Friday, September 10, 2010

Capitulation, Not Compromise

Though the terrorist bombing of a market in Vladikavkaz and the Yaroslavl summit have been top news on RT, the TV station did not neglect to note the tragedy at the UN General Assembly, where Serbia stood before the world, agreed to be violated and humiliated, and then spat on its allies while praising its violators.

Earlier in the day, RT interviewed Diana Johnstone (author of the excellent "Fools' Crusade"). I joined the late night newscast from the Washington DC studio, sometime after 2 AM Moscow time, and offered a few observations as well, along the lines of what I said yesterday.

To recap: the proposed resolution was not a compromise, but a capitulation. The original resolution, not very strong to begin with, was completely gutted by the EUrocrats. This was done with the full knowledge and approval of President Tadic and Foreign Minister Jeremic, who then openly lied to their people that the new resolution would not recognize the "Independent state of Kosova" in any form. In actuality, the revised resolution is an implicit recognition of the occupied and detached province, a public renunciation of international law, and a blanket endorsement of Empire's actions - past, present and future.

In exchange for this absolute abdication of sovereignty, Serbia got - nothing. Only a vague promise of possibly, some day, maybe, eventually being considered for possible annexation by the EU. This would happen whenever the EU decides, and to whatever is left of Serbia at that point; which may not be much.

Simply put, the EU has chosen to pursue the exact same Balkans policy as Austria-Hungary exactly a century ago. The Royal and Imperial court in Vienna saw Serbia as a direct threat to the Empire's existence, as its independence emboldened the disenfranchised Slavic majority. As a solution, Austria-Hungary envisioned not a weak Serbia, but no Serbia at all. A hundred years and two world wars - in which that concept seemed to have been defeated - later, Serbien muss sterben once again.

Such a policy would be ghastly enough by itself. But it is both enabled and embraced by the craven and corrupt quisling government in Belgrade, willing to sacrifice the entire country to stay in office (and keep to plunder accumulated while therein). At this moment, nowhere in the world is there so much treason per square meter per second. Meanwhile, the government, the media and the so-called civil society are force-feeding the Serbs a diet of lies, apathy and despair. Many suffer from cognitive dissonance as a result. But while there may not be limits to malice and stupidity, there are limits to gullibility and wishful thinking. In any other place in the world, the camel's back would have broken by now; perhaps this could be the proverbial last straw for Serbia.

God only knows what happens next.


Anonymous said...

Looks like US support for the good jihadists lead to what happened on 9/11 despite clear warnings.

Suvorov said...

Rather than Serbian government's behaviour, what puzzles me more is EU/US's actions. For what could possibly be a better way to destroy Serbia than to let it join the EU? Whatever remains of Serbia's national identity would be completely deleted. The only reason many desire their country to join is so that they could leave it (the country). What entering the EU means is essentially three things:
1) Selling all the industrial assets to foreigners (for the most part already done in Serbia's case)
2)Destruction of domestic agriculture and production
3) Obligation to purchase loads of expensive foreign military equipment
Perhaps they are afraid that Serbia in the EU will do for Russia what Poland, for example, does for the US. (Judging from the Serbian government's actions, such fears are purely hypothetical) But even without letting Serbia join the EU, they could at least bother not to be so insulting ALL the time, and to throw some very occasional bones to Serbs. If they want to put Serbia to eternal sleep (which I hardly doubt), why, instead of continuing to administer the anesthetic, only continue to promise it to the patient while incessantly slapping the patient in the face? Doesn't there lie a danger (for the Empire) that the patient might wake up eventually, especially since every new slap in the face is harder? It is particularly surprising since they made the same mistake before when they woke up Russia. Had they bothered not to be so insulting ALL the time, but only most of the time, quietly robbing Russia of its great natural resources, Russians might still be working on dismantling their own country now. And look how much more trouble the masters have to put up with now, only because they never felt the need to be civil with their former servants.

Anonymous said...

Why are they pushing so hard to annex Kosovo from Serbia lately?

I wonder how this relates to the Great Game seeing how US/British/NATO cultivation of Afghan Opium and it is not hard to notice Holbrooke is in charge of US policy towards Afghanistan and make the obvious drug connection.

In fact it was all to predictable the direction of Obama’s foreign policy was going to take given his senior foreign policy advisor and his writing and actions that it would be targeted towards Eurasia and his staff appointees who under the previous Democratic governments have taken a pro-Jihadist foreign policy.

Not that it really matters who is in government as Diana Johnstone noted in Fools Crusade:

“Presidents come and go but the continuity of U.S. policy is ensured by a small elite of policy-makers who remain outside party politics – and often outside public view.”

Eugene Costa said...

Ultimately Yugoslavia was attacked for the very same reason Iraq was attacked--they posed a threat to US, British, and European Capitalist global domination.

Milosevic was naive, as was Allende in Chile.

Neither had any idea of the viciousness of the Capitalist enemy.

Nor did the old Soviet Russians.

And as a supposed "Libertarian" you do their heavy work for them.

You would be much more constructive studying Lenin and Stalin closely.

Merely by the way, antiwar is censoring systematically and with obvious Right Wing Tendenz nowadays.

Guess they will all be celebrities soon on Fox News.

E. A. Costa

CubuCoko said...

Eugene, it says right in my profile that I'm a libertarian. To me, what the US and EU are doing right now is socialism. Lenin and Stalin were more honest about it, but that doesn't make them any better, honestly.

Yugoslavia wasn't really a threat to anyone. Its vaunted self-management system was a colossal failure, and the country was drowning in public and private debt. It was dismembered in pretty much the exact same way as in 1941, and for much the same reason: the Empire needed a secure base in the Balkans to proceed eastwards. Geopolitics is the key here, I think.

Eugene Costa said...

"Le désir, ça ne consiste pas à ériger un objet, à dire: je désire ceci. On ne désire pas, par exemple, la liberté et cetera. C’est zéro. On se trouve dans des situations."

Gilles Deleuze

ajokic said...


So, "we find ourselves in situations" and then what? How useful is this French pomo-wisdom for anything at all, let alone the subject at hand: Serbian capitulation and self-effacing behavior of its politicians?