TODAY: Russia’s envoy lashes out at West over Kosovo, protests shall proceed despite ban, Tymoshenko talks gas with Putin, and the world reacts to the U.S. shooting down a satellite. After Serbian nationalists set fire to the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Russia has reacted to the street violence. Ambassador to NATO Dmitri Rogozin told ITAR-TASS: “If the EU works out a single position or if NATO steps beyond its mandate in Kosovo, these organizations will be in conflict with the U.N., and then I think we will also begin operating under the assumption that in order to be respected, one needs to use force. And we, I think, will proceed from an assumption that to be respected, we have to use brute military force.” A rep from the Foreign Ministry explained the street violence in Serbia as such: “What happened in Belgrade yesterday is regrettable. But we would want to draw your attention to the fact that the forces that supported the unilateral recognition of Kosovo’s independence should have realized the effects of the move.”
Other Russia plans to march in opposition of the rigged elections despite a ban on the protest – and some are expecting violence: “If we are baton-charged it will mean all his (Medvedev’s) talk about democracy is only for outside use, not our streets,” said Andrei Dmitriev of the National Bolshevik Party.The Prime Minister of Ukraine, Yulia Tymoshenko, had an unusually fruitful visit to Moscow yesterday, securing a new agreement with Gazprom, creating a free trade zone, and continuing to build on her popularity in case the Rada is dissolved and early elections are called. However, details of the new energy arrangement remain unclear.Following the shooting down of a satellite, both Russia and China have accused the United States of militarizing space in a provocative action. Many sources validate this view: “I don’t see how other nations don’t see this as an anti-satellite test,” said Theresa Hitchens, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Defense Information, a centrist national security policy institute. “They’ll see it as the weaponization of space.” Others disagree, and defend the U.S. for their transparency in the process. A WSJ editorial argues “But the technology on display here is important, among other reasons, because of Chinese and Russian actions. The U.S. has missile-defense systems in place in Japan, for example, to counter North Korea — a dictatorship that wouldn’t exist were it not for Beijing’s help. Russia and China are friendly with Iran, which is rapidly developing long-range missile capabilities. If anything, the U.S. needs to spend more on such technology.“PHOTO: Serbian nationalists opposed to Kosovo’s independence storm the United States embassy in Belgrade on February 21. The violence has prompted angry US and UN protests, although Russia argued the violence was understandable.(AFP)
Latest Thailand Blog Stories- Does Thailand Want Democracy? February 9, 2012
- Video: Pravit Rojanaphruk Interviews Robert Amsterdam February 5, 2012
- Abhisit and Free Speech: Never the Twain Shall Meet February 5, 2012
- Thailand Gets Improved Marks on Human Rights February 1, 2012
- RA’s Thailand News Blast – Jan 31, 2012 January 31, 2012
- Latest Czech Blog Stories
- Když státníci šílí February 10, 2012
- Jízda začíná February 10, 2012
- Když vyšetřovatelé prchají od velké korupční kauzy February 10, 2012
- Přímo!!! February 9, 2012
- Vyvlastnit vlastnictví February 9, 2012
- Latest CFP Blog Stories
- Franz Sedelmayer: Leading the Fight Against Sovereign Immunity February 1, 2012
- Zimbabwe – The Pillar of Education and Fostering a Patriotism That Never Seemed to Waver January 25, 2012
- Quality Assurance: Brazil Probes Chinese Mobile Phone Imports January 11, 2012
- “Unquantifiable Risk” for Anglo in Chile January 4, 2012
- Shell Faces New Risks in Nigeria January 4, 2012
Subscribe by Email
6 Comments
I wonder what Russians would say if the British torched their Embassy in London over Litvinenko and then the American ambassador said: “What happened in London yesterday is regrettable. But we would want to draw your attention to the fact that the forces that supported refusal to facilitate justice in the Litvinenko killing should have realized the effects of the move.”Think they would accept this line of “reasoning”?
True, it may be a callous and undiplomatic statement, but I think it is a great pity that Russia is the only one to listen to Serbia.They are a people with very legitimate grievances, and a long history of mistreatment. The Kosovo situation is extremely complicated, and it seems that so many people want to see it in black or white.
I very much agree with your last point James. While not sharing the general gist of this blog, I periodically find myself in agreement with some of its views.Kindly note that Russia isn’t the only country sympathizing with Serbia.I’d like to know what proposals were offered during the negotiating process. Kindly note the one I state in the article at my URL. It originally appeared in another column of mine this past August, with a follow-up to it in November (both in Serbianna).
Yes, I believe Spain is also opposing the overly swift affirmation of Kosovo’s independence by so many countries, but Madrid really hasn’t gone to the same lengths as Russia has to publicly speak up for Serbia’s interests.When talking about Serbia, we need to look beyond the unspeakable human rights tragedy that was Milosevic, take a longer view of what they have been systemically deprived of so many rights over the past 50 years.
JAMES:Au contraire. What they have a long history of is genocide and racism and violence. To suggest that those who would perpetrate and condone this craven act of violence in the night are somehow victims strikes me as being deluded. Where are the counter-protests from civilized Serbians calling for responsible action? Have you forgotten the atrocities that Serbians tried to carry out against Kosovo, and Milosovic as war criminal, and the need for NATO to strike?
Besides Spain: Moldova, Romania, China, Slovakia, Cyprus, Bulgaria and some other countries have sided with the Serb position.Violence and “genocide” (if that word is to be used) applies to what the Serbs have faced in Kosovo, care of Albanian nationalist extremism. Serbia minus Kosovo is more democratic, multi-ethnically tolerant and economically viable than the repackaged KLA/foreign occupation situation in Kosovo.The 1989 “Serb crackdown” wasn’t worse than Turkish actions against Kurds from roughly 1975-2000 and Russian manner in Chechnya. The difference having to do with who is either in an American club (NATO) or has nukes (like Russia). The 1989 “Serb crackdown” was in response to the enhanced Albanian nationalist mayhem during the Tito imposed Kosovo autonomy years from 1974-89.Turkey and Iraq don’t lose parts of their territory for how those two treated the Kurds.While not having a cheery perspective of Slobodan Milosevic, there should be an honest appraisal of him without misrepresentations. A case in point being how his 1989 Kosovo Polje speech was butchered into something he did not say. His speech was clearly in support of a multi-ethnic state at peace with itself. On the matter of not being so cheery, how about some earnest criticisms of the repackaged Kosovo Liberation Army leadership in Pristina?Let us see some firm comparisons on how Pridnestrovie (Trans-Dniester) has a better case for independence than Kosovo; vis-a-vis history and human rights. Again noting how such comparisons are rarely reviewed by English language mass media.