Turkish Forum

Category: Balkans

  • Turkey supports Macedonia’s NATO path

    Turkey supports Macedonia’s NATO path

    turkey supports macedonia
    Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu (L) and his Macedonian counterpart Antonio Milosovski (R) at a press conference in Skopje on Friday. AFP photo

    SKOPJE – Balkan Insight

    Turkey will continue supporting Macedonia in its efforts to join NATO, and in every other way, visiting Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu told media in Skopje after meeting his host, Macedonian Foreign Minister Antonio Milososki, The Balkan Insight Web site reported.

    “Turkey has been on Macedonia’s side since the day it declared independence and backs the country’s membership in NATO and other institutions under its constitutional name. This strong support will continue in the future,” Davutoğlu said.

    Both ministers assessed that relations between the two countries are “more than friendly.” The ministers agreed to continue cooperation and share experiences in the bids of both countries to one day join the European Union. They committed to strengthening cultural and educational cooperation, and gave particular stress to improving economic relations.

    Davutoğlu said that his government would encourage Turkish businessmen to invest in Macedonia in order to match the countries’ excellent political ties.

    Speaking about Thursday’s meeting between Macedonian and Greek prime ministers in Brussels, which ended without visible progress, Foreign Minister Milososki complained that Greece was not showing enough pragmatism in its handling of the issue.

    “It is obvious that our current [Greek] colleagues are willing to hold meetings for handshakes and for photo ops. Unfortunately, we still haven’t felt the moment of pragmatism to resolve the dispute,” Milososki said.

    Skopje and Athens are locked in an almost two decade long spat over the use of the name Macedonia. Athens has effectively blocked Skopje from entering NATO and the EU until a solution to the dispute is reached. Greece claims that Skopje’s official name, Republic of Macedonia, implies territorial claims over its own northern province, which is also called Macedonia.

    Macedonia, Milososki added, will continue to be friendly towards all of its neighbors, especially towards Greece, but stressed that it is crucial for the name issue to be settled as soon as possible.

    Turkey, along with Russia, China, the United States, and some 120 other U.N. member states, have recognised Macedonia under it constitutional name.

    , March 26, 2010

  • Serbia’s move for Ganic extradition political, say analysts

    Serbia’s move for Ganic extradition political, say analysts

    donau south smallLeading analysts studying developments in the Balkans have stressed that a request by Serbia for the extradition of former Bosnian Vice President Ejup Ganic from the UK on a Serbian war crimes warrant was politically motivated to gain ground in the face of international pressure over alleged violations of the international rules of war.

    Speaking to Today’s Zaman, specialists on the Balkans and the peace-building process in the region drew attention to the politicized nature of the Serbian decision. Gözde Kılıç Yaşın from the Turkish Center for International Relations and Strategic Analysis (TÜRKSAM) based in Ankara said the background of Serbia’s request from the UK was significant. “It is quite interesting that Serbia demanded Ganic’s extradition amid huge pressure due to Radovan Karadzic’s prosecution,” stated Yaşın. Wartime Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic took the stand at his war crimes trial to “deny” responsibility for some of Europe’s worst atrocities since World War II on the same day Ganic was arrested in London.

    Yaşın added that what Serbia was merely trying to do was send a message to the world that it was not only Serbs who committed war crimes. “Serbia was trying to confuse culprits and the innocent. If it was really seeking to prosecute a suspected war criminal, it would have asked the Bosnian authorities first rather than a third party. The message Serbia wanted to send was that war crimes were not committed on their side alone,” she noted. The warrant against Ganic was issued by a Serbian court; however, the case against Karadzic has been handled by the UN’s International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Professor Murat Çemrek from the Institute of Strategic Thinking (SDE) in Ankara joined Yaşın in her criticism in labeling the decision as political but further argued that it could also be a maneuver to appease the Serbian nationalists who don’t feel so comfortable about the ongoing Turkey-anchored normalization process with Bosnia. “It appears that Serbia’s move was also meant to serve domestic political interests,” he said. Turkey initiated the trilateral meetings with Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina on Oct. 10, 2009, the fifth convening of which took place last month.

    Belgrade first accused him of ordering the killing of over 40 Yugoslav soldiers during the attack on a convoy but then reduced the number to 18. The UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague dismissed the allegations that war crimes were committed during the attack on the convoy.

    Today’s Zaman – 13.03.2009

  • Who Killed the Sultan?

    Who Killed the Sultan?

    by Robert Murray Davis
    7 December 2009

    Translations of little-known Albanian oral epics add another dimension to the endless conversation over the Battle of Kosovo.
    The Battle of Kosovo 1389: An Albanian Epic. Introduction by Anna Di Lellio; translations by Robert Elsie. I. B. Tauris, 2009.

    Rudyard Kipling may have been right when he wrote that “There are nine and 60 ways of constructing tribal lays and every single one of them is right,” but as Anna Di Lellio shows in the masterly introduction to these translations of eight Albanian variants of the story of Sultan Murat and a Balkan Christian hero, there can be at least as many ways of understanding, interpreting, and using or misusing them.

    Di Lellio, a sociologist, journalist, and university professor with extensive experience in Kosovo, thinks that some of those ways can be politically and psychologically damaging. She has several related purposes in her commentary on these poems sung by Albanian preservers of a centuries-old oral tradition, about (sometimes admittedly) legendary events grounded in the historical battle outside Pristina in 1389 that cleared the way for the Ottoman empire’s further expansion into the Balkans. First, and possibly least important for the general reader, is to present these poems, in facing pages of Albanian and English, to a broader audience. More broadly, she tries “to rescue them from marginalization as folklore, or from turning them into a new prison for collective memory,” managed by “memory entrepreneurs” with axes to grind. Given the complexities of Balkan history, the second is probably, and unfortunately, impossible, since many Serb commentators “have reduced Serbian history and politics to a story” in which facts must give way to “uninterrupted remembrance.”

    CENTURIES OF CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS

    Most important for the observer of contemporary politics is Di Lellio’s analysis of the significance for Albanians of the ways in which the story of Murat’s death helps to create a national narrative by establishing their nation, and more broadly their people, as a part of Balkan resistance against Turkish invasion and, by extension, as part of European Christendom – and, not incidentally, resident in Kosovo from prehistoric times. Strategically this is important because, she says, Serbs have used Albanian allegiance to Islam to support an exclusive claim to Kosovo that “goes almost always undisputed in western diplomatic and intellectual circles.” The counter-claim by a young Kosovar I recently met that his country (greater Albania?) is 40 percent Catholic, 40 percent Muslim – figures that would be a surprise to the compilers of the CIA World Factbook – is clearly an attempt to refute the Serb position.

    The complementary Serbian and Albanian poetic narratives pose many contradictions, most obviously the name and nationality of the hero who killed Murat even as the Ottoman forces were victorious on the field of battle. No historical authority seems to support either side. In Serbian epics, he is a Serb called Milos Obilic and early in the last century and during and after the battles following the dissolution of Yugoslavia he “evoked a medieval past of national greatness.” In Albanian, the hero is named Millosh Kopiliq, an Albanian who was for centuries a local folk hero who became part of the national narrative during the Kosovan struggle for independence, useful as indicating a Western identity before what is referred to as the long parenthesis of Islamic domination and conversion, and a complement to the contemporary figure of the slain Kosovo Liberation Army commander Adem Jashari as a symbol of armed resistance.

    Of much later date, this painting glorifies the Ottomans’ enemies in the
    Battle of Kosovo even as it captures the convoluted course of that day’s events.

    As might be expected in the Balkans, since we are dealing with human beings, neither side can fully agree among its own cohorts. Albanians are ambivalent about whether Islam is bad in the West/good, East/bad Manichean dichotomy or whether “multi-confessionalism” and religious tolerance (which much resembles indifference) is the more profitable stance, especially if it is vaguely Christian. Or, as De Lellio puts it, whether “Muslim identity … is conceived as foreign, or as constitutive of the nation.” At one point, there was some discussion in Kosovo about mass conversion to Catholicism, though it came to nothing. Especially in the period after 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, that discussion was likely, and perhaps calculated, to appeal to the European Union and the United States.

    The Slav-Albanian battle over facts and interpretations extends far beyond the use and misuse of these epics from the oral tradition. Di Lellio points to the controversy over entries about Albania in the Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, published in Croatia in 1980, after which the Serbs demanded that the reference to Albanian descent from the ancient Illyrians be deleted in an obvious attempt to demonstrate the Albanians had no historical place in and therefore right to Kosovo. Almost 30 years later, a similar battle has erupted over the new Macedonian encyclopedia which refers to Albanians, who make up about a quarter of Macedonia’s population, as Shqiptars – a term that Albanians consider derogatory when used by outsiders – and as primitive people who came from the mountains.

    The prime minister of Albania condemned “the racist, anti-Albanian doctrines of our neighbors [which] are based on the need to find an identity, because those who fake history just confirm that they are searching for their own identity. Albanians are not.” An Albanian rights group spokesman said the reference work “jeopardized interethnic harmony in Macedonia.” Cynical observers will be surprised that he has been able to find some. In any case, the offending entries will be deleted.

    In the 1990s, a friend joined me in Vienna to travel to Hungary. She asked, “Why can’t these people over here just get along with each other?” “We’re only going to be here two weeks,” I said. “I can’t possibly explain it in that short a time.” More than a dozen years later, I still can’t. Anna Di Lellio deals with some of the causes, but she is really interested in furthering “the democratic project” of “deconstructing a national creed.” People of good will, not always easy to find in any region, can only wish her luck.

    Robert Murray Davis regularly reviews literature and books on the Balkans for TOL.

  • Black Sea Crisis Deepens As US-NATO Threat To Iran Grows

    Black Sea Crisis Deepens As US-NATO Threat To Iran Grows

    by Rick Rozoff

    15239

    Global Research, September 16, 2009

    Tensions are mounting in the Black Sea with the threat of another conflict between U.S. and NATO client state Georgia and Russia as Washington is manifesting plans for possible military strikes against Iran in both word and deed.

    Referring to Georgia having recently impounded several vessels off the Black Sea coast of Abkhazia, reportedly 23 in total this year, the New York Times wrote on September 9 that “Rising tensions between Russia and Georgia over shipping rights to a breakaway Georgian region have opened a potential new theater for conflict between the countries, a little more than a year after they went to war.” [1]

    Abkhazian President Sergei Bagapsh ordered his nation’s navy to respond to Georgia’s forceful seizure of civilian ships in neutral waters, calling such actions what they are – piracy – by confronting and if need be sinking Georgian navy and coast guard vessels. The Georgian and navy and coast guard are trained by the United States and NATO.

    The spokesman of the Russian Foreign Ministry addressed the dangers inherent in Georgia’s latest provocations by warning “They risk aggravating the military and political situation in the region and could result in serious armed incidents.” [2]

    On September 15 Russia announced that its “border guards will detain all vessels that violate Abkhazia’s maritime border….” [3]

    Russia would be not only entitled but obligated to provide such assistance to neighboring Abkhazia as “Under mutual assistance treaties signed last November, Russia pledged to help Abkhazia and South Ossetia protect their borders, and the signatories granted each other the right to set up military bases in their respective territories.” [4]

    In attempting to enforce a naval blockade – the International Criminal Court plans to include blockades against coasts and ports in its list of acts of war this year [5] – against Abkhazia, the current Georgian regime of Mikheil Saakashvili is fully aware that Russia is compelled by treaty and national interests alike to respond. Having been roundly defeated in its last skirmish with Russia, the five-day war in August of last year, Tbilisi would never risk actions like its current ones without a guarantee of backing from the U.S. and NATO.

    Days after last year’s war ended then U.S. Senator and now Vice President Joseph Biden flew into the Georgian capital to pledge $1 billion in assistance to the nation, making Georgia the third largest recipient of American foreign aid after Egypt and Israel.

    U.S. and NATO warships poured into the Black Sea in August of 2008 and American ships visited the Georgia port cities of Batumi and Poti to deliver what Washington described as civilian aid but which Russian sources suspected contained replacements for military equipment lost in the conflict.

    Less than a month after the war ended NATO sent a delegation to Georgia to “evaluate damage to military infrastructure following a five-day war between Moscow and Tbilisi….” [6]

    In December a meeting of NATO foreign ministers agreed upon a special Annual National Program for Georgia and in the same month Washington announced the creation of the United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership.

    In the past week a top-level delegation of NATO defense and logistics experts visited Georgia on September 9 “to promote the development of the Georgian Armed Forces” [7] and on September 14 high-ranking officials of the U.S. George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies arrived at the headquarters of the Georgian Ministry of Defense “to review issues of interdepartmental coordination in the course of security sector management and national security revision.” [8]

    The ongoing military integration of Georgia and neighboring Azerbaijan, which also borders Iran – Washington’s Georgetown University is holding a conference on Strategic Partnership between U.S. and Azerbaijan: Bilateral and Regional Criteria on September 18 – by the Pentagon and NATO is integrally connected with general military plans in the Black Sea and the Caucasus regions as a whole and, even more ominously, with joint war plans against Iran.

    As early as January of 2007 reports on that score surfaced in Bulgarian and Romanian news sources. Novinite (Sofia News Agency) reported that the Pentagon “could be using its two air force bases in Bulgaria and one on Romania’s Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran….” [9]

    The bases are the Bezmer and Graf Ignitievo airbases in Bulgaria and the Mihail Kogalniceanu counterpart near the Romanian city of Constanza on the Black Sea.

    The Pentagon has seven new bases altogether in Bulgaria and Romania and in addition to stationing warplanes – F-15s, F-16s and A-10 Thunderbolts – has 3,000-5,000 troops deployed in the two nations at any given time, and Washington established its Joint Task Force-East (JTF-East) permanent headquarters at the Mihail Kogalniceanu airbase in Romania.

    A U.S. government website provides these details about Joint Task Force-East:

    “All U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force training operations in Romania and Bulgaria will fall under the command of JTF–East, which in turn is under the command of USEUCOM [United States European Command]. Physically located in Romania and Bulgaria, JTF East will include a small permanent headquarters (in Romania) consisting of approximately 100-300 personnel who will oversee rotations of U.S. Army brigade-sized units and U.S. Air Force Weapons Training Deployments (WTD). Access to Romanian and Bulgarian air and ground training facilities will provide JTF-East forces the opportunity to train and interact with military forces throughout the entire 92-country USEUCOM area of responsibility. U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) and U.S Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) are actively involved in establishing JTF-East.” [10]

    The four military bases in Romania and three in Bulgaria that the Pentagon and NATO have gained indefinite access to since the two nations were incorporated into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 2004 allow for full spectrum operations: Infantry deployments in the area and downrange to Afghanistan and Iraq, runways for bombers and fighter jets, docking facilities for American and NATO warships including Aegis class interceptor missile vessels, training grounds for Western special forces and for foreign armed forces being integrated into NATO.

    Added to bases and troops provided by Turkey and Georgia – and in the future Ukraine – the Bulgarian and Romanian sites are an integral component of plans by the U.S. and its allies to transform the Black Sea into NATO territory with only the Russian coastline not controlled by the Alliance. And that of newly independent Abkhazia, which makes control of that country so vital.

    Last week the Romanian defense ministry announced the intention to acquire between 48 and 54 new generation fighter jets – American F-16s and F-35s have been mentioned – as part of “a new strategy for buying multi-role aircraft, which means to first buy aircraft to make the transition to fifth generation equipment, over the coming 10-12 years.” [11]

    With the recent change in government in the former Soviet republic of Moldova – the aftermath of this April’s violent “Twitter Revolution” – the new parliamentary speaker, Mihai Ghimpu, has openly spoken of the nation merging with, which is to say being absorbed by, neighboring Romania. Transdniester [the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic] broke away from Moldova in 1990 exactly because of the threat of being pulled into Romania and fighting ensued which cost the lives of some 1,500 persons.

    Romania is now a member of NATO and should civil war erupt in Moldova and/or fighting flare up between Moldova and Transdniester and Romania sends troops – all but a certainty – NATO can activate its Article 5 military clause to intervene. There are 1,200 Russian peacekeepers in Transdniester.

    Transdniester’s neighbor to its east is Ukraine, linked with Moldova through the U.S.-concocted GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova) bloc, which has been collaborating in enforcing a land blockade against Transdniester. Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko, whose poll ratings are currently in the low single digits, is hellbent on dragging his nation into NATO against overwhelming domestic opposition and can be counted on to attack Transdniester from the eastern end if a conflict breaks out.

    A Moldovan news source last week quoted an opposition leader issuing this dire warning:

    “Moldova’s ethnic minorities are categorically against unification with Romania.

    “If we, those who are not ethnic Moldovans, will have to defend Moldova’s
    statehood, then we will find powerful allies outside Moldova, including in Russia. Along with it, Ukraine, Turkey and Bulgaria would be involved in this fighting. Last year we all witnessed how Russia defended the interests of its nationals in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Why does somebody believe that in case of a civil war in Moldova Russia will simply watch how its nationals are dying? Our task is to prevent such developments.” [12]

    Indeed, the entire Black Sea and Caucasus regions could go up in flames if Western proxies in GUAM attack any of the so-called frozen conflict nations – Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Georgia, Nagorno Karabakh by Azerbaijan and Transdniester by Moldova and Ukraine. A likely possibility is that all four would be attacked simultaneously and in unison.

    An opportunity for that happening would be a concentrated attack on Iran, which borders Azerbaijan and Armenia. The latter, being the protector of Nagorno Karabakh, would immediately become a belligerent if Azerbaijan began military hostilities against Karabakh.

    On September 15 news stories revealed that the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, DC, founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and George Mitchell, had released a report which in part stated, “If biting sanctions do not persuade the Islamic Republic to demonstrate sincerity in negotiations and give up its enrichment activities, the White House will have to begin serious consideration of the option of a U.S.-led military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.” [13]

    The report was authored by Charles Robb, a former Democratic senator from
    Virginia, Daniel Coats, former Republican senator from Indiana, and retired General Charles Wald, a former deputy commander of the U.S. European Command.

    Iran is to be given 60 days to in essence abandon its civilian nuclear power program and if it doesn’t capitulate the Obama administration should “prepare overtly for any military option” which would include “deploying an additional aircraft carrier battle group to the waters off Iran and conducting joint exercises with U.S. allies.” [14]

    The main Iranian nuclear reactor is being constructed at Bushehr and would be a main target of any U.S. and Israeli bombing and missile attacks. As of 2006 there were 3,700 Russian experts and technicians – and their families – living in the environs of the facility.

    It has been assumed for the past eight years that a military attack on Iran would be launched by the United States from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf and by long-range Israeli bombers flying over Iraq and Turkey.

    During that period the U.S. and its NATO allies have also acquired access to airbases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan (in Baluchistan, bordering Iran), Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in addition to those they already have in Turkey.

    Washington and Brussels have also expanded their military presence into Bulgaria, Georgia and Romania on the Black Sea and into Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea bordering northeastern Iran.

    Plans for massive military aggression against Iran, then, might include air and missile strikes from locations much nearer the nation than previously suspected.

    The American Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced plans last week to supply Turkey, the only NATO member state bordering Iran, with almost $8 billion dollars worth of theater interceptor missiles, of the upgraded and longer-range PAC-3 (Patriot Advance Capability-3) model. The project includes delivering almost 300 Patriots for deployment at twelve command posts inside Turkey.

    In June the Turkish government confirmed that NATO AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) planes would be deployed in its Konya province.

    The last time AWACS and Patriot missiles were sent to Turkey was in late 2002 and early 2003 in preparation for the invasion of Iraq.

    On September 15 the newspaper of the U.S. armed forces, Stars and Stripes, ran an article titled “U.S., Israeli forces to test missile defense while Iran simmers,” which included these details on the biannual Juniper Cobra war games:

    “Some 1,000 U.S. European Command troops will soon deploy to Israel for a large-scale missile defense exercise with Israeli forces.

    “This year’s Juniper Cobra comes at a time of continued concern about Iran’s nuclear program, which will be the subject of talks in October.

    “The U.S. troops, from all four branches of service, will work alongside an equal number of Israel Defense Force personnel, taking part in computer-simulated war games….Juniper Cobra will test a variety of air and missile defense technology during next month’s exercise, including the U.S.-controlled X-Band.” [15]

    The same feature documented that this month’s exercise is the culmination of months of buildup.

    “In April, about 100 Europe-based personnel took part in a missile defense exercise that for the first time incorporated a U.S.-owned radar system, which was deployed to the country in October 2008. The U.S. X-Band radar is intended to give Israel early warning in the event of a missile launch from Iran.

    “For nearly a year, a mix of troops and U.S. Defense Department contractors have been managing the day-to-day operation of the X-Band, which is situated at Nevatim air base in the Negev Desert.” [16]

    The same publication revealed two days earlier that the Pentagon conducted a large-scale counterinsurgency exercise with the 173rd Airborne Brigade and the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade last week in Germany, “the largest such exercise ever held by the U.S. military outside of the United States….” [17] The two units are scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, but could be diverted to Iran, which has borders with both nations, should need arise.

    What the role of Black Sea NATO states and clients could be in a multinational, multi-vectored assault on Iran was indicated in the aftermath of last year’s Georgian-Russian war.

    At a news conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels a year ago, Russian ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin “said that Russian intelligence had obtained information indicating that the Georgian military infrastructure could be used for logistical support of U.S. troops if they launched an attack on Iran.” [18]

    Rogozin was further quoted as saying, “What NATO is doing now in Georgia is restoring its ability to monitor its airspace, in other words restoring the whole locator system and an anti-missile defence system which were destroyed by Russian artillery.

    “[The restoration of surveillance systems and airbases in Georgia is being] done for logistic support of some air operations either of the Alliance as a whole or of the United States in particular in this region. The swift reconstruction of the airfields and all the systems proves that some air operation is being planned against another country which is located not far from Georgia….” [19]

    Early last October Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of the Russian Security
    Council “described the U.S. and NATO policy of increasing their military presence in Eastern Europe as seeking strategic military superiority over Russia.

    “The official added that the United States would need allies in the region if the country decided to attack Iran.” [20]

    Patrushev stated, “If it decides to carry out missile and bomb attacks
    against Iran, the US will need loyal allies. And if Georgia is involved in this war, this will pose additional threats to Russia’s national security.” [21]

    Later last October an Azerbaijani website reported that 100 Iranian Air Force jets were exercising near the nation’s border and that “military sources from the United States reported that territories in Azerbaijan and in Georgia may be used for attacking Iran….” [22]

    Writing in The Hindu the same month Indian journalist Atul Aneja wrote of the effects of the Georgian-Russian war of the preceding August and offered this information:

    “Russia’s military assertion in Georgia and a show of strength in parts of West Asia [Middle East], combined with domestic political and economic preoccupations in Washington, appear to have forestalled the chances of an immediate strike against Iran.

    “Following Russia’s movement into South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev acknowledged that Moscow was aware that serious plans to attack Iran had been laid out. ‘We know that certain players are planning an attack against Iran. But we oppose any unilateral step and [a] military solution to the nuclear crisis.’

    “Russia seized control of two airfields in Georgia from where air strikes against Iran were being planned. The Russian forces also apparently recovered weapons and Israeli spy drones that would have been useful for the surveillance of possible Iranian targets.” [23]

    The same newspaper, in quoting Dmitry Rogozin asserting that Russian military intelligence had captured documents proving Washington had launched “active military preparations on Georgia’s territory” for air strikes against Iran, added information on Israeli involvement:

    “Israel had supplied Georgia with sophisticated Hermes 450 UAV spy drones, multiple rocket launchers and other military equipment that Georgia, as well as modernised Georgia’s Soviet-made tanks that were used in the attack against South Ossetia. Israeli instructors had also helped train Georgia troops.” [24]

    Rather than viewing the wars of the past decade – against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq – and the concomitant expansion of U.S. and NATO military presence inside all three countries and in several others on their peripheries as an unrelated series of events, the trend must be seen for what it is: A consistent and calculated strategy of employing each successive war zone as a launching pad for new aggression.

    The Pentagon has major military bases in Kosovo, in Afghanistan and in Iraq that it never intends to abandon. The U.S. and its NATO allies have bases in Bulgaria, Romania, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, Bahrain (where the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is headquartered) and other nations in the vicinity of the last ten years’ wars which can be used for the next ten – or twenty or thirty – years’ conflicts.

    1) New York Times, September 9, 2009
    2) Ibid
    3) Russian Information Agency Novosti, September 15, 2009
    4) Ibid
    5) Wikipedia
    6) Agence France-Presse, September 8, 2009
    7) Trend News Agency, September 9, 2009
    8) Georgia Ministry of Defence, September 14, 2009
    9) Turkish Daily News, January 30, 2007
    10) U.S. Department of State
    11) The Financiarul, September 9, 2009
    12) Infotag, September 11, 2009
    13) Bloomberg News, September 15, 2009
    14) Ibid
    15) Stars and Stripes, September 15, 2009
    16) Ibid
    17) Stars and Stripes, September 13, 2009
    18) Russian Information Agency Novosti, September 17, 2008
    19) Russia Today, September 17, 2008
    20) Russian Information Agency Novosti, October 1, 2008
    21) Fars News Agency, October 2, 2008
    22) Today.AZ, October 20, 2008
    23) The Hindu, October 13, 2008
    24) The Hindu, September 19, 2008

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/black-sea-crisis-deepens-as-us-nato-threat-to-iran-grows/15239

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report                                                                         

     

                                                                                                    Over 300,150 readers

    My Mission: God has uniquely designed me to seek, write, and speak the truth as I see it. Preservation of one’s wealth while providing needful income is my primary goal in these unsettled times. I have been given the ability to evaluate, study, and interpret world and national events and their influence on the future of the financial markets. This gift allows me to meet the needs of individual and institution clients.  I evaluate situations first on a fundamental basis then try to confirm on a technical basis. In the past it has been fairly successful.

                                 SPECIAL BULLITEN:

     

                                 Our President is about to be Tested – Big Time

     

                The Middle East is about to blow sky high. We have now involved the UN Security counsel plus Germany (called P-5+1) to make Iran negotiate their nuclear weapons program. The due date is September 24, 2009.  To make matters worse the President promised Israel that if they did not take military action with Iran, he would deliver crippling sanctions with Iran.

    Big deal. What we withhold, China and Russia will deliver. This is now guts ball diplomacy that will reverberate across the whole world.

                Here is a scary and realistic scenario that could happen while everyone is concerned with what is going on in the kiddy pool of health care reform and economic recovery.

                ISRAEL will never, never allow itself to be at mortal risk. If and when their intelligence concludes the Iranians are close to getting a bomb, diplomacy will end. Russian expansionism has always been in the setting of somebody else’s war. Putin will ignite the match if he ever gets the chance. Imagine. They get Georgia without a contest, and open the door to secure Ukraine, and make trillions of Rubles selling “high test” to Europe after the Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz. It would stir up a real blizzard and they could retake the Baltic region while NATO is off figuring out how to get the gulf oil turned back on.           

     Buy GLD (NYSE-$99+) or CEF (NYSE-$13+) and top off your home fuel tanks.

     Have a strong cash position also.

     

    Richard C De Graff

    256 Ashford Road

    RER      Eastford Ct 06242     

    860-522-7171 Main Office  

    800-821-6665 Watts

    860-315-7413 Home/Office

    [email protected]

     

    This report has been prepared from original sources and data which we believe reliable but we make no representation to its accuracy or completeness. Coburn & Meredith Inc. its subsidiaries and or officers may from time to time acquire, hold, sell a position discussed in this publications, and we may act as principal for our own account or as agent for both the buyer and seller.

  • Bosnian Muslims Protest Against UN Tribunal Ruling

    Bosnian Muslims Protest Against UN Tribunal Ruling

    96B75C2B 57B4 448C 84E9 F5BB93B37773 w393 s

    Former Bosnian Serb President Biljana Plavsic in 2003

    September 16, 2009

    SARAJEVO (Reuters) — About 200 Bosnian Muslim relatives of victims of the 1992-95 war protested have against the UN war crimes tribunal’s decision to grant early release to former President Biljana Plavsic.

    The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) decided to release Plavsic, a former Bosnian Serb President, after she served two-thirds of an 11-year sentence for persecuting Muslims during the war.

    “They don’t think about the blood of so many of our children, whom we are still digging out of mass graves,” said Kada Hotic, a mother still searching for a son who went missing in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Muslims.

    “Nobody feels sorry for them, but they feel sorry for Plavsic, who spent her prison days very comfortably, writing books, and memoirs,” Hotic said.

    Plavsic, a close associate of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, pleaded guilty at her trial to persecutions on political, racial, and religious grounds.

    The relatives and wartime detainees who came from across Bosnia also protested before the UN office in Sarajevo against the court’s decision to trim the scope of the case against Karadzic, indicted for genocide in the Bosnian war.

    Protesters carried banners and burned pictures of Karadzic and tribunal judges. They called for the resignation of tribunal judge O-Gon Kwon, who last week asked prosecutors to cut Karadzic’s indictment to avoid an over-lengthy trial.

    Zumreta Sehomerovic of an association of Srebrenica mothers said: “The Hague tribunal is politically corrupted, punishing the victims and awarding the criminals.”

    But while Bosnian Muslims, the biggest victims of the Bosnian war in which more than 100,000 people were killed, were outraged at Plavsic’s release, Bosnian Serbs celebrated.

    Bosnian Serb Prime Minister Milorad Dodik traveled to Sweden, where Plavsic is being detained, to visit the woman who installed him as a prime minister after Karadzic left politics in the late 1990s.

    Dodik caused public outcry last weekend when he denied hundreds of civilians were killed and wounded in the Bosnian Serb wartime shelling of the northern town of Tuzla and the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo in 1995.