked 16.08, and the dotted blue arrow retreating to circled "9". This was the junta attack from Novosvetlovka to Khrashchevatoe, which failed.

So, what happened here? Could Kiev be trying to pass their own military casualties as civilians? Is the junta using captured civilians as human shields? Could this be the phantom "Russian column" that Kiev claimed to have destroyed - and is now spinning as "rebels killed civilians" instead? The most unlikely scenario is that this was an actual convoy of civilian refugees, attempting against all logic to drive through a combat zone.

The Kiev junta's Western backers have a history of targeting civilians and refugees. Recall the NATO terror-bombing of Serbian infrastructure in 1999, for example. Or, for that matter, targeting refugee columns: on at least two occasions, NATO planes hit the columns of ethnic Albanian refugees, claiming they were "Serbian army convoys". When confronted with evidence conclusively proving otherwise, NATO replied "Oops!" - and continued bombing.

I'll say one thing, though: if the junta has to resort to desperate lies such as "they are killing civilians" (when it's the junta troops that have been doing so from the start), it is far from winning the war, but rather desperately trying to postpone defeat. 

The Audacity of Delusion

It is one thing when Mad Madeleine Albright declares the U.S. "the indispensable nation", and quite another when Barack "Hope and Change" Obama does so, 15 years after Albright's conceit has been conclusively proven wrong.

As I told Voice of Russia the other day, there is a dangerous combination of arrogance and stupidity in Washington, making the Empire's leadership blind to reality because they've begun to drink their own kool-aid.

In his West Point speech, the Emperor demonstrates the fact of this. It's all hyperbole, outright denial of reality and assertion of virtual facts. Moreover, he admits to it, crediting "our ability to shape world opinion" (!) for the alleged "isolation" and "condemnation" of Russia, even as he describes his camp followers - G-7, EU, OSCE, NATO and the IMF - as "the world."

Jan Oberg of the Transnational Foundation offers an interesting analysis of the West Point speech. I'd like to quote the conclusion here, but I suggest you read all of it:

In its reality-defying arrogance and self-praise it leaves little hope for those of us who have always been fascinated by the American cultural and other creativity and – earlier – leadership while loathed its empire’s arrogance, exceptionalist militarism and insensitivity to the victims of its policies.
The audacity of hope is crushed. Regrettably, with this speech one has to think more in terms of the audacity of fear to begin to perceive the potentially catastrophic combination of militarism, hubris, a decreasing sense of reality and silly self-praise.

WHY? - a RT Documentary

To mark the 15th anniversary of the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, RT has produced a documentary, asking the question in its title: Why?

NATO and its media apologist will give you a long list of excuses and justifications. But that won't be the actual answer. They did it for power, for kicks, because they could. And they will keep doing it, until they can't.

From the film's description:

Fifteen years after NATO’s 78-day bombardment of Yugoslavia, memories of the bombing still haunt present-day Serbia. NATO killed over 2,000 people, hundreds were civilians, 88 were children. Serbs ask ‘why?’ above all. Why did NATO smash their cities, kill their children, bomb hospitals and schools?
When the NATO bomb campaign began (on March 24th 1999) Jelena Milincic was a student at the University of Belgrade, and just 18 years old.
Jelena takes Anissa Naouai on a road trip, to remember the victims, and hear the survivors of NATO’s strike terror.

Watch "WHY?" on RT.

Directed by Pavel Baydikov
Written by Jelena Milincic, Anissa Naouai & Victoria Vorontsova
See RT for broadcast rights.

Drawing Them a Picture

Yesterday, "Kosovian" politician Vlora Citaku tweeted an image celebrating the NATO aggression 15 years ago. It was quickly re-tweeted by the proud NATO press office:

screen capture from Twitter

I'm curious to see if Nike will react to this infringement of their trademark by mobsters, drug-runners, butchers, slavers and aggressors. Not betting on it.

However, it wasn't long before someone created a response graphic:

via Facebook (by M.V.)

And then someone else created another:

(via Facebook)

For those who don't remember, the top right panel is a photo of what remained of the F-117 stealth bomber, shot down over Serbia on March 27, 1999.

UPDATE (3/27/2014) And here is another design, also referring to the shoot-down:

(via Facebook(

Yet this one, posted by Young Americans for Liberty, is my personal favorite:

(via Facebook, Young Americans for Liberty)

Something to remember, every time you hear the phrase "the entire world" or "international community" coming from the mouths of State Department deputy assistant undersecretaries, or EU commissars.

The Real Day Everything Changed

The phrase "the day everything changed" is used in America to describe that Tuesday, the eleventh day of September, 2001, when hijacked airplanes destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon.

Belgrade, March 1999

Yet a sober look back at the past dozen years reveals a continuity, not change - at least in the government's behavior. Meanwhile, a certain spirit has gone out of Americans, and they now tolerate the omnipotent surveillance state and accept the regular trampling of what remains of their liberty in exchange for empty promises of temporary safety.

The government of George W. Bush was quick to launch a punishment expedition against Afghanistan, which morphed into "nation-building" and eventually failed. NATO forces have now been in Afghanistan longer than the Soviets, and with much the same result. In 2003, Bush invaded Iraq - a country entirely unrelated to the events of 9/11, but of personal interest to him and his advisors - on a manufactured pretext. Though U.S. troops have officially withdrawn by December 2011, some 25,000 "embassy staff" and "military contractors" have remained.

Osama Bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the attacks, was supposedly tracked down to Pakistan and killed in 2011 - though there have been claims he died way back in 2001 of kidney failure, and everything since had been chasing a phantom menace.

But there was definitely no War on Terror when it came to Islamic militants in the Balkans, for example - quite to the contrary, US lawmakers called out to "jihadists of all color and hue" to take note of Washington promoting jihadism in Europe. And in the very year Bin Laden was supposedly killed, Washington backed jihadists in Libya - and later in Syria.

That is not to say there hasn't been an actual turning point in modern history, however. You just have to go back a bit more to find it. I would argue it is 3/24/1999, when the Atlantic Empire - believing itself at the pinnacle of power, exceptional, and exempt from the rules it sought to impose on others by force - launched an evil little war against a country called Yugoslavia.

Those who waged that war openly described it in terms that perfectly fit the definition of terrorism. Look at the photos from Yugoslavia 1999 and New York 2001 side by side, and contemplate the eerie similarities.

The war was a clear-cut act of aggression, violating both NATO's charter and the U.S. Constitution and lacking any UN authorization. It was illegal, illegitimate, and unjust. Ostensibly fought for "humanitarian" reasons, in practice it backed a terrorist Albanian insurgency aimed at carving out a province from Serbia (one of the two states federated within then-Yugoslavia).

Empire's "diplomats" and perfumed generals believed the Serbs would surrender within a week. It took a Trojan truce, eleven weeks later, for NATO to actually occupy the province of Kosovo (and not all of Serbia, as initially demanded). Undeterred by reality, NATO leaders believed their own lies, ensuring they would make the same - and worse - mistakes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya...

Most importantly, perhaps, the bombing of Yugoslavia had one effect no one in the West had anticipated. Up to that point, Russians were still enraptured with the West, despite nearly a decade of financial and political rape. But the first bomb that hit Belgrade was a wake-up call.

Fifteen years later, the leadership in Moscow has demonstrated they had neither forgotten, nor forgiven. And something tells me that the West hasn't yet begun to pay the real price for that golden idol in Pristina, or the train of abuses and atrocities inflicted upon Serbia since. 

"Human rights and American values"

"[The] United States of America and the Kosovo Liberation Army stand for the same human values and principles ... Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values." (Senator Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn, quoted in the Washington Post, April 28, 1999)

Kosovska Mitrovica, March 2004

Almost fourteen years ago, the United States (via NATO) launched a war of aggression in support of the KLA, which resulted in the occupation of the Serbian province of Kosovo-Metohija. Some 40,000 NATO "peacekeepers" stood by while more than 200,000 non-Albanians were burned out of their homes, and the NATO cheerleader media dismissed the atrocities as "revenge attacks".

On March 17, 2004, some 50,000 Albanians rampaged through the occupied province, terrorizing Serbs, burning their villages, destroying their churches and cemeteries, even killing their livestock. It was a classical pogrom, described by one UN official as a "Kristallnacht," and by one American officer as "ethnic cleansing."

"Death to Serbs" they spray-painted on the charred ruins:


and gloried in desecrating them:


Not a single perpetrator of any of these acts was ever held accountable. Instead, the United States and its allies, calling themselves the "international community," rewarded the pogrom by establishing the "Republic of Kosovo."

You want to know what "The West" stands for? This is it.

Foundation of Lies

Bombs for "democracy"

Earlier this month, "Kosovarians" marked the anniversary of their "liberation" - i.e. the beginning of NATO's occupation of the Serbian province claimed by the terrorist KLA. Now, the Kosovo War was illegal and illegitimate, and its conduct doubly so - characterized by barbaric attacks on Serbian infrastructure and civilian targets, with the intent to demoralize and disrupt civilians. Most casualties suffered by the Yugoslav Army were along the Albanian border, while repelling the KLA invasion, and not from NATO airstrikes.

After the armistice was signed, however, the Empire wasn't satisfied merely with selectively applying its terms - it falsified the war's aftermath as well. A commission of "independent experts" was hired to proclaim it "illegal but legitimate." Despite solemn proclamations that the sovereignty of Yugoslavia (and later Serbia) would not be violated, the process of creating the "independent state of Kosovo" began almost right away. But perhaps most importantly, the actual combat reports were falsified in order to create the impression that the war was "won" by air power alone.

As Alexander Cockburn notes in Couterpunch yesterday, that falsification had far-reaching effects:

"[t]he Kosovo campaign’s apparent confirmation that bombs and missiles could achieve a victory at no cost in friendly casualties, and in a good cause too, undoubtedly prepared the political landscape for the automated drone warfare so eagerly embraced by our current leadership."

Indeed, as early as March 2003 it was obvious to some observers that Kosovo provided a precedent for the invasion of Iraq (and subsequently Libya).

Now, if NATO had not in fact beaten the Yugoslav Army, why did Belgrade surrender? The answer is very simple: it didn't. Even Cockburn makes a mistake of saying that Yugoslav President Milošević "accepted the allied terms", attributing that decision to Moscow's betrayal. While Yugoslavia was in fact betrayed by the puppet government of Boris Yeltsin - which some have argued played a crucial role in Yeltsin's subsequent demise and the rise of Vladimir Putin - it happened following the armistice, not prior.

The terms agreed upon in Kumanovo and built into UNSCR 1244 were different from NATO's demands prior to the war, in three crucial respects: NATO accepted UN authority over the province, there was no clause giving the Albanians independence after three years, and there was no mention of NATO's open access to the rest of Serbia (the infamous Appendix B of the Rambouillet ultimatum). On paper at least, NATO did not win an unconditional victory. That's why they proceeded to creatively reinterpret the paper.

Cheating the Serbs by altering the deal at gunpoint was one thing. Wrecking what was left of international law to establish the "independent Republic of Kosovo," was something else altogether. But perhaps worst of all, the falsified narrative of Kosovo as both the "good war" and a successful one has contributed to the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, the disaster of Libya and the bloodshed in Syria. Something similar happened with the deceptive success of the "revolution" in Serbia (2000), leading to its replication around the world.

The lies then beget atrocities, which beget more lies. And so on, until the whole thing comes crashing down, in fire and blood.

A Message in Blood

There was some confusion in Serbia as to where the "international community" (i.e. the Empire and its long tail of servants) might stand on the newly elected president. After today, there shouldn't be.

Unarmed Serb civilian "threatens" NATO "peacekeepers"

In a shocking repeat of last September's bloodshed, this morning American KFOR troops fired upon Serb civilians trying to stop the demolition of the roadblocks in northern Kosovo. There are reports of 3-4 seriously injured people. KFOR immediately claimed several of their own soldiers were injured, but didn't provide any proof. Same as last time.


The roadblocks were erected after the KLA regime in Pristina tried to seize the "border" with Serbia in July last year. Serbs living in the north of the province refuse to recognize the illegally declared Albanian state, and continue to resist occupation.

The rest of their kin in the province has either been ethnically cleansed, or lives in ghettos surrounded by barbed wire and "protected" by the same NATO troops that established the Albanian "state" in the first place. While officially claiming to defend Serbia's claim to Kosovo, the quisling government in Belgrade has done everything to surrender the province. But the Serbs actually living there refuse to submit; in a referendum in February, they told both Belgrade and the KLA regime to bugger off.

NATO's "KFOR" mission has repeatedly tried to dismantle the roadblocks, asserting they were entitled to "freedom of movement" everywhere in "Kosovia." The local Serbs have defied them with sticks, stones and bodies, nothing more. There was an unofficial truce during the winter, as heavy snows blanketed the province (though contrary to KFOR's hopes, that didn't dampen the Serbs' resolve any).

Initially, the Serbs were blocking all traffic. But with KFOR outposts at risk of disease from waste accumulation, the blockade was relaxed: KFOR vehicles could pass, but Albanian "officials" and their EU enablers were still banned. Despite continuing to insist on unconditional passage, KFOR took the deal. According to local Serb leaders, after today, that deal is off.

Former UNMIK official and U.S. diplomat Gerard Gallucci - an outspoken critic of the occupation tactics, even as he supports "Kosovia" as "reality" - argued earlier this month that the Albanians aren't interested in a negotiated solution, only surrender. So they've been trying to provoke violence, in order to get NATO to do the job for them.

Albanian motives are hardly a mystery: they covet land, and hate the Serbs viscerally (as a legacy of the Ottoman era, not because of phantom "human rights violations"). But what is the Empire thinking? Though they've been used as an example of America-loving Muslims (though the Muslim angle is routinely downplayed in the West when Albanians commit acts of terrorism), creating the "Independent state of Kosovia" isn't really about the Albanians at all.

To conquer the Balkans, one must conquer the Serbs. To make sure the Serbs stay conquered - which a succession of empires in the course of history has found a challenging endeavor, to say the least - they must be lobotomized. And the way to do this is to destroy the nexus of their identity, the legend of their heroic defiance to Ottoman conquerors in the Battle of Kosovo. Once the Serbs embarked on the long, arduous road to freedom from the Ottoman Empire in 1804, they didn't stop fighting till they've liberated Kosovo - which they did in the First Balkan War of 1912. Ever since then, enemies have tried to take it away: from Austria-Hungary in WW1, Nazi Germany in WW2, the Communists since 1945, and now the Atlantic Empire.

Trouble is, there are still Serbs who refuse to surrender. Besieged, blockaded, bombed, betrayed by the quisling cult that rules in Belgrade - nothing seems to work. And nothing will. When people are set on liberty or death, there is little an aspiring conqueror can do. That's something KFOR and the Empire still have to understand.

An Evil Little War

On the 13th anniversary of NATO's attack on then-Yugoslavia, I'm re-posting a piece that ran on Antiwar.com in March 2005. Even after the creation of the "Independent state of Kosovia" in 2008 - or perhaps even more so because of it - every word still applies.

An Evil Little War 

[13*] Years Later, Kosovo Still Wrong

  In the early hours of March 24, 1999, NATO began the bombing of what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. For some reason, many in the targeted nation thought the name of the operation was "Merciful Angel." In fact, the attack was code-named "Allied Force" – a cold, uninspired and perfectly descriptive moniker. For, however much NATO spokesmen and the cheerleading press spun, lied, and fabricated to show otherwise (unfortunately, with altogether too much success), there was nothing noble in NATO’s aims. It attacked Yugoslavia for the same reason then-Emperor Bill Clinton enjoyed a quickie in the Oval Office: because it could.

Most of the criticism of the 1999 war has focused on its conduct (targeting practices, effects, "collateral damage") and consequences. But though the conduct of the war by NATO was atrocious and the consequences have been dire and criminal, none of that changes the fact that by its very nature and from the very beginning, NATO’s attack was a war of aggression: illegal, immoral, and unjust; not "unsuccessful" or "mishandled," but just plain wrong.

Illegal

There is absolutely no question that the NATO attack in March 1999 was illegal. Article 2, section 4 of the UN Charter clearly says:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Some NATO members tried to offer justification. London claimed the war was "justified" as a means of preventing a "humanitarian catastrophe," but offered no legal grounds for such a claim. Paris tried to create a tenuous link with UNSC resolutions 1199 and 1203, which Belgrade was supposedly violating. However, NATO had deliberately bypassed the UN, rendering this argument moot.

Article 53 (Chapter VIII) of the UN Charter clearly says that:

"The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council." (emphasis added)

Furthermore, Article 103 (Chapter XVI) asserts its primacy over any other regional agreement, so NATO’s actions would have been illegal under the UN Charter even if the Alliance had an obligation to act in Kosovo. Even NATO’s own charter – the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 – was violated by the act of war in March 1999:

"Article 1
"The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. […]
"Article 7
"This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security." (emphasis added)

The attack violated other laws and treaties as well: the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 (violating the territorial integrity of a signatory state) and the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (using coercion to compel a state to sign a treaty – i.e., the Rambouillet ultimatum).

Yugoslavia had not attacked any NATO members, nor indeed threatened the security of any other country in the region; it was itself under an attack by a terrorist, irredentist organization. What NATO did on March 24, 1999 was an act of aggression, a crime against peace.

Illegitimate

Perfectly aware that the bombing was illegal, NATO leaders tried to create justifications for it after the fact. They quickly seized upon a mass exodus of Albanians from Kosovo, describing it as "ethnic cleansing" and even "genocide." But as recent testimonies of Macedonian medical workers who took care of Albanian refugees suggest, the Western press was engaging in crude deceit, staging images of suffering refugees and peddling the most outrageous tall tales as unvarnished truth.

Stories abounded of mass murder, orchestrated expulsions, mass rapes, seizure of identity papers, even crematoria and mine shafts filled with dead bodies. Little or no evidence was offered – and not surprisingly, none found afterwards. The stories were part of a Big Lie, aimed to justify the intervention, concocted by professional propagandists, and delivered by the KLA-coached refugees. The KLA ran every camp in Macedonia and Albania, and there are credible allegations they organized the exodus in many instances. Albanians who did not play along were killed.

Eventually, the "genocide" and other atrocity stories were debunked as propaganda. But they had served their purpose, conjuring a justification for the war at the time. They had allowed NATO and its apologists to claim the war – though "perhaps" illegal – was a moral and legitimate affair. But there should be no doubt, it was neither.

Unjust

Even if one can somehow gloss over the illegal, illegitimate nature of the war and the lies it was based on, would the war still not be justified, if only because it led to the return of refugees? Well, which refugees? Certainly, many Kosovo Albanians – and quite a few from Albania, it appears – came back, only to proceed to cleanse it systematically of everyone else. Jews, Serbs, Roma, Turks, Ashkali, Gorani - no community was safe from KLA terror, not even the Albanians themselves. Those suspected of "collaborating" were brutally murdered, often with entire families.

According to the Catholic doctrine of "just war," a war of aggression cannot be just. Even if one somehow fudges the issue, "the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated." The evil conjured by NATO’s and KLA’s propaganda machine was indeed grave. But it was not real. In contrast, what took place after the war – i.e., under the NATO/KLA occupation – is amply documented. At the beginning of NATO’s aggression, there were fewer dead, fewer refugees, less destruction, and more order than at any time since the beginning of the occupation. NATO has replaced a fabricated evil with a very real evil of its own.

Monument to Evil

What began six years ago may have been Albright’s War on Clinton’s watch, but both Albright and Clinton have been gone from office for what amounts to a political eternity. For four years now,* the occupation of Kosovo has continued with the blessing – implicit or otherwise – of Emperor Bush II, who launched his own illegal war in Iraq. Kosovo is not a partisan, but an imperial issue; that is why there has been virtually no debate on it since the first missiles were fired.

Six years* to the day since NATO aircraft began their onslaught, Kosovo is a chauvinistic, desolate hellhole. Serbian lives, property, culture, and heritage been systematically destroyed, often right before the eyes of NATO "peacekeepers." Through it all, Imperial officials, Albanian lobbyists, and various presstitutes have been working overtime to paint a canvas that would somehow cover up the true horror of occupation.

Their "liberated" Kosovo represents everything that is wrong about the world we live in. It stands as a monument to the power of lies, the successful murder of law, and the triumph of might over justice. Such a monument must be torn down, or else the entire world may end up looking like Kosovo sometime down the line. If that’s what the people in "liberal Western democracies" are willing to see happen, then their civilization is well and truly gone.

(*originally published March 25, 2005)

The International Court of Injustice

After much hemming and hawing, the International Court of Justice finally declared today that the "declaration of independence" by the Albanian provisional government in the occupied Serbian province of Kosovo did not violate international law, or UNSCR 1244.

Seriously?

Certainly there is no law against declaring independence. But that doesn't mean "Kosovo" had the right to do so. Under UNSCR 1244, it had to remain a part of Serbia - even if under temporary UN control - pending the outcome of status talks. But there were never any talks - there was just NATO messenger Martti Ahtisaari, declaring that Kosovo ought to become an independent, Albanian state. And Serbia was told to take it or leave it.

Technical details, you'll say. After all, the Albanians are such an overwhelming majority. But you never wonder how they got to be such a majority over the past century. Could it be because they sided with the Austrians, the Nazis, the Communists, and NATO - every time at the expense of the Serbs? Between the murder and expulsion of non-Albanians, and the highest birthrates in Europe (much higher than in the neighboring Albania, and unrelated to the level of education), no wonder the Albanians are a majority today. Yet they claim they have historically been the victims of oppression....

But weren't there Serb atrocities? Genocide, mass ethnic cleansing, tens of thousands killed? In short, no. Lies your friendly NATO spokesman fed you to go along with the program. The KLA was romanticized by the media as this idealistic, young, progressive freedom-fighting movement. KLA hats are New York chic. Surely these people have nothing to do with jihadism, and all the church-burning and throat-slitting and bus-bombing - if you've ever heard of them, to begin with - are just righteous revenge for whatever evils the Serbs must have committed to merit such treatment. But then, what of the Albanian behavior in the 1980s, before any of the alleged Serb atrocities had taken place?

This isn't about democracy. It isn't about liberty. There is no such thing as a "Kosovar" ; it is just a matter of time and convenience before the "independent" Kosovo merges into Greater Albania (or "ethnic Albania," as its advocates claim). Meanwhile, Kosovo still buys most of its power, even most of its bread, from the rest of Serbia. Its "government" is a collection of murderous mobsters; between them, they've killed more Albanians than the Serbs were ever accused of.

Oh sure, the U.S. government, much of the EU and many of their client states elsewhere recognize the "Republic of Kosovo." And I suppose more will jump on the bandwagon now, as the propaganda mill spins the ICJ verdict as "justice". But saying something exists doesn't make it so.

No, dear reader, it really isn't as simple as the mainstream media, the State Department, NATO, and now even the ICJ would have you believe.

I know many of you out there can't be bothered to care about this. What's it to you that some country out there got robbed of a piece of land, along with its dignity? But if fabricating and exaggerating atrocities to attack and occupy a country on behalf of a separatist, terrorist movement, isn't illegal... then what, pray tell, is?

You may not care about it now, because the people being bullied are the Serbs, a people you've been told was OK - nay, necessary even - to hate and despise. But tomorrow, it may happen to you. And then it will be too late.

Inquisition: Serbia Wanted To Be Bombed

Almost two weeks ago, when I wrote about the Hague Inquisition's latest travesty of "justice," I had not actually seen the text of the verdict yet. Few have; it is a mastodonic affair, hundreds of pages filled with obfuscatory legalese and newspeak, millions of words wasted to conjure a lie and call it truth.

I was glad to see today the commentary of veteran Tribunal observer Andy Wilcoxson, who points out the sheer absurdity of the judgment.

Quoting extensively from the verdict - unlike the mainstream media that reported on it - Wilcoxson shows that the Inquisition simply asserted the existence of a conspiracy to displace the Albanians from Kosovo, and dismissed all evidence against this allegation as motivated by self-interest of the witnesses. Unlike, say, the Prosecution, whose motives are assumed to be pure as driven snow.

I entirely share Wilcoxson's sentiments when he says:

"This is the dumbest conspiracy theory that has ever been imagined. How could such a massive conspiracy have been undertaken out without any record being made? Without any plans being drawn-up, and without any orders being given to the troops on the ground? Are we supposed to believe that the Serbs did this through some kind of mental telepathy? A person would have to be stupid to believe that the conspiracy being alleged here actually happened."

Worse yet is the "explanation" that the NATO bombing was an "opportunity" for the (alleged) conspirators to put in effect their (alleged) plan: "The partial responsibility of the FRY delegation in causing the talks to fail, when viewed in light of the movement of additional forces to Kosovo, gives rise to the inference that this was being done to gain time.”

Yet elsewhere in the verdict is this:

"The Chamber is of the view that the FRY/Serbian delegation went to Rambouillet genuinely in search of a solution” but “the international negotiators did not take an entirely even-handed approach to the respective positions of the parties and tended to favour the Kosovo Albanians.”

But then, why did they just say that the Serbs wanted Rambouillet to fail in order to get bombed so they could put in effect a phantom conspiracy to persecute Albanians?! Talk about far-fetched conspiracy theories!

Wilcoxson saves the best for last, quoting the portion of the verdict examining the reasoning offered by none other than Emperor Clinton on Rambouillet and the bombing:

“President Clinton stated that the provision for allowing a referendum for the Albanians in Kosovo went too far and that, if he were in the shoes of Milošević, he probably would not have signed the [Rambouillet] draft agreement either."

Once the bombing began, however, "the issues that led to the bombing no longer mattered and that the main issues, which ensured the bombing would continue indefinitely, were that the credibility of the U.S. was at stake, the credibility of NATO was at stake, and his personal credibility as President of the United States was at stake.”

So, who exactly has engaged in a self-serving abuse of diplomacy and force? Who has engaged in conspiracies? Clearly not the men who were convicted two weeks ago.

The Hague "Tribunal" is the symbol of just about everything that has been wrong about the New American Empire over the past two decades. Once that Empire passes into history, so will the sham tribunal. Its judgments will indeed enter the historical record - as examples of travesty, and evidence of the hubris of people who thought they could manufacture reality and get away with murder if only they could call it charity.

The Strong and the Weak

In my column on Antiwar.com today, I argue that:

It is difficult, perhaps even impossible, to communicate with someone so obsessed with managing the perceptions of reality that they've become incapable of recognizing reality altogether. In the Bizarro World of the Atlantic Empire, the bombing of Serbia was humanitarian, the invasion of Iraq was defensive, the occupation of Afghanistan was democratic, and the separation of Kosovo was legal – while the Russian intervention to neutralize the Georgian army and save the Ossetians from ethnic cleansing was "aggression" befitting Hitler or Stalin.

...[to Emperors current and potential] it doesn't actually matter what Russia does – whatever anyone but America (and its "allies") does is by definition evil.

One wonders if they quite understand this in Moscow. And what will happen once they do.

The best proof for my claim came from Daniel Fried, a high-ranking U.S. "diplomat" in charge of relations with Russia. Fried has fabricated reality before, in regard to Kosovo. Now he's at it again, telling today's Washington Post that "being angry and seeking revanchist victory" is a sign of a weak nation. Right, Russia is weak for slapping around an American client state that thought it could provoke it with impunity?

There's rich, there's utter nonsense, and then there's Daniel Fried.

Fried whitewashes a decade of abuse - pillaging of the country by American "transition" experts and domestic oligarchs; propping a corrupt Yeltsin regime; expanding NATO; sponsoring "democratic revolutions" in Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus (failed); even trying to organize a quisling opposition in Russia itself ("Other Russia") - as an effort to "encourage Russia's integration with the wider world." He says "This is a good thing. It was the right set of policies." Tens of millions of Russians beg to differ.

In the words of the WaPo reporter, "Fried said the administration is determined to prevent Russia from claiming a new sphere of influence in the Caucasus." Right, because Russia has no right to influence anywhere, especially not on its borders. But the U.S. can invade countries halfway across the world, because the U.S. "sphere of influence" is the world. Does he seriously think anyone outside the NATOsphere will buy this nonsense? Do his bosses?

This sort of drivel is proof positive that Washington simply doesn't get it. The U.S. didn't "win" the Cold War so much as the USSR lost it. In 1991, there was a golden opportunity to actually walk the walk, to show the world that "freedom" and "democracy" weren't just a guise for the latest round of power politics. Instead, people like Fried, Albright and Holbrooke got drunk on power and decided to rule the world. Their Bushean successors went a step further and declared it was their divine right to do so.

They may all still believe every lie they've told their nation (and themselves), but there are facts that no amount of wishful thinking can change. It isn't Russia that's in trouble, it's the United States.

The Big Lie of NATO

Anyone who followed the 78-day war of aggression the North Atlantic Treaty Organization waged against what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia knows that NATO officials can lie, and have done so with impunity.

But it shows a special kind of arrogance when even the highest official of the Alliance, secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, lies without hesitation.

At a conference today, Scheffer responded to criticism from Afghanistan, where 90 civilians died in NATO operations just this month, with this claim: "Let me make one point unmistakably clear - Nato has never killed and will never intentionally kill innocent civilians."

This right here is postmodern "morality;" actions are deemed moral or immoral based on their perpetrator. So when NATO invades a country, bombs civilian targets, destroys utilities, targets reporters, sponsors ethnic cleansing and destruction of cultural monuments, that's "humanitarian intervention" and beyond reproach. But if anyone else is so much as accused of doing any of these things, that's "genocide."

Civilians die in war. That is why starting a war was declared a supreme international crime, back in 1945. Scheffer presides over an Alliance that has violated that law with impunity. So yes, Jaap, you did intentionally kill innocent civilians. That much is unmistakably clear.

Unholy Alliance

Six years ago today, NATO attacked what was then Yugoslavia. Alliance leaders claimed all sorts of reasons and justifications for their act of aggression, from political extortion (initially) to "helping the refugees" (who just conveniently happened to be under the thumb of their allies, the terrorist KLA).

On May 14, 1999, Empress Hillary Clinton went to visit the Albanian refugees in Macedonia. BBC ran this picture with the article about the visit.

The shape in the middle is Kosovo. On the right side is the Albanian eagle. The "UCK" is the Albanian acronym of the KLA. Are further comments really necessary?