Daily Kos

Why isn't this Belgrade thing front-paged here?

Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:50:20 AM PDT

 People here should know damned enough history to know that what happened in Belgrade this week - the burning of our embassy resulting in the likely death of at least 1 person is Huge, Huge news.  Bigger than Barack's day at the debates or even Hillary's problem with AUMF.

From the NY Times:

BELGRADE, Serbia — Demonstrators attacked the United States Embassy and set part of it ablaze on Thursday as tens of thousands of angry Serbs took to the streets of Belgrade to protest Kosovo’s declaration of independence.

The United States has been a strong advocate of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia and was among the first countries to recognize the new state, stoking deep resentment. Rian Harris, an embassy spokeswoman, said that a body had been found inside the building, but that all embassy staff members were accounted for.

Witnesses said that at least 100 people broke into the embassy, which was closed, and burned some of its rooms. One protester ripped the American flag from the facade of the building. An estimated 1,000 demonstrators cheered as the vandals, some wearing masks, jumped onto the building’s balcony waving a Serbian flag and chanting "Serbia, Serbia!" the witnesses said. A police convoy firing tear gas dispersed the crowd.

The Associated Press reported that the small fires at the embassy were quickly extinguished.

Serbian television reported that the Croatian Embassy had also been attacked, and the state news agency said that the Bosnian and Turkish Embassies were also targets. The police said at least 140 people had been injured in the incidents, 32 of them police officers. Security sources estimated that 150,000 people joined the protests.

OK here's why this is important:

  1. Belgrade, of course, was the epicenter of the region that was in the vicinity of where the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand took place.  That event that "nobody could have predicted" started WWI.
  1. Russia is a BIG ally of Serbia.
  1. Serbia is Mighty Pissed as Kosovo's "independence."
  1. One of the big things that Bill Clinton had arguably successfully managed was the rescue of Bosnia on the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. This Kosovo thing though was a "charlie foxtrot." Under Clinton's rule Kosovo wasn't going to didn't get independence although Clinton didn't mind, evidently (updated). Under Bush they got a nod and a wink.
  1. This situation makes the embassy situation in Tehran in Carter's time look like child's play.
  1. We will likely see military action in Serbia.  Did I mention the Russians are a big ally of Serbia, and that this isn't the 1990s, when Russia was economically and militarily weak?

I would hope our candidates think more about this, and that we have a wise approach to how to deal with this mess.  Right now it looks really, really screwed up.

Update: Evidently it's a foreign policy clusterfuck bonanza this week: Turkey said it has sent ground troops into Iraq...

Tags: Kosovo, Serbia, Recommended (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 258 comments

    •  They are talking about sending in troops. (23+ / 0-)

      Yes, this is an important issue. Russia will back Serbia. Bush is fu@king everything up. Just Impeach him already.

      "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

      by Owllwoman on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:55:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wouldn't be ironic if WWIII started like WWI? (14+ / 0-)

        A small brush fire in Serbia turns into a fire storm? I don't think it has any real probability of happening, but it would be a good campfire story for the survivors as they whittle their sticks to go hunting the next day.

        I have an irrational faith in reason.

        by the fan man on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:02:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ironic-Tragic (10+ / 0-)

          I don't see WWIII coming from this but I do see the potential for a long standing and bloody dispute between to nations with proxies like the US and Russian supporting opposite sides....Think Turkey and Greence on the Island of Cyprus with a UN force inbetween....that'll be the outcome.

          •  That would be tragic, and proxie wars could (7+ / 0-)

            escalate in unpredictable ways. January 09 cannot come soon enough. Whoever the next president is, their plate will not be full, it will be overflowing with pressing issues. We need to deescalate vis-vis Russia immidiately. I really don't have any feel for this move to independence, good. bad, or just a matter of poor timing.

            I have an irrational faith in reason.

            by the fan man on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:30:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  There were a few mini-wars (4+ / 0-)

            in the Balkans before the main event of WW I.  Seems they've been totally forgotten by most people.

            I'm glad I came out long ago - the closets are infested with Republicans these days.

            by grada3784 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:40:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo (2+ / 0-)

              It DIDN'T start WW1,
              the Serbs destroyed Sarajevo,
              this was all over KOS yesterday,
              and my coffee is cold.

              •  Warm up your coffee! No one's stopping you :-) (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Mumon

                Sheesh, you think we actually know what we're talking about around here?! Thanks for the fact checking. You know, chamomile tea is a good non caffeinated alternative to coffee. Cheers

                I have an irrational faith in reason.

                by the fan man on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:01:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  When Franz Ferdinand was shot, (0+ / 0-)

                the Austro-Hungarian Empire chose to send an impossible ultimatum to Serbia.  Serbia refused and AH, backed by Germany, declared war on Serbia.  Serbia was backed by Czarist Russia, which then declared war, bringing in Germany on the AH side, and France on the Russian side.  Britain came in on the Russo-French side, more because of the violation of Belgian neutrality.  Italy came in against her allies, Germany and AH, in the hope of getting territory still held by AH.

                The US came in after Wilson was re-elected on the slogan: He kept us out of war.  We got in because of the German unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman note to Mexico, which was a combo of stupidity by the Germans and manipulation by the British.

                I'm glad I came out long ago - the closets are infested with Republicans these days.

                by grada3784 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:41:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  50% for paying attention in class. (0+ / 0-)

                  25% for expressing yourself clearly.

                  Which works out to be a D, I'm afraid.

                  For extra credit, read Keegan,
                  or any recent study not drenched in
                  1918 Kool-Aid.

                  •  Didn't pay much attention in class. (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    slowheels

                    They never discussed British manipulation on the Zimmerman note.

                    Never heard of Keegan.  Do you have any titles of his?

                    But my original post was regarding the 2 or 3 Balkan wars that preceded WWI, that no one ever considers.  The Balkans were the Mideast problem of 100 years ago.

                    I'm glad I came out long ago - the closets are infested with Republicans these days.

                    by grada3784 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:40:56 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sir John Keegan (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      grada3784

                      The First World War
                      (New York: Knopf, 1999)
                      ISBN 0-375-40052-4

                      Summary of how WW1 Began (from Keegan's WAPO Opinion piece, Sunday, July 30, 2006; Page B01)

                      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                      " ... a seemingly isolated incident -- the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist -- set off a chain reaction that culminated in the Great War."

                      "the future combatants were linked by a network of mutual assistance treaties, obliging them to go to war if one of them was attacked."

                      "With a deadly inevitability, these treaties triggered one another in July and August of 1914. Austria mobilized to attack Serbia, which it held responsible for the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo on June 28."

                      "When Germany invaded Belgium to forestall France's attack on Germany, as the Franco-Russian treaty required, Britain responded by warning Germany that it would go to war if German troops were not withdrawn from Belgium."

                      Keegan discusses, in his book, the ineptness of Europe's  aristocratic diplomats, incapable of preventing a war, which none of them WANTED. One after another was out of communication, the 19th century protocols could not keep pace with the mechanical responses of the various military instruments.

                      It seems, for instance, the creme of European Diplomacy refused to use the telephone to speak to their counterparts.

                      Things had to be done in a certain way.

                      WW1, in other words, was a war which could have been stopped at countless moments. But the nations stood back and, like deer in the headlights, let it happen because they could simply not think of what else to do.

                      •  Sorry to have to say this, but that fits exactly (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        slowheels

                        what I said, except for some different details:

                        The AH ultimatum
                        The reason Italy entered on the Allied side.
                        The reasons the US entered.

                        Nothing I said discounted the ineptness of the diplomats and politicians.  Nor did it discount that at least some of the militaries had new toys they wanted to play with.  What I did say highlighted the craziness of the alliances of the time.

                        I won't grade you, as you did me, but remember that, at times, others will focus on other details than you do.  That does not make them wrong, or Kool Aid drinkers.

                        I'm glad I came out long ago - the closets are infested with Republicans these days.

                        by grada3784 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:01:14 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  I am curious, since you think I drank some (0+ / 0-)

                    Allied Kool-Aid, what you think caused WW I, 5 weeks or so after the assasination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne?  And brought in Russia, Germany, France, Britain and Italy, with Italy turning against her allies in the Triple Alliance?  

                    Why did WW I spiral far beyond the previous Balkan Wars?

                    Just curious.

                    I'm glad I came out long ago - the closets are infested with Republicans these days.

                    by grada3784 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:51:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Would this be the same Keegan... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...who was a strong supporter of the American invasion of Iraq, and who pushed hard against pulling out of Iraq and for the surge.  Who is greatly admired and read among neo-con circles?

                    Are you speaking of that Sir John Keegan?

              •  Yeah, I think the diarist is being Inflamitory (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                pernoclone

                I don't want to imply that everything is hunk dory in Serbia.

                One way to look at Serbia is that it clings to its chauvinism the much of the American South clings to it.

                Serbia has been the problem child of Europe for nearly 100 years. And it was Serbian nationalist that triggered the events that caused World War I, the plot to assassinate the ArchDuke was hatched by the Serbian Government in Belgrade.

                But the assassination did not take place in Belgrade, it took place in Sarajevo, which is in the center of Bosnia, which was in Austria-Hungry.  

                Back then the geopolitical fault line ran through the Balkans. The fault line still runs through it. But the importance of the balkans in geopolitical terms is not what it used to be. Historically the Russians had wanted to liberate Constantinople from the Turks so as to control the straits by which much of their freight passed through - intrigue into the Balkans helped advance this notion. These days, no one disputes the possession of Istanbul and the Turkey has never constrained the traffic passing through the straits.

                These days the situation is not quite so critical. Right wing Serbian nationalist value Kosovo as the heart of Serbia. It's where the Serbians lost there independence to the Turks over 500 years ago.

                The Russians have always played godfather to the Serbs.  This is because the Serbs are slavic and eastern orthodox and surrounded by peoples who are either non-slavic or non-eastern orthodox. But really its just a pretext for expanding Russian influence into the region.

                Serbia knows its future, if it has any future at all, remains within the European Union. One former Yugoslav republic has already joined the EU.  They are now surrounded by the European Union.

                Serbia has suffered from it's excessive chauvinism. A year and a half ago Montenegro detached itself from Serbia.  Kosovo is an obvious sore spot. But they couldn't keep themselves from killing Albanians there. So they paid a price for their chauvinism in having Kosovo detached. The longer they indulge their  chauvinism the longer they'll live isolated and poor in Europe: a sort of giant ghetto of Europe.  

                Maybe the Bush administration handled this badly. Nothing new there, they fuck everything up. But this latest incident is a result of Serbian chauvinism and they pay a price for that every day.  The Serbs are learning this. They former Yugoslav neighbors, Slovenia and increasingly Croatia are thriving because of their association with the EU.  

                Eventually, with time, the chauvinist in Serbia will lose total credibility. As more and more Serbians long to join and be integrated with the EU, to enjoy its peace, prosperity and freedom of movement, the chauvinist will increasingly be marginalized in Serbia.  

          •  Ironic (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            the chavi

            like rain on your wedding day.

        •  that's presuming it didn't already start. . .n/t (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Mumon

          "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

          by zic on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:30:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Uhh, WWIII is over. We won. (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          DocGonzo, c0wfunk

          The Cold War was WWIII (1947--1995).  It included the Berlin airlift, Greece, Turkey, Korea, Iran, Hungary, the missile and space race, Cuba, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Grenada, Latin America, Afganistan and Yugoslavia.

          I had a professor in 1960 who wondered if we (the American people) would have the patience and the persistance for a 50 year conflict fought mainly by proxy on the edge of mutual extinction.  I'm glad we did.

          We now are in WWIV.  The dimensions are not yet clear.  It may be simply about tolerance and trade versus tribal differences writ large.  But we should certainly expect residual cold war animosities to surface.  Remember persistance and patience.

          •  Cold War does not = a world war. (4+ / 0-)

            This trivializes the concept of a world war. During the Cold War, BTW, World War III meant a shooting war between the US and its allies vs. the Soviet bloc, which was likely to go nuclear.

            I was a Republican until they lost their minds, The word 'conservative' means 'discriminatory,' ... It's a form of political discrimination. --- Charles Barkley

            by Kimball Cross on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:26:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know (3+ / 0-)

              An awful lot of people died between Korea, Vietnam, and the dozens of smaller proxy wars.  Five million in Vietnam, and it just grows from there.

              Right on, Dr. Dean.

              by Mikey on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:42:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Agree and disagree (0+ / 0-)

              You're correct regarding how we defined WWIII DURING the Cold War but we have a better perspective now.  Also, I have lived throughout the Cold War and I can assure you that there was nothing trivial about it.

            •  Trivializing the Cold War (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              OMwordTHRUdaFOG

              You're trivializing the death and destruction of the Cold War by saying it wasn't a world war because it wasn't (usually) a shooting war.

              The people of Angola, Cuba, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Chile, Czechoslovakia, and all over the globe where insurrections and covert wars were fought would disagree with you. And so would millions of Chinese and Russian soviet subjects killed by their own governments in that "non-shooting war".

              Just because only a few thousand Americans were killed by weapons directly fired by Communists in the 40 years of the Cold War doesn't mean it wasn't a shooting war. And just because the war was waged by other means, many of which killed many people even if "only" by economics, doesn't mean it wasn't a war. Since it was a war, and practically the whole world was fighting it (more than even in WWII or WWI), it was a World War.

              Not calling it WWIII was part of the propaganda that was the war's main weapon. A weapon that itself killed plenty of people around the world.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:46:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Without getting into semantics, but this is a (0+ / 0-)

                a very good point. See this poster:

                http://www.3dsupply.de/...

                Thou shalt not kill except for a long list of good reasons is like saying you should not covet your neighbor's wife unless she's hot.

                by FudgeFighter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:12:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Vietnam and Korea (0+ / 0-)

                  Yeah - even in my accounting, I left out Vietnam and Korea. Lots of shooting in those wars that weren't called wars themselves by the US, precisely because they were just part of the Cold War.

                  Iraq and Afghanistan are certainly wars. If as many countries took the bait and fought each other in Bush's Terror War, then we'd be justified in calling that "WWIV". Even if most of the countries weren't shooting.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:31:16 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Puts things neatly in perspective (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  FudgeFighter

                  A chronology of US determination and willingness to use military force to win world economic domination.

                  Your cooperation is required in our effort to reign freedom on the world - or else.

              •  Disagree. (0+ / 0-)

                We haven't seen WWIII yet and hopefully never will.

                And in my opinion the only true world war was so called WWII as it involved the main characters fighting each other with all means available in every arena possible.

                WWI was a European war and declared a World War because both we and leaders of Europe at the time saw themselves as the center of the world. Typical Eurocentric egoism of the time.

                Therefore, once again IMO, a true World War would be just that - all the main characters using every means possible to defeat or capture the others assets in every arena possible.

                As such I believe if one is to try and qualify any conflict as truly global World War, then there has only ever been one.

                God forbid we should ever see another.

                •  Possibility (0+ / 0-)

                  In the Cold War, all the countries involved in the conflict, which was hundreds, across the world, did use every means possible in every arena possible. The Cold War was defined by an "escalation ceiling" of nuclear armageeddon and Mutually Assured Destruction, so "possible" excluded the traditional ground invasion and even the new air bombing. But because those weren't possible without creating MAD that would lose the war (for everyone), the Cold Warriors did use everything possible.

                  They in fact used much more than was ever used before in a war. In many more venues.

                  FWIW, I think the US, Canadian and all the other non-Europeans fighting and dying in WWI would disagree that it was only "a European war".

                  WWII was the worst war yet. Perhaps even deserving its own category. But there's no reason to ignore that these other wars were wars, fought around the world, hence world wars. To fetishize WWII that way is to ignore that its warriors ignored the lessons of WWI, "the war to end war", and were predictably largely ignored by the Cold Warriors in the WWIII they perpetrated for a half-century.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:37:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hard to argue with a person (0+ / 0-)

                    with Doc before their name even if it's followed by Gonzo ;>)

                    I guess my reasoning is that World War II ushered in a new era of nations with true global reach and therefore conflict anywhere AND with war being defined as two or more combatants using whatever means to destroy or conquer the other.

                    In the Cold War neither we nor the Soviets where bent on total destruction of the other, but rather a hedge in the potential for economic domination (yes/no?).

                    So what we were forced to live through were proxy wars  where the two major players and their allies weren't going head to head as the US/British were with the Germans/Japanese. Is there any doubt that if the Germans or Japanese had developed nukes first they would have used them? Or, for that matter, would the Japanese have retaliated if they had the nuclear capability?

                    And by your definition of world war why just limit it to the mechanized era? So for me, fetishizing or otherwise, WWII did or does deserve the distinction of being the true first "world war".

                    That is not by any means meant to diminish the suffering of so many at the hands our nations nor is it meant to suggest that many of the wars fought in the twentieth century were not wars. But I mean to suggest my generation (baby boomer) hasn't yet seen the true horror of a real global war nor been forced to sacrifice on the level such a war would demand and therefore don't have cause to suggest we lived through WWIII.

                    And I'll still postulate that WWI was more a preamble to WWII then deserves it's own distinction and the lessons learned (unless I'm missing something) by future warriors were that of "we need better weapons and armament". I can't see that many other lessons were learned from it, more so I think we just haven't sunk to the level in insanity that a Hitler can drive people to.

                    •  Mescalero Gonzo (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      Pescadero Bill

                      War is when two nations (or equivalents, like mutually exclusive tribes with separate leaders) engage in conflict including, but not limited to, violence, for the purpose of forcing one or the other each to obey the other's instructions upon defeat.

                      There are examples through history where warring nations don't use every means at their disposal to secure victory. In fact the 20th Century was the beginning of a new era of "total war", which was very rare in the past, and featured various constraints including the Geneva Conventions, obeyed even amidst otherwise largely unrestrained fighting, like in Iwo Jima, Bataan, Dresden.

                      And rarely does one plan the destruction of the other, which would deprive the victor of the spoils. Especially as the spoils have been the production of the conquered, destruction of the other is minimized to preserve the value of the prize.

                      There are many strategies for victory in war, unique to the enemies, the nature of the causus belli, the value of the conquered party, the technology available, and a myriad of other factors. Some are total.

                      WWII was the most destructive war of all time. But the Cold War, especially since it lasted so long, was extremely destructive too. Ask the Vietnamese about how winning that global war required sacrifice, or even Americans who had to sacrifice in the 1970s after losing it. Ask the North Koreans or the Afghanis about the global destruction of the Cold War. All those fighting in WWII were fighting in the Cold War, even if the balance of fighting was tipped more towards espionage, propaganda, diplomacy and proxy wars, to avoid escalating nukes that would make everyone lose.

                      The point is that on all the terms that make WWII a war, and a world war, the Cold War also qualifies, including the violence. WWI likewise. Even in WWII, fighting didn't reach nearly every country, not even every country with uniformed troops. But it's a "world war" if ever there was one. WWI likewise.

                      I'd also say that the Spanish/American war in the late 1800s was probably the smallest war that wasn't a world war. In that category are any number of imperial wars, also including some ancient ones (if you accept that "the Old World" was "the world", even while the Western Hemisphere had its own imperial wars).

                      The problem with the world is that it has way too many world wars. They differ in scale, but not in category. And they're all pretty insane. The Cold War was possibly the most insane, in that people fought it at all (and at least twice, we now know, the final launch order was sent, and probably more). But it's also simultaneously one of the most sane, in that we didn't nuke anyone, and we did end it. And of course the main problem with these wars, especially world wars, is that we leave the powerful with the profits, which means however much we all learn from them, we're mainly learning to fight the next one.

                      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                      by DocGonzo on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:00:08 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Not likely - it's not like the crown prince (0+ / 0-)

          of the Austro-Hungerian empire got assassinated yesterday.

          Darcy Burner for Congress WA-08

          by Alan Arizona on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:42:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not that the situation isn't ugly, but... (5+ / 0-)

          the rest of Europe is NOT aligned in the complex web of treaties and alliances that let the assassination of a minor political figure spark WWI.

          The situation is ugly, but it is NOT apocalyptic enough to spark a similar WWIII.

          Barack Obama -- The President we were promised as kids!

          by Jimdotz on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:47:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  We all know the Einstein quote... (0+ / 0-)

          I know not what weapons WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones

          Thou shalt not kill except for a long list of good reasons is like saying you should not covet your neighbor's wife unless she's hot.

          by FudgeFighter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:08:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And Russia has been doing stuff like this.... (5+ / 0-)

        Russian bombers buzz the USS Nimitz
        Russia will back Serbia,and given that they are very unhappy with the missle shield Bush is putting in ther backyard. The likelyhood of Russia doing everything it can to screw with us on this and other issues is even more likely.

      •  Can't impeach because the powder must be kept dry (0+ / 0-)

        for something really important, like stains on a dress of something.

        Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

        by LionelEHutz on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:22:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  fyi, georgia10 FrontPaged this yesterday & a (0+ / 0-)

        great discussion ensued.

        The problem here, once again, is the site's really poor information design... Things that are out of sight are out of mind.

        But take a look at yesterday's front paged stories. It really WAS being considered in real time.

        we need a better way to place discussions of importance that just fly off the page.

    •  = More money for Bush's friends (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Powered Grace, Mumon, Rick Winrod

      in the defense industry. Just another place to export arms and bring in more contractors...sigh

    •  Not every crisis leads to war (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      eugene, sxp151, the chavi, pernoclone

      Saber rattling is part of the language of international diplomacy.  Bush has handled his side of things very badly.  Is that news to anyone?

      But Russia does not want a war. Bad for business.  Russia depends on trade with Europe.  If they are seen as nutters, Russia, Inc. could lose business, Putin could lose popularity.  It is all about the Economy, and Putin is not stupid.

      One death?  Who died?  An embassy staffer or a protester?  Regrettable either way, but deaths unfortunately happen.  Let's keep perspective here.

    •  if Dem was prez, Repugs would be screaming (8+ / 0-)

      can you imagine what would be happening if a Dem was Prez. and a mob sacked an embassy, and the Prez did nothing? The Repuglican and right wing attack maching would be all over it.

    •  We started this. (0+ / 0-)

      We invaded Serbia to pry Kosovo away. There was a long period of negotiation that was beginning to pay off, but then Bush went in and sabotaged it engineering unilateral Kosovo independence. The Serbs are pissed off and frankly, I find it hard to blame them. The attack on the embassy is properly seen as blowback for our actions.

      Will this spread to war? Doubtful. It's not in anyone's interest for it to happen. But it is an unnecessarily ugly situation, that Bush created. So we do need saner heads to prevail, instead of the US continuing to believe it can dictate terms to the world.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
      Neither is California High Speed Rail

      by eugene on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:41:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rec'd. (3+ / 0-)

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:56:55 AM PDT

  •  I believe it was FPed (6+ / 0-)

    yesterday and the height of the rioting -- along with several diaries.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:57:14 AM PDT

  •  Well... (18+ / 0-)

    ...it isn't front-paged here because none of the front-pagers have chosen to write about it yet.

    But:

    1. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand did not actually cause WWI.  Austria wanted war with Serbia and would have gotten one; ditto for Germany and Russia.
    1. Russia is not a big ally of Serbia's, but opposes Kosovar independence because they oppose the declaration of independence of breakaway regions of its own nation, such as Chechnya.

    Just so you know.

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:57:59 AM PDT

    •  Good points... (3+ / 0-)

      But for the very reasons you cite, Russia will back a Serbian attempt to keep Kosovo from exercising its independence.

      Your first point is interesting, and odd: the royal families of Germany and Russia were related, of course.  Just shows you shouldn't let dynasties run countries.

      "It's better to realize you're a swan than to live life as a disgruntled duck."

      by Mumon on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:00:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  WWI is very poorly understood... (9+ / 0-)

        ...although it is of tremendous importance, particularly for students of modern military theory (which is all, in some ways, a reaction to WWI).

        But the main reason is oddly enough that creating an official history of WWI which did not blame Germany was key to the peace agreement which actually ended the war.  So many false accounts of the start of the war (most famously embodied in "The Guns of August") were promulgated in order to allow for the war to end.

        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

        by Jay Elias on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:05:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  All European Royals are related (0+ / 0-)

        The British and German royals even more closely: the British one only became the House of Windsor in 1917 when there was enough complaining that, for a country at war with Germany, it looked bad having a monarch with the family name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

        Wilhelm II and George V were cousins.  The reason for for war between those two countries had a lot to do with Wilhelm II wanting as big a fleet as his cousin's to play with.

    •  It has been front paged (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      wayoutinthestix

      georgia10 wrote a front page story about it with 406 comments.  Hardly insignificant.

      And if you search for diaries under the name "Serbia," you'll see several of those too.

      It hasn't been ignored.  It is still a developing story, and I'm sure there will be other diaries and front page stories as information becomes available.

    •  Could that change? (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Dauphin, Pris from LA

      Russia is not a big ally of Serbia's

      While I find conventional war highly unlikely in this case (though I think a small Serbian guerilla campaign in Kosovo is not out of the question), one of the more interesting dynamics might be Putin using this to draw Serbia closer into Russian orbit.  Serbia is angry and humiliated, and Putin is flush with cash and looking to reinvigorate Russia's ability to project power.  Sounds like a potential match.

      •  Err... Russia and Serbia have historically (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        tgs1952

        been allied. Putin doesn't need to draw Serbia into Russia's orbit since it's already there.

        Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

        by Dauphin on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:12:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          tgs1952, Dauphin

          Yes, but there are different levels of alliance.  Since Milosevic lost power, Serbia has been making move to try to reach an accommodation with Europe.  Those moves are likely over for a while.  And yes, Serbia and Russia have been friendly, but what does that mean?  For instance, if Russia ships S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Serbia, that would be a significant gesture.  Likewise, Russia may take the opportunity to mess with Europe and the US a bit just to show it is sticking up for Serbia.  

          It's common here to hate Serbia (mostly for what happened in Bosnia), but having Serbia and Russia tightly allied and hostile to much of Europe really isn't a great situation.  

          •  Agreed. (0+ / 0-)

            Yes, the Serbs were bastards in Bosnia, abnd it's right to condemn that. But here, I believe their position is correct (see my base comment, please) and I disagree with our side (Europe) as well as the US.

            Furthermore, I agree with those analyists who predict that, in ten years' time, Europe will be allied much more closely to Russia than to the US, so this controversy is, as we would say, spitting onto our own plate.

            Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

            by Dauphin on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:23:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  When the Serbs take diplomats hostage (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      pernoclone

      THEN it will be a big deal like Tehran.

      I remember the Tehran hostage-taking.  What happened yesterday in Belgrade, while the 132,486th thing to be botched by the Bush malAdministration, doesn't hold a candle to what happened in Tehran in 1980.

      Cheers.

      "When the going gets tough, the tough get 'too big to fail'."

      by New Deal democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:50:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not botched by Bush (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        pernoclone

        This was predictable, but it was a consequence of a path that could not be reversed (Kosovo's independence).

        The US, NATO, the EU, and even the Kosovar Albanians are all resisting provocations by Serbia. Let them burn and loot and reveal themselves as aggressors. It reminds everyone why Kosovo became independent.

        My teeth aren't white enough for DailyKos, so adios.

        by DrReason on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:46:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The thing that always bothered me about WWI (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Jay Elias

      is the claim that it was started by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

      Nobody's that popular.

    •  Disagree. (0+ / 0-)

      Russia is Serbia's historic ally and the two counRussia has twoys cooperated tightly. Therefore Russia has two reasons, not one, to support Serbia. The reason they didn't help before is because Russia under Yeltsin was going down the drain, and today Russia is growing strong again.

      Oh, and this cannot spark a world war because there aren't two equally strong and diametrically opposed webs of alliances approaching conflict over the distribution of colonies.

      Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

      by Dauphin on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:11:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think that this should (13+ / 0-)

    be discussed until people become more informed.

    If you had lived in Europe during the initial civil war you probably would have been screaming for intervention by anyone.

    I was at University soon after the war finished and there were about 20 Serb nationals on one course with me. Around 50% of them admitted to raping Bosnian Muslim women and had no problem with living with that.

    The vast majority of male Serbs were involved in war crimes.

    Serb nationalism is probably the single most dangerous meme in Europe today.

    This is not about America.

    It is about an ethnic groups right to live without the fear of attack rape and torture.

    •  It is about how the US should react... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Owllwoman

      One question on my mind, though: France was the first country to recognize Kosovo...what happened with the French?  And why would they care?

      "It's better to realize you're a swan than to live life as a disgruntled duck."

      by Mumon on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:02:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The US should stay the hell out it. (0+ / 0-)

        Recognizing Kosovo as an independent nation is one thing, butting in again militarily is another. Let the nation's in the region get involved if action is required. They have more of a dog in this hunt than we do.

        I have no idea why we tend to butt into every situation around the world. Our imperialism is going to be our down fall.

        If you see me behind you..don't assume I'm following you. We just happen to be going the same way and if you slow down, I'll run over your ass.

        by TKH on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:38:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That was a surprise. (0+ / 0-)

        France has been "good cop" to the US as "bad cop" when dealing with Serbia.  Russia has been in Kosovo's north since a few days after Serbia's withdrawal, so there's nothing new there.

        My guess is that realpolitik is in play, and that the State Department is setting up its pieces to contain a resurgent Russia and a radicalizing Arab world.  The last three Presidents have now set up an arc of intensely pro-American states including Poland, Romania, Kosova, Albania and Tanzania.  The last three are majority easy-going Muslim, which offers a Muslim alternative to the puritanical and fascist version coming out of the Gulf and a splendid listening post.  Instead of one Israel, now we have at least seven.  

        Russia gets one fanboy to our seven:  Serbia/Republika Srpska.  It and Macedonia are the only Slavic nations to escape the boot of Greater Russia.  

        Dems in 2008: An embarassment of riches. Repubs in 2008: Embarassments.

        by Yamaneko2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:08:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sarkozy's policies... the twerp. n/t (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        tgs1952

        Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

        by Dauphin on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:13:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Surprised? Sarkozy replaces Blair as Bush poodle (0+ / 0-)

        The French also backed the Hutu's, in Rwanda, for whatever reason. (I finished reading Philip Gourevitch's "we wish to inform you that we will be killed with our families," not long ago, and that was his take on continued arms shipments to the Hutu's.

    •  Serbian nationalism has been dangerous.. (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Great Cthulhu, bobinson, nilocjin

      for over a century.

    •  And those who weren't involved are brainwashed (0+ / 0-)

      I totally agree.

      Last fall I was tutoring a serbian college basketball player who wrote an essay about how afraid of America he was after they bombed belgrade "for no reason."

      He knew nothing about the balkan wars, war crimes, or Kosovo and said the the masacre at Srebrenica was a fabrication of western media.

      He was only 18 or 19,  but when I showed him facts he refused to beleive them saying that my information was wrong.

    •  That statement simply can't be true. (0+ / 0-)

      I know it must look that way, to you, from the random sampling of students, but to conclude "the vast majority of male serbs were involved in war crimes" is just ridiculous. (Are you sure some of those guys weren't just messing with your head?)

      I knew a UN person who worked in Bosnia, and Krajina, and she repeatedly emphasized the brutality of the Croats and Bosniaks (sp?), while not excusing some of the Serbs.

      Also, in Kosovo, since 1999, it's been the Albanians ethnically cleansing their territory of all non-Albanian speakers. (The roma, gorani, turks, jews, 'egyptians', as well as the serbs.)

  •  Don't know if it makes Tehran (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Mumon, pernoclone

    look like child's play, but it is certainly a big deal.

    Mrs. litho, who is not American and wasn't here for the Kosovo war, was asking at breakfast what was going on.  I explained to her the war and Clinton's promise that Kosovo would not become independent.

    Naturally, Bush comes in and reneges on Clinton's commitment.  Why shouldn't we renege on any commitment he makes anywhere in the world (e.g. Iraq)?

  •  BBC on this... (6+ / 0-)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

    The huge demonstration by about 200,000 people outside the parliament showed the strength of feeling in Serbia about Kosovo's independence.

    There is anger and frustration among the people and a sense of powerlessness about what to do now. The outburst of violence from the minority showed how that anger can boil over.

    The Serbian Foreign Minister, Vuk Jeremic, condemned the violence, describing it as "totally unacceptable". But other politicians were slow to condemn it. And important questions remain as to why the police were so slow to respond to the violence, when it was highly predictable.

    At least 200 people were injured in the night's violence. And Serbia's relations with other countries have been damaged. The repercussions of Kosovo's declaration of independence continue to unfold.

    "The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg

    by grannyhelen on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:00:23 AM PDT

    •  That's 2.8% of their population! (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Owllwoman

      Imagine if you had the equivalent Americans: that'd be over 8 million people.

      "It's better to realize you're a swan than to live life as a disgruntled duck."

      by Mumon on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:03:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If that number is real (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Mumon

        which is now being disputed.And also keep in mind that the protestors were towing the government line, which in many other countries results in large crowds that don't necessarily reflect the majority.

        I personaly can't believe the average Serb wants to go back to the bad old days. I don't believe this will amount to any kind of full scale conflict.  there are extremists that will try to use this moment. Serbia has been isolated and largely neutered.

        •  Iranians elected Ahmadinejad... (3+ / 0-)

          and the average educated Iranian thinks he's an asshat, to be sure.

          We have about 20% Repub dead-enders in this country.

          Wouldn't surprise me to have strong vocal minorities with extremist attitudes in Serbia.

          We got 'em here.

          "It's better to realize you're a swan than to live life as a disgruntled duck."

          by Mumon on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:23:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Tadic shut the schools (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Great Cthulhu

        and provided free trains to the protests.

        Serbia knew this had the potential to get ugly. They sponsored it. And then had no cops defending western embassies.

        Serbia wants to be isolated by the international community. I say we ensure that happens.

        Build a fence around the lunatics until they calm down.

        In my house it's call a "time out."

        "Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." - Oscar Wilde

        by greendem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:32:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  A "faux demonstration". (8+ / 0-)

    This was orchestrated by the Serbian government, right down to permitting the demonstrators to set the place on fire before intervening.

    Just like Chinese soldiers in Beijing handing demontrators conveniently sized chunks of concrete to throw through windows of the U.S. embassy in the aftermath of the inadvertent bombing of the Chinese embassy in Serbia

    •  Faux or not, the Serbs have good reason (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      tgs1952, Mumon, Pris from LA, moira

      to be angry.

      Remember, those people throwing rocks and lighting fires lived through the US bombing campaign of their capital.  They remember the promise made at the time of the ceasefire that Kosovo would remain under UN administration and not be allowed to declare independence.

      Say what you will about Milosevic, Serbian nationalism, and ethnic cleansing -- and there is clearly a lot to be said -- you can't blame people who have suffered under a war for feeling angry at broken promises.

      •  true, but that solution was never acceptable (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Mumon

        to the majority people living in Kosovo, and therefore would never have lasted. The muslims there made it clear from the beginning they wanted independence. It was a matter of time.  That's probably why the Serbs were so unhappy with the whole arrangement to begin with and tried so desperately to ethnically cleanse the place. they knew if it got partitioned and a muslim majority existed, this would be the inevitable result.

        Nobody should really be surprised and as long as outside interests don't go nutty the long term consequences won't be world-ending.